Hi Cotty,
on 12 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Ah, zooms. I never considered a wide zoom when I wanted my wide angle.
Honestly - with my MZ-5n I was very satisfied with the 28mm of my 28-
105PZ concerning wide angle. But it took only one day to change that:
When I tried this preproduction
On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide already,
you could simply move forward to
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:
As you know, I'm a manual focus guy. I do us the AF on my AF lenses
sometimes, though rarely. Mostly on the 70-200 with my lad's football or
whatever. I personally think AF on 14mm lens is a complete and utter
waste of time and I never have it switched on.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:
On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide
Hi,
Kostas wrote:
You're kidding me.
Fisheyes?
No, he's just suprised.
mike
On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Honestly - with my MZ-5n I was very satisfied with the 28mm of my 28-
105PZ concerning wide angle. But it took only one day to change that:
When I tried this preproduction *istD with its 18-35 lens, I made the
mistake and put the 18-35 on my MZ-5n.
On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!
Would you share an example of the latter? I have only shot faces at
50, other than 70 and above, and that was because I
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:
On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!
Would you share an example of the latter? I have only shot faces at
50, other
.
that dictates what focal length i use.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angles for *ist D
moving changes the size relationships between different parts of the
composition
Hi Cotty,
on 11 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
here made experiences with the Sigma wide angles (17-35, 15-30 or the
new 12-14)?
Heiko, I have the Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and use it on my D60, giving an
effective focal length of 22.4mm. On an *ist D it should work out to
about 21mm.
That's a
This article might be of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/14-vs-16.shtml
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Heiko, I have the Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and use it on my D60, giving an
effective focal length of 22.4mm. On an *ist D it should work out to
about 21mm.
That's a good hint. Maybe I was focused on wide angle zooms, too much.
Ah, zooms. I never considered a
in from a restricted position.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angles for *ist D
I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
13 matches
Mail list logo
