Dear all;
I was at a shoot recently, and the 55mm was not wide enough.
I have a bit of experience with 20mm on micro 4/3rd, and 12-24 on aps C, the filed of view will be different, but the way a lens distorts will still be the same ( I think ). So, with my 20mm in u4/3rds, its really easy to get fun house type images, too big noses, too small foreheads, ultra long, or ultra stubby limbs. This is much harder with the long end of the 12-24 on APS C.
So my question becomes, is the 35mm on MF prone to distorting people images like the 20mm, or does it behave more like the 24mm on APS -C. My guess is with respect to image distortion, it behaves like the 35mm on full frame. That is, not too much distortion.
Practically, is the 35 or 45 "better" for full length body shots when there just is not enough room for the 55 to get every thing framed?
Any practical rather than theoretical advice would help.
Dave
I was at a shoot recently, and the 55mm was not wide enough.
I have a bit of experience with 20mm on micro 4/3rd, and 12-24 on aps C, the filed of view will be different, but the way a lens distorts will still be the same ( I think ). So, with my 20mm in u4/3rds, its really easy to get fun house type images, too big noses, too small foreheads, ultra long, or ultra stubby limbs. This is much harder with the long end of the 12-24 on APS C.
So my question becomes, is the 35mm on MF prone to distorting people images like the 20mm, or does it behave more like the 24mm on APS -C. My guess is with respect to image distortion, it behaves like the 35mm on full frame. That is, not too much distortion.
Practically, is the 35 or 45 "better" for full length body shots when there just is not enough room for the 55 to get every thing framed?
Any practical rather than theoretical advice would help.
Dave