Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 14, 2005, at 6:48 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
24mm is "superwide"? What is this, like 1988? <g>
Nice lens, but yeah, it's fun to watch a feeding frenzy (after the
fact, in my case).
Sure, a 24mm is superwide... on a 67.
In my, perhaps outdated, view:
'APS-C' DSLR - 16x24 dimensions:
Ultrawide: 16mm and shorter
Superwide: 18, 20mm
Wide: 24, 28mm
Normal: 31, 35, 40mm
Portrait Tele: 50, 75mm
Tele: 90, 100, 135mm
Long Tele: 180mm and greater
35mm format - 24x36mm dimensions:
Ultrawide: 21mm and shorter
Superwide: 24, 28mm
Wide: 35, 40mm
Normal: 45, 50, 55, 60mm
Portrait Tele: 75, 85, 90, 100mm
Tele: 135, 180, 200mm
Long Tele: 250mm and greater
Medium Format - 6x6 dimensions:
Ultrawide: 38mm
Wide: 60mm
Normal: 80mm
Portrait Tele: 150mm
Tele: 250mm
So a Pentax M24/2.8 definitely lives in the superwide territory with
respect to 35mm film SLRs. It's merely a wide for a D/DS.
Godfrey
Considering that the actual normal on 35mm is 43mm, you can't really
call the 40mm a wide lens, it's a normal, just like I'd call a 28mm on
35mm just a plain wide-angle (heck, I don't really consider 35mm a
wide-angle, it's more of a wide normal). Same goes for 28mm on APS-C
(42mm equivelent for 35mm, which is almost exactly a normal). The
50mm=normal idea for 35mm is a legacy of Leica, not optics.
-Adam
