>> |
Anonymous
>>258903Don't know about you, but as long as I've got a large enough finder to focus, I'm fine. As long as that's met, which any above-entry-level DSLR I've shot with has, any size is fine.
okay, that doesn't change the fact you can't get a considerably larger and brighter viewfinder
>> Hopefully up your ass, where they belong. Many great photographers shot when 28s were exotic, the widest lens in existence. Munkacsi, Capa, Cartier-Bresson, all their contemporaries. You don't need ultrawides to make good pictures, in fact most people- and I include myself in this- aren't good enough at composition where they should work wider than, say, ~24mm at the very widest. We're not Jim Nachtwey, we can't handle a 16-35 on full frame.
umm, maybe you've been hanging around too long in the Pentax world
some of us have actual investments in 35mm film lenses, my 24-70 is no longer a 24-70 on a crop camera
therefore, where are my true wides?
i like how you went on a long tirade about some BS though, misdirection always works on simple minds
>> Who cares? Get a 28 (actually a better normal IMO, at least for me) or a 35. Your fifty is now a very nice short tele, I've found 75mm equivalent perfect for shooting concerts. You might as well be whining, "why can't I use my 80mm as an 80mm," or "why can't I use my 210 as a 210." They're different formats.
stop thinking like a digitalfag, come on, man
you've been using your trusty 50mm for years with film, and now you have to find a 35mm to fill in the gap?
|