Rethinking focal length conventions

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
tko Forum Pro • Posts: 13,433
6%
11

You're thinking you need a 40 mm instead of 35 mm? Of what importance is this? How did you get this conclusion? How would a 85/80 = 6% difference in FL rock your world? I don't get this at all. It would seem like you think your numbers are better since they are "more rounded off," and you want lens manufacturers to come up with new products where the focal lengths are "prettier."

All of this being said, after a recent conversation with some other photographer friends, we came to the idea that our ideal kit actually doesn't really exist. This kit would consist of f1.4 primes of 20mm, 40mm, 80mm and 160mm. We were suddenly questioning the odd focal lengths that prime lens convention has settled on; 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, etc...

-- hide signature --

no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
tko
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow