On 1/7/2016 1:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Bill wrote:
On 1/3/2016 9:31 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
I'll report so you don't have to actually visit.
FUJI has a new 90mm lens. It's very sharp. Mike Johnston doesn't see
any point to it. The rest is just dressing to justify his feelings.
That is all.
I played with the 90mm somewhat before it was actually released to the
public. It's an excellent lens, and if you like the FOV it's a very good
lens.
I don't, I've always found the 135mm (equivalent in this case) to be too
short to be a telephoto and too long to be much good for anything else.
I don't see how people can say "this FOV is not much use". There are so
many things that go into choosing the focal length: distance from
subject, size of subject, how much of the background you want to include
or exclude, how far away you can get, how close you can get, and even
desired depth of field.
I could see saying that you only use certain focal lengths for a
particular type of photo in a particular setting. If you only shoot
portraits in one studio, then I could see having one lens for face
shots, one for standing portraits, one for group portraits.
I could see someone saying that they never need a fisheye, or a
telephoto over 1,300mm, but to pick one focal length or field of view
that is well in the range of the widest and longest in your toolkit and
say "this FOV isn't much use", rather than "I already have this FOV and
that one isn't enough different to be worth the money" doesn't make much
sense to me.
Some things just aren't meant to make sense.
--
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.
