2011/2/14 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org:
Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011
drd1135 at gmail.com wrote:
SR can be useful, but only when the subject itself doesn't move.
When the subject moves, - you want to have exposure time to freeze
the motion, and that's when fast lenses are helpful
(or a
On 2011-02-15 01:25 , Thibouille wrote:
The
only thing you a fast lens delivers and can't be compensated for
correctly is DOF. The rest can be.
as one who has lately become very fond of an A 50/1.7, one more thing
that can't be compensated for is the nice bright viewfinder image a
large
Some people (me) when they are closing in on their seventh decade, can no
longer hold things steady, or at all sometimes. Ferinstance, try holding a coin
steady, any size, by it's edge, between thumb and forefinger. Can with my left,
can't with my right. The harder I squeeze, the harder it
Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011
drd1135 at gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I always try to shoot my 1.4 at 5.6. Not really low light but
wonderfully sharp. For very low light I tend to reply on SR, physical
support, and the hope of one day getting a K5.
I am always surprised when people make a
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011
drd1135 at gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I always try to shoot my 1.4 at 5.6. Not really low light but
wonderfully sharp. For very low light I tend to reply on SR, physical
support, and the hope of one day getting a
I generally take still-lifes, and SR does help for those.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote:
Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011
drd1135 at gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I always try to shoot my 1.4 at 5.6. Not really low light but
wonderfully sharp. For very low light
Steven,
I guessed that.
:-)
Igor
PS. What is opposite to still-lifes? Moving-deaths?
Mon Feb 14 13:20:08 CST 2011
Steven Desjardins wrote:
I generally take still-lifes, and SR does help for those.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:41:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Roshchin
Steven,
I guessed that.
:-)
Igor
PS. What is opposite to still-lifes? Moving-deaths?
Of those, - I prefer still-lifes.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Larry, other than the CA apparent on the 1.4, I got the impression that the
focus is slightly near - the right side of the center rose looks sharper than
the other. Or you used that border of the rose to focus. It IS softer, there
are problems if we look to the 2.8 shot at the same time. Still
: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:39:24
To: pdml@pdml.net
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: pfa 50/1.4 sharpness
Larry, other than the CA apparent on the 1.4, I got the impression that the
focus is slightly near - the right side of the center rose looks sharper than
the other. Or you
Bob, I did my tests with both m50 flavors I have around, matching the apertures
from f11 until both were wide open. I targeted a tiled wall, with coins taped
at center and near corners. Running, between rains. Will repeat one of these
days with care so I can post results. Mirror used to get
It's one thing to test a lens for suitable sharpness and focus accuracy. it's
quite another thing to compare two lenses.
To make an accurate comparison, you would have to test several samples of new
lenses on a bullet-proof rig. To test two used lenses, one of which once had to
be disassembled
Larry, you and Paul got me thinking about a test with Yvon's AF target - just
to make sure there is no micro shift made evident by the 1.4 aperture. I
understand the 1.4 lenses got slightly worse results wide open than the 1.7,
and my rather crude tests point in the same direction. If you get
It may be just me, but I'd compare the f/1.7 lens with the f/1.4 *AT* f/1.7.
Reason? If they're both about the same at f/1.7, then the f/1.4 lens is just
as good as the f/1.7 for all purposes you would have used the f/1.7. Bonus:
a little more aperture available to control DOF with the 1.4.
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Luiz Felipe wrote:
Larry, you and Paul got me thinking about a test with Yvon's AF target - just
to make sure there is no micro shift made evident by the 1.4 aperture. I
understand the 1.4 lenses got slightly worse results wide open than the 1.7,
and my rather
I've always had mixed feelings about my pfa 50/1.4. There have been times when
I really needed the extra 2/3 stop of speed that it gave me over my f/1.8
glass. When you're shooting slower than 1/15 second and your subjects are
moving, that's a critical difference in speed. On the other hand, I
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I've always had mixed feelings about my pfa 50/1.4. There have been times
when I really needed the extra 2/3 stop of speed that it gave me over my
f/1.8 glass. When you're shooting slower than 1/15 second and your subjects
are moving,
On Feb 10, 2011, at 4:43 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Did you manual focus? If you're shooting wide open, and your autofocus is off
by even a relatively small amount, your results will be soft. The performance
of this lens on my K20 is what first convinced me that fine focus adjustment
is a
18 matches
Mail list logo
