jamesf99 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off
|
mh2000 wrote:
huh? Posts are going both ways on FL and you are slamming me for joining in? ...but I guess you've countered my oppinion and we should leave it at that.
...so you are really saying is, "we've heard what YOU approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?"
jamesf99 wrote:
mh2000 wrote:
+1000 I think 35mm on FF is the worst compromise length... not wide enough to really be wide and not long enough to be used to isolate most subjects without getting an annoying perspective... but I fall into the 50mm side of the decades long 35mm vs. 50mm debate. 
>>[re: 35mm] The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop.
Jeez, we've heard what you approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?
Personally, I like the 35mm FL, and find it more interesting than the 50mm in some cases, but again, it's all what you want and need at any particular time. One of my favorite shots (not my image) was taken with a 50mm f/1.4. I've just seen the image printed large, in B&W, and it's stunning (Canon thought so too BTW).
There's no good/bad FL, there's only the opportunity and skill to use it.
No, that's not what I'm saying. This thread was originally about overrated lenses but now we're talking about FL I guess. My point is that any FL can be perfect; it all depends on vision, situation, opportunity, knowledge, and skill.
|