Just curious, why all the love for the 40? Does it look better than a 50? more "normal"?
|
|
Just curious, why all the love for the 40? Does it look better than a 50? more "normal"?
Back in the 1990′s we used Cooke S2/3 rehoused with PL mount by Van Diemen, then we moved to Cooke S4. Cooke S4 lenses went very well with film cameras for their special look, passed smoothly into the digital era with the Red One camera and became even more popular once Arri Alexa was out.
http://www.dnkarentals.com/cooke_s4/
We also have a few Cooke zooms and we will have more sets next year stay tuned
David Namir
Israel
www.dnkarentals.com
+972-50-7753000
gdv@actcom.co.il
davidnamir@gmail.com
Skype: echinopsis
The 40mm is my Favourite around lens on the s2/3 speed panchros. I have had a deposit on the 135 i/panchro for maybe 8 months so should be high up the line to get one, soon as it comes in I'll post.
i think it's something magical with the compression of the 40 mm. it's just very aesthetically pleasing, and feels very close to what the human eye sees, but ... better :)
In my personal -non scientific- opinion, yes 40 is more "normal". Bah! It's the only "normal", being the 50 just slightly tele and the 35 just slightly wide.
I am confused how anyone can be anything others than very causal in saying 'normal'...
Unless we know..
Imager size
Screen size
And assumed audience distance
You can shoot on a UP 8r and make it look normal..
For "normal" you mean same perspective rendering like human eyes. You may know that wides distorsion get things in the rear looks like they are further and the teles the contrary, they make the rear and the front looks like in one plane. For normal you mean that the perspective reminds the same. It's a matter of perspective, not a matter of pict size.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |