- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF
> Have I missed something here. Did someone suggest a 100mm would be useless
> for a landscape.
Well yes
Hi!
I can literally _see_ your point . I was assuming that you are
limited by a total added weight to your hiking gear. If you're willing
to carry a 80-200/2.8 zoom lens, this is totally different story and
as a matter of fact a ground totally unknown for me.
Boris
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:33:46
Have I missed something here. Did someone suggest a 100mm would be useless
for a landscape. That's so far from the truth that I can't believe someone would
say that. And if someone is saying that a 100 mm macro is useless for
landscape it's almost as absurd. 100 mm is the perfect landscape lens
Boris wrote:
>It would be odd to expect from a 100 mm macro lens to
>be well suited
>for landscape. IMHO, the only truly universal lens is
>50 mm which you
>might want to get. But then you have 24/2.8 that I
>think is suite for
>landscapes. I got mine just two days ago, so I
>couldn't try it. But I
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Nelson"
Subject: Re: Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF
>
> I don't know where you are doing your landscape photography, but I use
> telephoto lenses all the time when shooting in the mountains. The best
> way to get a good s
"whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do a lot of landscape work and would not wish to be
>working without a telephoto lens or two. My landscapes are
>most often shot with wide angle lenses, the Pentax K 35mm
>f/2 being my favourite, and the K 24mm f/3.5 a very close
>second, but I always
>I tend to disagree with you both. I find the narrower view of something
like a 100mm lens nice for picking out details. I readily admit that
landscape photography is not really my thing, but I think there is more
to it then sweeping panoramics.
I agree wholeheartedly. Panoramics are good for s
Graywolf wrote:
>
> I tend to disagree with you both. I find the narrower view
of something
> like a 100mm lens nice for picking out details. I readily
admit that
> landscape photography is not really my thing, but I think
there is more
> to it then sweeping panoramics.
Agree 100%.
I do a lot o
Hi!
Odd? Only odd? How about just plain silly? Landscape has always been
my
busmans holiday passtime, and I don't think I have ever used a lens
with
that field of view.
Ferget the 100mm, macro or otherwise for 35mm landscape.
William Robb
Bill, I must remind you that English is not my native la
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF
> It would be odd to expect from a 100 mm macro lens to be well suited
> for landscape. IMHO, the only truly universal lens is 50 mm which you
> might want to get. But then you
Hi!
RK> I will stick to my 100mm macro. I do not want buy
RK> another 100mm lens just beacuse I do not want to
RK> accumulate more lens!!!. At the same time I am not
RK> happy with 100mm macro's performance when used for
RK> landscape shots, this seems to be related to infinity
RK> focus.
It wou
I am planning a hiking trip in fall and I want to
reduce the my lens weight.
I want to replace my 50mm/2.8 macro & 100mm/2.8 macro
with Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF.
I neither need macro capability and nor the speed. And
I will be using Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 between
30-100mm.
Takin
12 matches
Mail list logo
