Search results for 'back focus' - page 1030
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Jules - I believe George means the "proper" Ltds :P i.e. 31mm, 43mm, 77mm. They'll set you back a pretty penny :shock: (Have tried the 31 & 77 - astonishing build quality and just beautiful to use! Optically superb, but surprisingly some of the other Pentax glass isn't too far behind for most s...
Posted by MattMatic on 20/02/2012 - 12:42
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Nice to see you haven't changed much in the 6 months you have been away Jules :lol: So which cameras did you buy in that time? So far I have seen a 7D, D7000, A77, A850 :shock: Is it only six months? I've changed a lot Mike, had to, had some knocks that, well are not for a place like this but ...
Posted by jules on 20/02/2012 - 15:13
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
P.S. I agree Matt, that Dandelion shot is Priceless! Thanks :D I hink the consensus would be that I just get over it! Absolutely :P As I was trying to show, the DA17-70 is capable of superb results! Even in low light it was almost a match for the FA50/1.4 :shock: Certainly more versatile. But...
Posted by MattMatic on 20/02/2012 - 15:59
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I bought the Pentax 17-70 on Saturday (mainly due to Mike's recommendation) and spent all day Sunday using it as a walk about. Have to say - so far very impressed and no issue with focus - other than it being so fast and smooth I sometimes have to double check that it has actually focused!!!!! I ...
Posted by fritzthedog on 20/02/2012 - 18:59
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
A D7000 with a greasy sensor that needed cleaning every fifty shots A D700 that needed the mount shimming brand new and eventually a chassis replacement. A D3 with a misaligned viewfinder. Then there's the Lenses, I shot NIKON for 25 Years bot semi pro and pro but no longer, there's only so much ...
Posted by K10D on 21/02/2012 - 13:09
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Here's hoping:D I must be very unlucky,as I know people like yourself who have shot Nikon for a similar amount of time as myself but have never had a problem. It's just that when you do have a problem, it's nice if the Company that is involved would acknowledge it too. All of the above bodies men...
Posted by jules on 21/02/2012 - 14:30
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Nah they were all new, had they been second hand I could have understood Nikons attitiude but they were all bought new and also when serviced had less than a thousand shots on the clock, Yes the D700 did have problems with Long Lenses unsupported I seem to remember that but I only used to put the 2...
Posted by jules on 21/02/2012 - 15:51
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
Mikes right with the idea of sticking another element into the optical train, as I found out when I put a UVO on my Canon 100-400 and it threw the focus off by a mile rendering it unusable! Took me a good while to figure out what it was but it appears that particular model of Lens didn't like filter...
Posted by jules on 29/02/2012 - 22:33
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I can't see why a UV filter would affect the focus of a lens - it does not affect mine. Circular polariser yes - these do not work well on some lenses but a decent UV filter should not alter the focal length of a lens unless the filter is doing something it's not designed to do. Regards David
Posted by davidstorm on 29/02/2012 - 22:38
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 off ebay years ago and when it arrived the lens was absolute rubbish .. the focus wouldn't lock half the time and when it did the picture was always lacking detail. I was all ready to send the seller a snotty email asking for my money back but then thought I would take...
Posted by Mike-P on 29/02/2012 - 22:47
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
as I found out when I put a UVO on my Canon 100-400 and it threw the focus off by a mile rendering it unusable! I will make sure I don't use one on mine then :wink:
Posted by Mike-P on 29/02/2012 - 22:48
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I have had real problems with some polarisers that look clear / sharp when you look through them, but render focus impossible on the lens, but never with a UV and I've had a lot of these filters on a lot of lenses. I can understand that any filter, even a good UV one will have some effect on image ...
Posted by davidstorm on 29/02/2012 - 22:52
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
This thread has become really interesting. I did a test last night (not scientific of course) where I shot a still life of a porcelain ornament with my DA 16-45, both with and without a UV filter. The subject was chosen because I could control lighting and focus to be 100% identical between the tw...
Posted by davidstorm on 02/03/2012 - 09:45
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
If your going to put a filter on a UV is better it at least cuts out most of the UV light. A Skylight was OK on film, but not needed on digital. A Protector will at least keep the main element clean. It's impossible to clean a lens back to it's original condition.
Posted by Algernon on 02/03/2012 - 13:02
Ok Ok I know! 17-70 Vs 16-50
I've just bought the 17-70, my first DA or SDM lens, I can't compare it to the others. I really needed something wider than my FA 28-80 for my K-5. I did briefly consider the 16-50 but the extra 20mm fits my lens coverage (not to mention budget) better. First impressions are very good (and a massive...
Posted by jules on 05/03/2012 - 10:01
35mm f2.8 Macro Limited?
When I first bought this lens I was impressed with the quality both as a macro lens and as a general walkaround lens, and if I could only have 1 prime lens then this would probably be it! But (there's always a "but") in practice this lens hardly ever gets used now. If I am out walking (camera only a...
Posted by LennyBloke on 20/02/2012 - 13:19
35mm f2.8 Macro Limited?
I've spent a lot of time with an SLR fitted mainly with a 50mm prime. Initially it was through lack of funds that I went without extra lenses but I found out over time that it suited my style of photography. Having recently bought my first DSLR (a K-r) I researched my options for a digital equival...
Posted by Spaceman_Spiff on 20/02/2012 - 15:25
What lens and set up can produce similar results?
This will help ;) You need more than the macro lenses you mentioned. A reversed manual lens (e.g. 28mm) would be good. See video 2:20, and 2:26 = 28mm reversed with extension tubes (but is a 'focus stacked' image from 10 images!) His camera setup shown at 0:56 onwards ;) Oh, and a LOT of ...
Posted by MattMatic on 21/02/2012 - 10:40
Pentax M 85mm F2
the other topic you mentioned... 40/2.8 or 35/2.4... Interesting comparison. I presume the 35 is cheaper over there ? I have the DA40 and wouldn't like to give up the quickshift focus or the stellar IQ. Its only failing in my eyes is the long near focus distance.
Posted by Transit on 23/02/2012 - 02:11
Pentax M 85mm F2
the other topic you mentioned... 40/2.8 or 35/2.4... Interesting comparison. I presume the 35 is cheaper over there ? I have the DA40 and wouldn't like to give up the quickshift focus or the stellar IQ. Its only failing in my eyes is the long near focus distance. The 35 is about £200 cheaper here ...
Posted by rosstownsley on 23/02/2012 - 08:26
