[LRflex] What's "Normal"?
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 11:17:53 -0700
Charlie Falke asked:
> Still separate question somewhat off thread, how many people
>think of 35mm as "normal" and are waiting for a 17.5mm F2?\
Hi Charlie!
An interesting question...
Since the mid '60's, an 85 or 90mm lens has been a "normal" lens, for me.
For many years, my entire kit consisted of an 85/1.8 Nikkor and 200/4
Nikkor on a Nikon 'F'.
When I moved to Leica (in the 1980's) it became the 90/2 and 180/4.
My first w/a lens (a Tamron 24/2.5 in R mount) was bought in 1996,
though I did have a brief fling with the Minolta made 35~70/3.5
Vario,, in the early 1990s. (A rather nice lens, actually!) The
Tamron was later replaced by the 21SA/4. I also now own a 50mm
Summi, but neither one gets much use.
So... no. I'm not waiting for a 17.5mm or any other w/a lens! ;-)
Anyone wish to contribute a different viewpoint?
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:
