[LRflex] Re: One more rumour...
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:33:22 -0700
At 19/10/2007, you wrote:
David,
I meant for a full frame.
I still think of 35mm as normal on full frame. I use the
50 less often than the 90. A 35mm 0.9 would be much less heavy than
a 50 as well.
Now here, Charlie, we have a difference of how we perceive the world.
You view a 35mm lens as "normal" on a 24x36mm frame. Factories tend
to view a 50mm lens as "normal", while, personally, I view a 90mm as
"normal" on a 24x36mm frame. In fact, for the first 20 years that I
did photography, I owned the 85/1.8 and 200/4 Nikkors and nothing
else. When I switched to Leica, it became a 50/2 & 135/2.8 which were
quickly replaced by a 90/2 and 180/4. W/a lenses only came much later.
It truly does depend on how you "see" the world around you. No
person's "vision" is better than another, but they certainly do differ!
However, you are right ... an f0.9 in 35mm would be much lighter -
and likely less expensive to produce and sell. It would work as a
"factory normal" for the M8 with it's APS sensor, and as a w/a for
those with full frame film and (coming?) digital cameras. An
interesting thought!
Cheers!
---
David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
