Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,715   Posts: 1,483,041   Online: 781
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,808
    Images
    29
    Regarding the different usage of the 28mm and the 24mm lenses and the slight distortion of the 24mm lens over the 28mm lens, this is my point of view.

    When I'm travelling on a trip I usually take 3 lenses and a body, there are two combinations I take.

    28 / 50 / 105 for general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

    24 / 50 / 105 for a trip to Europe where I will often be shooting buildings or cityscapes, as well as general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

    I find the 24 is invaluable when shooting in the old parts of cities. You get so much more in the 24mm frame with your back to a wall on the other side of the street, compared to a 28m lens.

    Distortion with the 24mm frame is there, but is often only noticeable if you take a group shot of people and crowd the frame. The people on the edges will have slightly elongated bodies.

    Andy K has samples shot with a 28mm lens. Those types of scenes usually work better with a 28mm lens. A 24mm lens for those scenes would include so much more and the small details would really be a fair bit smaller.

    Mick.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    ...I find the 24 is invaluable when shooting in the old parts of cities. You get so much more in the 24mm frame with your back to a wall on the other side of the street, compared to a 28m lens...

    ...Andy K has samples shot with a 28mm lens. Those types of scenes usually work better with a 28mm lens. A 24mm lens for those scenes would include so much more and the small details would really be a fair bit smaller.

    Mick.
    You've got some interesting points there. A 24mm will obviously give you some more oportunities. On the other hand, I'm kind of picky when it comes to distortion. Combined with the fact that you may lose some interesting details I guess that the 28mm is the golden mean for me. It's a good start anyway.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    Mick gives a good explanation of the distortion (w/both lenses). If you keep the camera level, linear distortion is not a problem and you can crop the 24mm image (stretched ends) to appear like the 28mm.

    In 35mm format I never go wider than 28mm (I hate distortion in most images), but using a 22-25mm equivalent LF wide-angle, such as the 47mm, is a different story - less disturbing distortion.
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  4. #14
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,360
    Images
    305
    I have the Zuiko 28 f3.5 lens in my OM kit and I am very happy with it. I could not believe how sharp it was.
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  5. #15
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Anon Ymous View Post
    Yes, 24mm seem to be very nice, but I did a bit of research on the internet and I got the impression that it is exactly at the point where distortion gets a bit evident. Am I wrong? The 24mm f2.8 is also reasonably priced and well within my budget (80 euros for the 28mm, 100 for the 24mm from ffordes), but you get about 8 degrees more field of view and a bit more distortion. Any comments?
    The 24 doesn't distort, per se, but the wider field of view does make images look different.

    I can't tell you for certain whether you'll prefer a 24 or a 28. I can only tell you that I prefer a 24, but I didn't exactly feel disadvantaged when my widest lens was a 28. I loved that focal length. I still do. I just love 24 more now.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    [QUOTE=PhotoJim;585263]The 24 doesn't distort, per se, but the wider field of view does make images look different.
    QUOTE]

    Not true,

    If the film plane had the same curvature as the lenses projected image the wide lenses wouldn't distort the image. Since the film is flat, the elongated ends of the image are the result of the curved image produced by the lens being projected onto a flat (film) plane - more pronounced the wider you go.

    If that's not distortion in some form what would you call it? All lenses distort!
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  7. #17
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,217
    I guess it depends on how you define distortion. Compared to a fisheye lens, a rectilinear wide angle lens has no distortion at all.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  8. #18
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    249
    You won't go wrong with the original Zuiko 28mm f3.5. The 2.8 version came along later and IMHO offers no improvement in image quality, some say less. Be aware though that these lenses are now 25/30 years old and are likely to suffer from weak diaphragm return so check before you buy. CLA is not a problem but it will add £30/40 to the cost.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  9. #19
    SAlred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    6
    I'll chime in on the 28mm f/3.5 as a fine little lens. I spent my "Grand Tour" summer (1978) roaming around Europe with an OM-1, the 28 f/3.5 and the 100 f/2.8 shooting Kodachrome 64 (!). I have some wonderful shots from inside the Pantheon and St. Peters in Rome taken with the 28.

    I splurged on a 28 f/2.0 Zuiko when I returned to the States, but it that was pure GAS in action. The 3.5 is a gem.

    Steve A.
    Steve Alred

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    The 28mm f/2.0 looks like a keeper, I would go for that one. Plenty wide for most practical shots (75 deg angle-of-view). The 24 is more extreme (something like, 82 deg angle-of-view), near-far subjects appear unrealistic, IMO, but sometimes that's what makes the shot work. You can alway go more-wide later, what's wider than 24mm?
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin