On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you cannot see how a shot is >> framed with an f/2.8 maximum aperture vs an f/2 or f/1.8, Mark. > > Well it's true. What else can I say? > >> What lens faster than the 20/2.8 have you gone to with similar FoV? > > FA*24/2.0 - which isn't that close but it's the closest I had at the > time. Photos from one such shoot are here: > http://www.robertstech.com/dolly_s.htm > Many shots like the third one simply couldn't be framed accurately > with the f/2.8 (I zone focused for all, BTW: both AF and manual focus > were out of the question in the darkness).
Sorry, I still can't believe it. I just fitted the 35/2 on my camera and set it to f/2.8, looked at the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 using the DoF preview lever ... the brightness difference in the viewfinder is only barely discernible. I suspect that the difference in field of view is what's making your 24/2 seem easier to work with than the 20/2.8, and I would agree with that. BTW: which one is "the third" on that page? Third from the top? ... third counting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9? .. or the one marked Dolly Sods #3? I can see how they might provide some challenge in framing due to low light and the difficulty in seeing through the viewfinder, but "accurately" is another question mark. What determines accurate framing on a landscape photograph? ]'-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
