Discussions: 45,239 | Messages: 609,941 | Members: 29,967 | Online: 312 | Chatroom: 1
User Name:  Password:
 

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam


 
APUG search    RSS MOBILE
Customize Sidebar
SL66
Author: jmcd
38 view(s)
Gum-Silver Process
Author: Dwane
1145 view(s)
aj 12 + various things
Author: jnanian
663 view(s)
Kodak D-19
Author: Tom Hoskinson
972 view(s)
Go Back   APUG > APUG English Forums > Equipment > Rangefinder Forum > M-mount, wide frame lines, and TTL metering?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2008, 03:01 AM   #21 (permalink)
 
AutumnJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fairfield County, Connecticut
Posts: 464
Default

How useful is 21mm? I'm not quite sure if I should just go with a 35mm f/1.2 or a 35mm f/1.4 and a 21mm f/4.
AutumnJazz is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 03:24 AM   #22 (permalink)
 
2F/2F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnJazz View Post
How useful is 21mm? I'm not quite sure if I should just go with a 35mm f/1.2 or a 35mm f/1.4 and a 21mm f/4.
Re: the earlier question, I think 28mm is noticeably wider than a 35mm. I like 28s or sometimes 24s only when I have to get closer to people than I would normally like. I prefer the distance from the subject I get with a 35, personally.

I would suggest renting an ultra wide zoom for your Nikon for a week and shooting it set at various focal lengths. I think they have a 17-35 f/2.8 if my memory serves me correctly.

How useful any of these lenses will be really is up to you. Another reason to try out a wide zoom rental.

Personally, I love 35mm and 28mm for many things, but for my average shooting, I find even 35mm to be frustratingly wide for many subjects if I have it as my only lens at the time. Wides really make you move closer than normal if you are after a "normal" subject size/magnification/whatever you want to call it. One of my favorite setups is one camera with a 35 and another with an 85, or one with a 50 and another with a 135. If I am using a super wide, I really prefer to have three cameras on me. One super wide (pref. a zoom), one normal, and one mildly long tele, like a 100 or 135. That is my normal wedding setup for the candid stuff...

...but it really does you no good to know all that about ME.
__________________
2F/2F

Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-25-2008 at 03:33 AM.
2F/2F is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 12:13 PM   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montgomery, Il
Posts: 1,612
Default

1)angle of view-diagonal
21mm=92
28mm=75
35mm=63
2)I'm not a big fan of 35mm lenses, to me they are too close to a 50 and so, I
prefer a 28. 21mm is a pretty wide lens if it's the only one you've got and it's
possible to get pretty tired of the distortion all the time.
3)Don't ask why 'cus I don't know, but although I don't care for the 35mm fl. I
just really like the 40mm!
__________________
A motorcyclist is the only one who understands why a dog rides with it's head out the window.
John Koehrer is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 12:26 PM   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
1)
2)I'm not a big fan of 35mm lenses, to me they are too close to a 50 and so, I
prefer a 28. 21mm is a pretty wide lens if it's the only one you've got and it's
possible to get pretty tired of the distortion all the time.
What distortion, John?

My 21mm lenses (Biogon, Super Angulon and Color Skopar) don't distort.
__________________
Tom Hoskinson
______________________________

Everything is analog - even digital :D
Tom Hoskinson is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 12:49 PM   #25 (permalink)
 
Anupam Basu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutumnJazz View Post
How useful is 21mm? I'm not quite sure if I should just go with a 35mm f/1.2 or a 35mm f/1.4 and a 21mm f/4.
Here are some 21mm street shots to give you an idea.
__________________
My Website and Gallery
Anupam Basu is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)

Old 09-25-2008, 01:16 PM   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anupam Basu View Post
You have some really good stuff there.
Uhner is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 05:16 PM   #27 (permalink)
 
AutumnJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fairfield County, Connecticut
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhner View Post
You have some really good stuff there.
I second that. Wow.

As of right now, I think I'll go with a 35mm f/1.4 and that 21mm. 1.2 isn't that much faster than 1.4, right?

I use a 35mm on my Nikon right now, and most of the time I'm alright. There are a couple of times where I just wish I had a wider lens, though. I've never really felt the need for a longer lens, although I don't do much portraiture.
AutumnJazz is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 07:23 PM   #28 (permalink)
 
Anupam Basu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 492
Default

Thanks for the kind words.

I'd give up the half stop advantage for the more compact size of the 35/1.4. You might also check out the 40/1.4 nokton. There's a review on my website. The 40 is great to use with 35mm framelines on most RFs. I'm not sure what body you decided on but the 35 can be a tad tricky to focus on the R4 wide open, although it should just be enough. I switched from a 21/40 combination to a 15/28/50 combo recently and I love it. The 28/1.9 Ultron just blows me away.
__________________
My Website and Gallery
Anupam Basu is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 08:02 PM   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anupam Basu View Post
Thanks for the kind words.

I'd give up the half stop advantage for the more compact size of the 35/1.4. You might also check out the 40/1.4 nokton. There's a review on my website. The 40 is great to use with 35mm framelines on most RFs. I'm not sure what body you decided on but the 35 can be a tad tricky to focus on the R4 wide open, although it should just be enough. I switched from a 21/40 combination to a 15/28/50 combo recently and I love it. The 28/1.9 Ultron just blows me away.
I have been using My Nokton 35mm F1.2 Aspherical on my Zeiss
Ikon 35mm Rfdr (I'm currently using it as my Normal lens). It is a large lens - - it snaps right into focus in my Ikon's rangefinder and its on-film performance is excellent.

I'm using a 50/35/21/15 combo and love it! I've also been looking with lust at the new 28/2.0 Ultron.
__________________
Tom Hoskinson
______________________________

Everything is analog - even digital :D
Tom Hoskinson is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-25-2008, 08:04 PM   #30 (permalink)
 
AutumnJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fairfield County, Connecticut
Posts: 464
Default

Why is a fast lens hard to focus? (I haven't really used a RF before, but I understand how they work. Split image, right?)
AutumnJazz is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum

APUG.ORG Block Ads. (APUG Subscribers have the option of closing this block)
 


  Contact Us - Advertise on APUG - Archive - Top - Site Terms - Forum Rules  
    

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.
  
All Content Copyright © 2002-2008 Photocentric Ltd.   Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO APUG.ORG is a division of Photocentric Ltd.
This site is best viewed with a resolution of 1280x1024 (or higher), we recommend using