On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
But, then, in m4/3, the same 24mm produces an AOV equivalent to a 48mm on film. Well, if you like this field of view, great, but, in any case, if you used to use the lens for landscapes, now you HAVE TO add a wider lens to the system and use the 24mm for other purposes. And suddenly, for some people, the 24mm won't have the same appeal that it used to, so, again for some people, the idea of buying a new system in order to be able to use the lense probably wasn't as good as it seemed.
Using a 20mm focal length on FourThirds format produces the same result as using a 35mm lens on a Leica M4 and printing an 11x14 inch print with the full vertical field of view, cropping on the long axis. Remember that the FourThirds format proportion is different from 35mm's 2:3 proportion, which is not reflected in the "crop factor", based on diagonal measure. Vertical field of view equivalence is 1.83x, horizontal is 2.1x.
So yes, you need a different focal length lens if you want a wider field of view. But that's SOP for anyone moving between formats. Big deal.
Personally: I use adapted older lenses primarily to obtain fast, compact, well corrected portrait and tele field of view. For wide field of view, I use FourThirds lenses as they are better designed for the format.
EG: The aforementioned M50/1.4 lens, fitted on the Olympus 1.4x teleconverter, produces a superb 70mm f/2 lens that is small, light, with a field of view equivalent to something in the neighborhood of a 135mm lens on 35mm film. A Color Heliar 75/2.5 will be about the same and even smaller, lighter. This FoV was always one of my best favorites when I want tele. A 135mm f/2 lens for a 35mm SLR camera is a rarity, and large/heavy/expensive.
Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
