ann sanfedele wrote:
> I did look at all of them and Marco is right... really nice stuff Larry-
> you really have perfected your method for this kind
> of shooting...
>
Thank you Ann. I certainly hope that I have not yet perfected my method,
I'd like to think that there is room for me to continue to improve.
Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Larry,
Bruce expressed my thoughts. I also thought that the single shot that
you referenced and other fish-eye shots (at least the first three in the
set)
were very effective.
Thank you very much.
I know some people do not like fisheye, and I agree that sometimes it
might be hard to use it efficiently (which includes tastefully here).
But fisheye has its place for serious photography (as opposed to
caricatures), and your photo(s) is(are) a good example.
I bought that lens as a toy, but it has turned out to be one of my most
useful lenses for "serious photography".
But I have a technical question related to that lens.
I thought you had the same lens as I do, 8mm f/3.5, don't you?
Is that f/2.8 just a typo? I do not see 8/2.8 in K-mount. (Is there one?)
(And I was surprised that there is 8mm/2.8 in some other mounts)
Yes, I'm afraid that that was a braino. A combination of corrupted
memory registers after typing 16-50/2.8 and wishful thinking.
By the way, I put together this chart of hyperfocal distances for that lens:
_f___feet__meters
_3.4_3.15_0.96
_4.0_2.65_0.81
_5.6_1.88_0.57
_8.0_1.34_0.41
_6.4_1.68_0.51
11.0_0.95_0.29
16.0_0.68_0.21
22.0_0.49_0.15
I used that chart to make this depth of field guide for the lens, which
I find very handy:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157660743131267
Also, I just discovered that there is Rokinon fisheye 12mm f/2.8
(pentax). But on B&H it is listed as "discontinued".
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089936-REG/rokinon_12m_p_12mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html
At first, I thought that it was just a new lens that hasn't been shipped
yet.. But then I see that it exists on Amazon from a 3rd party seller:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PDHY57E/
Does anyobyd know what's the situation with that lens?
I'm currently lusting after their 24/1.4 and really wish that
astrotracer worked with manually set focal lengths.
Igor
Bruce Walker Sat, 21 Nov 2015 05:17:52 -0800 wrote:
The fish-eye shot is really effective. Nice!
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote:
I finally had a chance to sort out the photos from last Saturday into a
smaller set. Here's one of the band and some dancers, shot with the
16-50:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/22733433119/in/album-72157660633912889/
Here's one of the band. In the front you can see the most important
member
of the band, Phillip, the tip jar.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/23111687292/in/album-72157660633912889/
shot with my Bowers 8/2.8
For those interested in the whole set of 31:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157660633912889/
--
Larry Colen [email protected] (postbox on min4est)
--
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.
