Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hmm. Not so hypothetical. Every so often I think about a) vs. c) myself. 21/4 Skopar vs. a 21/3.5 Zuiko for my OM-2. Maybe one of these days. . . a) Small, light, fits on the Leica you're already carrying around anyway. Great for getting all the folks in that shot in the crowded pub or dining room. But there is the parallax issue--by the time you get close enough to meaningfully contrast foreground with middle and background, parallax matters. I've spent some time dipping up and down with my 25mm Skopar. c) Bigger, clunkier, probably can't shoot at as slow a shutter speed. Maybe slightly less optical quality. But what you see is what you get. When you stick the camera in someone's face, you *know* exactly where the bulbous nose will be. And you won't cut off the chin of the guy behind your subject because the lens was lower than your eye. b) would be a gadget freak's choice, or the choice of someone who wanted lots of detail at infinity on his panoramas. Valid choices, but not on my List of Stuff I Want. If I wanted to use the ultra-wide for its pictorial effect and playing with perspective, I'd take the SLR hands down, despite the greater difficulty in focusing. Use Ted's method of focusing starting from the close end of the lens' range. If I was just interested in getting pictures of people in tight places, I'd stick with the Leica. - --Peter Dante asked: >Not hypothetical; assuming that they cost the same, would you buy > >(a) A 21mm lens for use on a Leica-style rangefinder; >(b) A user Brooks Veriwide 100 (6x9, 47mm f/8 Super-Angulon); or >(c) A 21/2.8 SLR lens > >Assume that I have enlargers to cover all of them, and bodies to fit >each of the accessory lenses. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html