Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Shel
how does a lens influence the saturation of a photo? By different coating?
just wondering ;-)
Light that hits the film/CCD not coming from the subject lowers overall
saturation and contrast. The quality of the black paint inside the lens
barrel influences
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Cotty wrote:
On 13/7/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think Cotty put some up a while ago ...
Unfortunately, I compared a SMC-K15 3.5 and a Sigma EX 14 2.8 for flare,
on a Canon 1D, where
... FOVET (35, 1.3x).
On 13/7/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I recall a couple of indoor shots ... never saw these.
I'm perplexed.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 13/7/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I recall a couple of indoor shots ... never saw these.
Ahh! I remember. It was a quick shot in the sitting room. That was only a
temporary blast I'm afraid.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Shel Belinkoff escribió:
I suppose that's one way - compare lenses of the same optical formula with
different coatings and you'll see greater or lesser saturation. However, I
suppose that optical formulas and the type of glass used in a lens (and
there are many, many different types of glass
On 13 Jul 2005 at 9:01, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'd like to see a similar, typical hand held shot with the 15/3.5 and
16mm fisheye, defished, for comparison, on a D or DS body.
I'd also like to see a comparison shot with a 20mm lens on a 35mm
film body as this is the ultrawide field of
Hasn't Erwin Puts discussed this many, many times (at least wrt contrast)?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert
I'm very interested in these observations. I really can't get my head
around
lenses adding contrast or saturation, can anyone point to papers
substantiating
similar
I'll try to get a set of comparativeshots off tomorrow, 15/3.5,16/2.8 FE,
16/2.8 FE (with rectilinear conversion), 20/2.8 24/2.8, might be an
interesting twist too :-)
That would be great, Rob. Thanks.
Fred
On Jul 14, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I'd like to see a similar, typical hand held shot with the 15/3.5 and
16mm fisheye, defished, for comparison, on a D or DS body.
I'd also like to see a comparison shot with a 20mm lens on a 35mm
film body as this is the ultrawide field of view
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
I'm very interested in these observations. I really can't get my head
around
lenses adding contrast or saturation, can anyone point to papers
substantiating
similar claims?
I have
How does a fisheye of similar length perform comparison wise? I have
no experience of that kind of lens at all.
I notice that no one has mentioned the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX fisheye. I think
I'm the only one on the list who has one. It's cheaper than the DA 14mm (I
think I paid USD $450 for
Would you buy a A15mm/3.5 for a *istDS? I mean, at 22mm practical
focal length it would be a bit waisted.
How does a fisheye of similar length perform comparison wise? I have
no experience of that kind of lens at all.
Is the 16/17mm fisheye at all useful with the *istDS?
Regards,
Bertil
Bertil Holmberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you buy a A15mm/3.5 for a *istDS? I mean, at 22mm practical
focal length it would be a bit waisted.
How does a fisheye of similar length perform comparison wise? I have
no experience of that kind of lens at all.
Is the 16/17mm fisheye at all
- Original Message -
From: Bertil Holmberg
Subject: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
Would you buy a A15mm/3.5 for a *istDS? I mean, at 22mm practical focal
length it would be a bit waisted.
I did.
OTOH, I wanted a full frame lens for film work.
If all you are going
On 13 Jul 2005 at 6:29, William Robb wrote:
BTW, it is a practivccal 15mm lens, no matter what format it is mounted on.
Or,
it's a 15mm lens on the istD, but a 12mm lens on 35mm.
LOL. Touché
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jul 2005 at 13:15, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
Would you buy a A15mm/3.5 for a *istDS? I mean, at 22mm practical
focal length it would be a bit waisted.
How does a fisheye of similar length perform comparison wise? I have
no experience of that kind of lens at all.
Is the 16/17mm
Rob,
Could you post or send a 100K or so uncropped JPEG made with the 16/2.8 and
the istD? It would be a plus if you could have a person in the pic, or
maybe a shot of a house or a street. No bugs or flowers ... maybe just a
shot out your window of the house across the street. Something on
Shel.
I know at GFM Frank did a few shots using Cesar's spare istD and his 16mm and
Bills 19mm.
If he see's this maybe he can post a few on Photo dot Net for you.
On the D it cut of some of the edge distortion, but not a lot. On the film
bodies you can
see a much
wider FOV.(with the 16 i did
On Jul 13, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Rob,
Could you post or send a 100K or so uncropped JPEG made with the
16/2.8 and
the istD? It would be a plus if you could have a person in the
pic, or
maybe a shot of a house or a street. No bugs or flowers ... maybe
just a
shot out
On Jul 13, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Rob,
Could you post or send a 100K or so uncropped JPEG made with the
16/2.8 and
the istD? It would be a plus if you could have a person in the
pic, or
maybe a shot of a house or a street. No bugs or flowers ... maybe
just a
shot out
Rob wrote:
I own a 15/3.5 and a 16/2.8 fisheye and if I were just shooting digital
when I purchased these lenses I'd probably only have bought the fisheye.
Apart from the weight and size differential I'll bet that either of
these two lenses would be as good as if not better performers than
On Jul 13, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Rob wrote:
I own a 15/3.5 and a 16/2.8 fisheye and if I were just shooting
digital when I purchased these lenses I'd probably only have
bought the fisheye. Apart from the weight and size differential
I'll bet that either of these two
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be able to compare that for myself soon as I have a Zenitar-K
16/2.8 in transit to me now. I'm quite interested to see how it
performs.
I got to play with Frank's Zenitar fisheye at GFM and was quite
surprised at how good it is in most respects.
for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
Shel.
I know at GFM Frank did a few shots using Cesar's spare istD and his 16mm
and Bills 19mm.
If he see's this maybe he can post a few on Photo dot Net for you.
On the D it cut of some of the edge distortion, but not a lot. On the
film bodies you can
see a much
No, not at all. I just wanted to see the FOV and distortion of a simple
shot made with the 16/2.8 that might be typical of what I'd make. I've
explained to dave Brooks why the pic from the 16/2.8 is of interest. Add
to that, that certainly for the next year or so, I'd probably not want to
buy a
I understand... I sent this as a request to Rob, really, as I'd like
to see what the difference might be between the DA14 and one of the
older 15/16mm lenses.
The DA14 is designed to cover the D/DS format, but this means that it
should net a 24x24 mm coverage on 35mm film. The biggest
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
I got to play with Frank's Zenitar fisheye at GFM and was quite
surprised at how good it is in most respects. Pity I never did a direct
comparison with my 15/3.5 while I had the chance
it was a
surprisingly good lens, especially considering the cost. Bill, I think you
and I talked about the qualities of the lens at one point.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
I got
On 13/7/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think Cotty put some up a while ago ...
Unfortunately, I compared a SMC-K15 3.5 and a Sigma EX 14 2.8 for flare,
on a Canon 1D, where a 15mm behaves like a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm
no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
Didn't see Mark's post. Likewise, the Zenitar I had was not particularly
flare prone. I just looked thru pics from a full roll of film, most shot
in bright sun, and can't see a single
where a 15mm behaves like a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm
no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no
aARGH
...say no more... ;-)
Fred
I recall a couple of indoor shots ... never saw these.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
On 13/7/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think Cotty put some up a while ago ...
Unfortunately, I compared a SMC-K15 3.5 and a Sigma EX 14 2.8 for flare,
on a Canon 1D, where
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:15:31 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Funny, I found the Zenitar to be remarkably flare resistant.
I've found mine to be very resistant to veiling flare, but susceptible
to ... darn, I can't remember the term ... spot flare. The one where
you get ghosts of the sun in the
can we come up with a shorthand for field of view equivalent to Xmm on
Y format?
mishka
On 7/13/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, it is a practivccal 15mm lens, no matter what format it is mounted on.
Or, it's a 15mm lens on the istD, but a 12mm lens on 35mm.
William Robb
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:57:19 -0400, Mishka wrote:
can we come up with a shorthand for field of view equivalent to Xmm on
Y format?
FOVET(35,APS)?
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Will, happy now?
best,
mishka
On 7/13/05, Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FOVET(35,APS)?
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm/3.5...)
Will, happy now?
I'm happy if you are happy.
William Robb
Hi Shel
how does a lens influence the saturation of a photo? By different coating?
just wondering ;-)
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: FishEye for digital (was: A15mm
Hi!
I think Cotty put some up a while ago ...
Unfortunately, I compared a SMC-K15 3.5 and a Sigma EX 14 2.8 for flare,
on a Canon 1D, where a 15mm behaves like a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm
no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no a 15mm no a 19.5mm no
aARGH
Hi!
can we come up with a shorthand for field of view equivalent to Xmm on
Y format?
FOVET(35,APS)?
My hat's off, Doug... May I suggest we shorten it to FOV(35,APS). I am
going to use that notation. It rules :-).
Boris
I suppose that's one way - compare lenses of the same optical formula with
different coatings and you'll see greater or lesser saturation. However, I
suppose that optical formulas and the type of glass used in a lens (and
there are many, many different types of glass used in lenses) will also
41 matches
Mail list logo
