Wow! those 1st four are beautiful, Mark! cheers, Christine
On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Mark, > Beautiful shot. Love the blue and the moon. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: >> Interesting note on the different versions of the Sigma lens. I assume I >> have an older version - bought it in 2002 and it has very poor close focus >> features. So hopefully it is one of the good ones! >> >> It does have one quirk - in very cold temperatures the aperture opens up and >> won't close. I posted on this many, many moons ago - I was shooting a >> lighthouse in single digit (Fahrenheit) temps and only the first 10 frames >> or so out of the 3 rolls I shot came out. All of the other slides were >> totally clear. Trying to diagnose the problem, I put the Sigma lens in my >> deep freeze at home and found that the cold temps made the aperture open up >> and not close. Obviously, if the lens can't stop down everything is over >> exposed. >> >> I spent about an hour standing on an ice dune in a stiff breeze taking >> useless photos - when I got back to my car I dropped my keys and discovered >> that my fingers were too stiff to pick them up! I finally managed to get in >> the car and went to have coffee with some other nutter who was also out >> photographing the scene. >> >> It's a nice lens other than that quirk - I should try to use it but can't >> remember the last time I did. >> >> Here's one of the first 10 photos from that morning: >> >> http://www.markcassino.com/newsite/portfolios/lighthouses/pages/030301.htm >> >> - MCC >> >> On 8/23/2011 1:36 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: >>> >>> I haven't posted here in a while, but this questions looked like a good >>> opportunity. >>> >>> As someone posted, Pentax's FA* 80-200 F2.8 is just excellent. It is also >>> expensive and hard to find. >>> >>> Some versions of the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 are also quite good. Unfortunately >>> Sigma messed around with the optical formula, and some recent versions >>> weren't as good. At one point they added "macro" capability, which caused >>> images at 200 mm to be softer. If you can find an older version of it, that >>> is a very good lens, though not as good as the Pentax. >>> >>> I don't have the DA* 60-250 F4, but as also posted here, it is reputed to >>> be excellent optically. I just don't trust SDM. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
