On 23/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
You're definitely wrong.
Up your's, Smelly Pants.
Okay, who ratted on me?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
Today my daughter came up with a last minute Christmas wish. She has a MZ5n
and M50/1.4 lens and has taken some pretty nice pictures with that. Now she
kind of would like to have a wide angle lens. So, what's daddy going to
do .. shops are closing for the holidays in two hours or so .. well, I
Agreed
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which one
would you consider more educational, i.e. good for learning wide angle
photography. I almost would say the M28, because it's not so extreme, but
maybe I only think so because I like that K24 so much ,-)
Hi Peter
I would go for the M28mm.
Add some rolls of film for keeping the K24mm to the present ;-)
greetings
Markus
kind of would like to have a wide angle lens. So, what's daddy going to
do .. shops are closing for the holidays in two hours or so .. well, I
might give her one of my beloved
Definitely the 28mm. Not too wide of a lens, which means it's a bit
easier to learn to compose with.
Now if I'd only get the CZJ 20/4 in M42 mount that was on my Christmas list...
-Mat
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:52:35 +0100, Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Peter
I would go for the
Hi,
Thursday, December 23, 2004, 4:34:47 PM, Peter wrote:
Today my daughter came up with a last minute Christmas wish. She has a MZ5n
and M50/1.4 lens and has taken some pretty nice pictures with that. Now she
kind of would like to have a wide angle lens. So, what's daddy going to
do ..
I would definitely give her the 24. The perspective is more unusual, so
it's a lot more entertaining thatn a 28. My first wide was a 20, and I
had a lot of fun with it. She should get a real taste of wide.
Paul
Hello Peter,
I would go with the 24mm - because it is more extreme, it will enforce
a totally different eye and style for her. You already have another
24mm anyway. I'm willing to bet that her idea of wide angle is more
extreme than a 28mm.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Thursday, December 23,
Some folks do not even consider a 28mm to be truely wide angle. I have always
considered it to be a comprimise between a 24 and 35. Can't aford two lenses?
Buy the 28. I feel the same way, though not as intensely, about the 100/105mm
and the 85mm and 135mm.
graywolf
Understandable .. but what was the function then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Thanks for your input.
Peter, Sweden
Some folks do not even consider a 28mm to be truely wide angle. I have always
considered it to be a
That's what I bought for my first spotmatic in 1966.
Peter Smekal wrote:
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Hi,
Thursday, December 23, 2004, 9:00:55 PM, Peter wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the function then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Thanks for your input.
Peter, Sweden
over the years we have become
On 23 Dec 2004 at 22:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the function then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
I sold my 28mm because I have 24mm lenses and a 31mm and I thought I wouldn't
need it,
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
On 23 Dec 2004 at 22:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the function then for all the
28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least
advanced
amateur?
I had
On 23 Dec 2004 at 15:52, William Robb wrote:
I had always thought that 28mm was about the widest angle lens that
could be made with simple and inexpensive optical designs.
Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed photographic
functions, to me a lens designation and focal
Perception may have ahd something to do with what was considered wide fifty
years ago. But perhaps even more important is the fact that Leica rangefinders
of the early fifties required a different viewfinder for anything other than a
normal lens. The commen turret viewfinder would accomodate
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed
photographic
functions, to me a lens designation and focal length tells me no
more that
its effective AOV and whether I can expect it to be capable
Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly anyone uses
them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of view. People are so
lemming like. Herb wrote that in Modern Photography in 1961 and billions will
repeat it until the sun burns out.
(Sad headshake)
graywolf
Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional. BTW 85-105
would have been way too long for a portrait lens before the 35mm SLR became the
homogeneous factor. The old rule of thumb was twice the long side of the
negative which would be 72mm. In fact I have always thought that
I use a 50 quite frequently. Most of them are wonderful optics, and they're a
perfect focal lenth for a lot of shots. My most frequent application is studio
table top, but they're also great in social situations or even street
walkarounds. A good 50 is the best bargain in photography.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly
anyone uses them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of
view.
Funny thing, it's one of my favourite focal lengths on 35mm.
William Robb
Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the function then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Absolutely. Some still consider that to be the case.
In fact, one of the reasons I like going out
- Original Message -
From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional.
I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone
tablet comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old I can think
On 23/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone
tablet comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old I can think
of an exception, therefore your assertion is wrong argument.
You're definitely wrong.
Cheers,
That's what you think, other's opinions may differ. :)
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:40:49 -0600
- Original Message - From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Last
...and then, that graywolf charter jumps on me if I qualify myself, can't win
for losing...
HAR!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
On 23 Dec 2004 at 17:27, Graywolf wrote:
Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly anyone uses
them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of view. People are so
lemming like.
I ain't no lemming :-) My take on 50mm lenses is that it generally produces a
very
Yes in the 70's 28-50-135 was the standard lens set for the snapshooter. In the
60's it was 35-50-135. And by the 80's zooms had taken over. 28's and 135's were
cheap to make. Most 24mm lenses cost close to twice what a 28 did and for a long
long time it was the widest lens generally available
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message -
From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly
anyone uses them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of
view.
Funny thing, it's one
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
Hell I even use those most outmoded of lenses, the dreaded 135mm :-p
Oh, I am a happy man, I took out the K135/2.5 today and shot a little
bit of film.
Even looking through the viefinder this thing is amazing... I have
a few lenses, but this must be my
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
You're definitely wrong.
Up your's, Smelly Pants.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
That's what you think, other's opinions may differ. :)
Your's too, Idaho Potato Head.
William Robb
Tom wrote:
The old rule of thumb was twice the long side of the negative which
would be 72mm.
Thanks, Tom. I hadn't heard this one. So on the *ist D, my FA 50 f1.7
should be an appropriate portrait lens. Or else the long end of the DA
16-45.
Joe
Yes in the 70's 28-50-135 was the standard lens set
for the snapshooter. In the 60's it was 35-50-135. And
by the 80's zooms had taken over. 28's and 135's were
cheap to make.
I bought my first quality 35mm camera while
stationed in Italy in 1966-67. A company in Japan was
offering kits to US
You... You... Canadian
.
Your's too, Idaho Potato Head.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
You... You... Canadian
Is that the best you got, Forest Service Pretender Boy?
William Robb
Hi Rob
Strange number 2 is here ;-) I really enjoy this lens, this was the best
lens buy I made this year.
But I guess you use it as a 75mm macro on a digital body.
greetings
Markus
I guess I'm just strange, I use 50mm lenses all the time and more
so since
acquiring an excellent A50/2.8 macro
37 matches
Mail list logo
