- Original Message -
From: Pål Audun Jensen
Subject: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more
questions...)
William wrote:
If diffraction is going to be a problem with MF, it will also
be
a problem with 35mm, if DOF is the same, and field of view is
the same.
Sure if DOF
Bruce wrote:
Wheatfield, Aaron and others pointed out that if I really
wanted to make a difference in my photos, I should go to a bigger
negative.
I don't think this is such a good idea considering that the original poster
wanted DOF. A super(?) wide for the 67 is a 45mm with DOF similar to
Paul wrote:
There are other 17 and 18mm choices out there:
There are but I would strongly advice against all of them. In a super wide
is where Pentax SMC really shine. All the Pentax super wides can be shot
directly into the sun. You'll need good flare resistance in a super wide
angle
Jonathan wrote:
#1)I was inspired to save up and hold out (look
harder?) for a Pentax K18/3.5 until I learned its true
focal length of 19mm.
Where did you learn that? Mine seem awfully wide
Can it take the Cokin P system without vignetting?
The 18/3.5 can take it if you're careful
On 27 Apr 2002 at 21:22, Jonathan Donald wrote:
#1)I was inspired to save up and hold out (look
harder?) for a Pentax K18/3.5 until I learned its true
focal length of 19mm. That seems so close to 20mm,
that I might as well just get the A20/2.8 which is
[somewhat] cheaper, easier to find,
Now, something that you haven't mentioned that I find as a more
usable combination is the F 17-35 fisheye and one of the 20's.
The fisheye zoom is unique in that it zooms from almost 180
degrees to almost the same focal length of the 20mm rectilinear.
At the 35mm end, it is about the same
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide
Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few
times.
once was last year when i was trying to shoot a waterfall and
wanted to get
I have this filter now. Didn't have then. But I agree that this is a much
better option than stopping down that much.
And as for the slower film -- it was a cloudy day and the only roll I had
was the one (400) in my camera.
now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few times.
once
I might get the name wrong. What i meant is the effect you get when you set
a really long exposure (1s+) and get the water washed out (kinda like a
veil) rather than stopped in action. I rarely have film slower than 100 and
often even that is too fast if I want to have a reasonable (1/8) aperture
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 6:19:33 PM, Mishka wrote:
M Thanks Paul,
M That didn't occur to me. Seriously.
M I thought more along the DOF line, and 20mm should have everything in focus
M way before f/22.
With the F/Calc, I computed, using a circle of confusion for APS film
size (because the COC
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 8:21:23 PM, William wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Mishka
WR Subject: Re: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide
WR Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few
WR times.
once was last year
Jonathan,
There are other 17 and 18mm choices out there:
1. Ricoh made an XR Rikenon 18/2.8. A couple months ago one was on German
EBay. It sold March 10 to a European PDMLer for just 156 Euros (about
$120). It resembles the Pentax 18/3.5 but uses a 67mm filter (vs. 58). I
have a photo of it;
If you can shoot at f22, either increase your shutter speed or decrease your
film speed. I don't believe I have ever had to shoot at f22...
In a message dated 4/28/02 10:38:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With f/22, you can use the lens in brighter light even though your camera
is loaded
Guys: what speed of film are you using. It really should not be an issue if
you're using a slow speed, high saturation film. 100asa or less...
In a message dated 4/28/02 11:49:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few times.
once was last year
14 matches
Mail list logo
