On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Francis Alviar wrote:
How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender? Will it be
as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro?
Probably not. The teleconverters are generally designed to work a
variety of lenses and need to make some compromises. The 50/1.4 plus
I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going
to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming that
both
were set at the same f-stop?
I guess it depends on the f-stop. At f/8 the should givie similar sharpness.
Disclaimer - it's just a thought, i
-- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian
From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question 1:
I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going
to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true,
assuming that both
were set at the same f-stop?
Yes and
No, the 50/1.4 performs poorly with A2X-S.
Yours regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender?
Will it be as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro?
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam
Question 1:
I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always
going to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming
that both were set at the same f-stop?
Pentax 50 primes are probably sharper than any of Pentax's 28-105s at
50. Other lenses (such as the
Well, I will agree that the very best primes are better than the
very best zooms. But, once you get to the point the lens is
professionally acceptable it becomes more of desire than a
need.
If the quality of the image is very important I will go with a
bigger negative. Remember, my Graphic
Since my primary camera for most of the last fifteen years was a
Mamiya Universal, I don't think so.
But, if my primary income, instead of just occasional, was from
photography I would have felt the need for a newer system. The
reason for that is the need for off the shelf equipment
Last week, after the opening of this month's PUG
gallery, I uploaded some of my photos and asked if the members of this very fine
group of Pentax Users would mind taking a look at them and telling me what is
right or wrong about them and how I could try to improve them.
the feedback I got
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I can't help to think the obvious
difference in brightness is caused by the scanning/adjusting in
Photoshop much more than by the difference in lenses ...
Ignoring the colour and tonal range
Eduardo Carone Costa Jr
Much to my amusement, my initial thread developed into a string
of commentaries about the merits of cropping an image and the
use of zoom lenses. These two subjects seem to be perfect
exempla of never ending no wining battles.
Yes, there seems to be a derth of
Hi,
regarding the link I mentioned yesterday about the purist 50mm vs. Hightech
zoom comparison
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire1.html
and
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire2.html
Some people have commented about Nikon vs. Leica lens quality and color from
this, but
aimcompute wrote:
Your comment above points to
the reason I'm going to purchase a 67II... if I'm going to take this much
time, why not maximize the benefit by moving to a larger frame size?
Very smart! You'll be very pleased, I'll bet.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
Oops, wrong link in my previous message:
In :
Tests of classic 50mm's in
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Cadrag.html and following
(with M50 f1.7, which had the bad luck of having the sun behind a cloud
when
it was it's turn)
that should be :
Thanks Mike. Man, this group has just been jamming the 67II down my throat
the last month. I like it! Keep it up!
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zoom
- Original Message -
From: "Jan van Wijk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: Primes Vs. Zooms
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I
Mafud writes:
I stand firm for zooms in the hands of the skilled against all those "prime
only" folks and here, is not only a voice of reason, but clarity.
I am sure that any *skilled* photographer could use a zoom or a prime lens
equally well, but some (most?) situations definitely suit
Hi,
The gist of my post was this: Had HCB/Adams been around to shoot "pro" zooms,
would they have, and would their zooms shots be masterpieces?
That is the question[s].
HCB _is_ still around. Nowadays he mostly uses pencils.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Zooms make you lazy? Huh? How? That is a new twist on an old urban legend.
Applied to me. I had the same problem with zooms.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down
here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :)
Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-)
regards,
Alan Chan
William Robb wrote:
Even in medium format, there are only a handful of zooms
available from all the manufacturers combined.
Pentax makes a whole ONE zoom for the 67: the 55-100.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and
On 6 Mar 2001, at 9:41, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again
disparaged the use of zooms and cropping in this never ending
thread (renamed several times), and that your gallery entry this
month is a highly cropped zoom lens photo.
How do you
I can't help but reply to this, and I will probably regret doing so... But
here goes...
Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe
sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom
won't?
Well, without commenting about image quality, flexibility,
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 6, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again
disparaged the us
Mike wrote (in the Bresson thread)
But I'll bet if anybody on this list got a chance to do some moderately
heavy shooting for a few days--say, 5 rolls a day over the course of a
10-day vacation, of some subject matter that really engaged them--9 out of
10 would end up doing better work with one
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
Hi Tom,
I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ),
I suspect Bill is
referring to considered composition not simply grab shots
(l
William Robb wrote:
What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
think that it is cheating the
Dosk wrote:
Saw: A Kiron lens for Pentax. 24mm, f2. ($69.00?)
Whatsit? Any good atall? Never heard of this brand before
Skip
Kino Precision ( Kiron ) was a behind the scenes third-party manufacturer.
They made lenses for Panagor ( and others? ), and the made many of the
early Vivitar
Sure, Bill, I agree with you to a point. But those large slow
moving cameras are for that kind of work. Except for folks who
are too poor to own but one camera, why would one want to work
that way with 35mm? And, those relatively poor photographers
aren't going to have a bag full of primes.
I
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
"This is my way. What is
your way? There is no such thing as THE WAY."
--Tom
I never said it was the right way
But it's my way.
Sure is wo
On Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:47 AM, Rob Studdert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
On 6 Mar 2001, at 21:31, Erwin Vereecken wrote:
An old Leica M2 with 50mm versus the F100 with 80-200f2.8
Interesting results, even if you don't understand French (many pictures)
Alan Chan writes:
I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down
here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :)
Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-)
I'm sure I would. The 77mm is faster and looks nicer, and I'm
Comments mixed in.
At 05:24 PM 3/5/01 EST, you wrote:
In a message dated 3/5/2001 11:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree - either cropping with a zoom or copping by proximity works for
me.
Hi Tom!
We often forget, when shooting primes, that composition has a
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 5, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what
would HCB, Adams
and the other "prime only&qu
Might as well entitle this one "apples and oranges".
They each have their strengths and weaknesses for
given situations and are BOTH valid tools for
photography. Arguing that one or the other is
"absolutley" better is pointless. It all depends
on the photographic task/situation at hand.
JCO
-
I have a headache and am not sure how coherent this is going to
wind up being, but here goes anyhow. I need to wrap this up
and get back to work, so I'm going to be a bit more lazy with my
text-editing than I'd usually allow myself... How, ah, ironically
_a_propos_. Didn't plan it that way,
John Francis wrote:
That said: I haven't seen any image
problems using the zoom hand-held;
in fact it's the lens that is usually
mounted on my PZ-1p. Both lenses
show significant light drop-off in
the corners, especially wide open.
Wouldn't "significant" light fall off be an image
At 11:52 27.1.2001 -0700, you wrote:
Thanks, everyone. This was educational.
[...]
I still like my zooms, though. And my primes. Heck, I like all my
lenses.
Joe
Who doesn't ;-) Reminds me of having to get some more (after that nefarious
"lens purchase enabler" started enabling, I can't resist
Thanks, everyone. This was educational.
I think the posters who questioned the figure of 500 lppm are right. I
just checked the Feb 01 Pop Photo, which reviewed the new Minolta
24-105. Resolution ranges 34-85. So the rec.photo poster was off by a
factor of five.
I still like my zooms, though.
Mark Roberts wrote:
There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film
scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who
says you have to scan your film at all?
I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good
lenses when all you're going to do
There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film
scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who
says you have to scan your film at all?
I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good
lenses when all you're going to do is make 4x6s?" :)
But
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners
can resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior
to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens sharpness
of a prime would not translate into
So what are we saying? Expense zoom's and prime's are
much better than cheap zooms, cheap Zoom's at there
worst focal lenght are poor, even on 4x6" colour
prints.
I like the test method of writting on the back of the
prints, suffling and sorting on percived "goodness". I
used the same test for
That does it! I'm going to run over all my zooms with a truck as soon as I
get
home! Actually thank you for this insight.
Tom C
Aaron wrote:
But I'll tell ya...regardless of how unsharp your film is and how lo-res
your scanner is (or how unsharp your enlarger lenses are), if you really
Mark Roberts wrote:
Zoom lenses will "curve your spine,
I can vouch for the accuracy of this statement.
(although I suspect a 600/f4 has ortopaedic side-effects, too!)
--
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline
Subject: Re: Fw: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
In a message dated 1/26/01 8:58:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That does it! I'm going to run over all my zooms with a truck as soon
as I
get home! Actually thank you for this insight.
Not so fast. Consider
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:13:08 -0700, aimcompute wrote:
OK - let me rephrase that. That does it! I'm going to run over all my
CONSUMER-GRADE zooms with a truck as soon as I
get home! :-)
No need to do that. Just ship them over my way. :-)
Later,
Gary
-
This message is from the
The quote below came up on rec.photo.film+labs. It brings up something
I've often wondered about, to wit:
If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can
resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior
to good zooms? It would seem at first glance
Because:
#1 Effective results
The better the sharpness on edges, the better
the results, even at every level of loss.
Better lenses minimize loss.
#2 Barrel pincusion distortion
... are reduced or eliminated. The Tamron
70-300 LD IF lense may be extremely sharp,
Sacrilege!!! You dare question the superiority of primes?
HAR
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 25, 2001 1:57 PM
Subject: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
The quote below came up on rec.photo.film+labs. It
There are some differences apparent, especially at the edges, even with the
Pentax 28-70 f/4 AL, which is one of the best zooms around.
An example of this can be seen at
http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/infinitytest.htm
Other zooms perform considerably worse than this. I used to have a 35-80,
50 matches
Mail list logo
