Re: 24x58mm frames with EOS 24mm/f3.5....ponderings....

[petermarshall@xxxxxxxxx (Peter Marshall)]

> I have never gotten really good results with super wide angle lenses on 
> 35mm cameras, not even with the 16mm Hologon on the Contax G1. So I 
> sold that lens. Things are just too small to be blown up big.
> 
> Regular photos really come to life when they are shown at at least 8x10 
> size. Panoramics come to life when blown up to at least 10x30. 

Actually I don't agree. Photos for me work best either when very small 
(the size they tend to be in books) or very large, rather than the 
intermediate sizes you suggest.

However the original question was about 24x58mm frames which are 
essentially medium format in width although taken on 35mm film - it is 
equivalent to a masked down 6x6 - about 2.75 times the area of the 14x36mm 
or so that you get with masked down 35mm panoramics.

One of my 24x58mm frames was used in one of the major museums here at 
about 7x15 feet which was quite interesting. I thought it was a little 
over-enlarged! 10x30 (assuming you mean inches) from 24x58 can look pretty 
good from slow film, though I've more often stopped at 24x9 as I normally 
use 400ASA (and buy 24x20 paper to cut in two). They are sharp and not 
unduly grainy - hardly surprising as this is only equivalent enlargement 
to around a 13x9 print from a normal 35mm neg.

Peter Marshall

On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations & 
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/