[LargeFormat] Large Format Lenses

[Karl Wolz]

Agreed, however, my feelings are that convergence and the use of rear tilt,
etc. are not nearly as critical if you are not shooting subjects with
straight, vertical lines, such as buildings or soda pop cans, as in
architectural or product photography.  When shooting natural subjects, there
is much more leeway in how to "skin you cat".

I, too, will commonly max out the movements of my lenses when shooting into
canyons, Scheimplugging (betcha you didn't know that could be used as a
verb!), etc., but especially for someone just getting his feet wet in
large-format, a two or three lens selection would seem to be more advisable
than one lens with awesome coverage.

Just my opinion, others have at least equal merit.

Karl Wolz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Verna Knapp" <vernak@wvi.com>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Large Format Lenses


> That depends on what kind of landscape work you do and where. I make
> a lot of use of movements, going to the limit regularly with my
> Canham. I'm working in Oregon, and when I get up in the mountains,
> the movements are very useful. The ground can be very rough, and I
> cannot always stand where I would wish. Also, the trees here can be
> very tall (several hundred feet, sometimes), and that leads to more
> uses for movements. Also, making sure both foreground and distance
> are in focus can require using the movements. The land here is far
> from flat! I like my lenses to have plenty of coverage. I have to
> be careful to check lens coverage when in the field.
>
> Verna
>
>
> Karl Wolz wrote:
>
> > If you're primarily doing landscape work, you're not going to be making
very
> > much use of the lenses movements and don't need nearly as much coverage
as
> > that provided by the Super Symmar.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>