I'm not claiming that wide-angle shots are inferior. Some shots can only be made with a wide lens and many photographers are skilled and expressive with them. My own experience is that my photographs are better when I use the longest lens that will suffice. Sometimes that will still be a wide lens, but in future I'll resist the temptation to pursue a wide view for its own sake.
In my professional years I found that a wide lens was handy for getting into the front rank of a media event and still being able to frame the shot. In a crowded room I could grab a reasonably large group from only a metre or two away with my venerable M 24~35 (shooting film). Landscapes and industrial scenes often needed my widest lens (15mm at work, 17mm in my personal kit)to encompass the client's brief. My current taste is for a tighter view. If possible I'll back up as much as I'm able and shoot as long as I can. I simply prefer the aesthetics of the longer lens.... for now. Regards, Anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > > I use every lens in my bag, from 12mm to 400mm. I would guess my most > used focal lengths fall between 16mm and 135mm, but that's due in part > to the limits of the DA* zooms. I think there's an optimum FOV for > every subject, and that FOV can vary widely. > Paul > > On Jan 17, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Luiz Felipe wrote: > > > Guess every story has at least two sides... The first lens I bought > > came with the Km body (1976), and I made lots and lots of pics with > > the 50mm 1.4 before I bought a 28mm and a 135mm - and discovered I > > was often too wide or too narrow and had to use the 28 and crop. > > > > Using dad's cameras was a little different - I very often carried > > only the 35mm and the 90mm. So far, and assuming 35mm film as > > default format, most of my photos fall into "normal" 28~40 range, > > "close enough" 50~90, with secondary categories being "far" 135~, > > and "wide" ~24. In particular, "wide" is where my 24mm very often is > > not enough. The same goes for "away", but not often. I can (if I > > really really need) use a 2x and once or twice I borrowed long teles > > - wich seem more likely to find than under-24mm lenses around here. > > > > Now I can and do try a different angle if I'm too wide for that far > > away pic, and if not wide enough I'll try a different angle of the > > story - but as soon as I can spare the cash I'll add lenses, > > starting from those I need most. From the pics I feel like trying, > > right now I'll go wider... wich is a problem since right now I need > > a smaller format than 35mm. Looking for the 10~20 to pair with my > > future digital aps Pentax may solve these problems. > > > > You have a point about most of my photos - they're likely to keep > > coming from the 28~135mm range (35mm equivalent). But there is > > always something new to try isn't it? > > > > LF > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
