Er.. Stan pointed out the 20 35 f4's a 58mm thread Herb..
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
nothing that wide will use less than a 67mm filter.
: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Er.. Stan pointed out the 20 35 f4's a 58mm thread Herb..
Ryan
Herb wrote:
... 58mm for that wide means a slow lens and that means for
the times when you want shallow depth of field, you won't
be able to get it.
Hm, with the small sensors and shorter lenses used
in current (relatively affordable) digital systems isn't
-
From: Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Herb wrote:
... 58mm for that wide means a slow lens and that means for
the times when you want shallow depth of field, you
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Herb Chong wrote:
so does the FA J 18-35. does that mean you should consider it? 58mm for that
wide means a slow lens and that means for the times when you want shallow
depth of field, you won't be able to get it.
Out of curiosity, I played with the calculator at
I wrote:
Hm, with the small sensors and shorter lenses used
in current (relatively affordable) digital systems isn't
shallow DOF one of the sacrifices one must endure?
... and Rob Studdert straightened me out with
No no, it's an advantage (more slop allowed in focus
you didn't say whether this was for film or *istD. i have the Sigma 15-30
and frankly, it's wide compared to what people are used to, but in absolute
terms, it's not that wide. side is when you are using a panorama camera like
the Noblex ones. with the possible exception of the 19mm and longer
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Ryan Lee wrote:
1. It's Pentax- so yay for SMC and resale value etc.., and it's got a small
enough thread for the filter. Only possible negative thing I can think of-
it only goes down to f22.
DOF on a 20mm lens at f22 is already so great that I can't see any
advantage to
Well Ryan, I can't help you with a choice among the listed lenses, but I do
have a suggestion: a used SMC-A 20/2.8; there was one on KEH a few days ago
for about $465 IIRC, that puts it right into the price range.
Stan
on 12/06/03 8:39 AM, Ryan Lee at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Was
The FA 20-35 f4 is superb, unless you need a faster lens.
So far it has also been my best performer on the *ist D, where the ISO
200 minimum speed makes up a bit for the f4.
Joe
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
The FA 20-35 f4 is superb, unless you need a faster lens.
So far it has also been my best performer on the *ist D, where the ISO
200 minimum speed makes up a bit for the f4.
You might add the Tamron SP 17-35/2.8-4 to your list. Personally, I would
avoid Sigma due to capability flare problems.
Yours regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Was just browsing thru some ultrawides, and I can't really decide which one
I want. I'll just think aloud and any help's
What capability problems have you encountered?
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
You might
be minimal.
You say the newer Sigma 17-35- have you got experience with the current one
(82mm)?
Rgds,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
you didn't say
. But then again
I could be mistaken. I'm still researching..
Regards,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Ryan Lee wrote:
1. It's
: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Hi Herb,
It's for film. I haven't been fortunate to be digital enabled yet. About
filters, wideangle and vignetting, I know you probably won't be able to
stack more than 1, but the filters I'm looking at have slim versions for
wideangle, so I'm assuming
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
no, i don't have the current one. i have a 15-30. i'd say that any Sigma
lens that provides a rear filter holder will vignette at least moderately
with any filter you can put in front remotely close to 82mm. you will have
to go much larger
there will be. Pentax
needs to release a 12mm limited DA prime that can take filters in front.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Oh yep that's for sure. I assume
But remember that the Tokina is a non-a lens so you will have problems
metering if you get a ist D.
Paul
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:15:17 -0500
no, i don't
for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Hello Ryan,
I have just been looking and trying a few. You have left out a few
zooms:
Tamron SP 17-35/2.8-4 DI LD - slated for December shipment ($479)
Tokina 20-35/2.8 ATX($599)
Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 AF193 ($190 - $30 rebate)
Pentax 20-35/4 ($475)
I have
nothing that wide will use less than a 67mm filter.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice?
Hi Bruce!
I must say this has opened my eyes up
Sigma technologies are based on reverse-engineering which means what work on
the current cameras might not work on upcoming models. There have been many
complaints on this matter and in some cases, the regional distributors will
offer one free chip upgrade, and other time they will charge you
22 matches
Mail list logo
