Search results for 'uv filter' - page 92
close-uplens filter or macro extension tube
Thanks John for the correction and clearing things up. So there is no rule when you're allowed to use the term macro (micro)? Might be a good idea to have some regulation about that.
Posted by Anvh on 04/07/2009 - 12:35
close-uplens filter or macro extension tube
It's been tried, and full marks to Vivitar in the 1970s for trying to label their lenses correctly. Unfortunately, no-one took this up and independents in particular use the term macro as a marketing device. Pentax also started labelling zooms with a macro setting, which is not really macro eithe...
Posted by johnriley on 04/07/2009 - 13:28
close-uplens filter or macro extension tube
Too bad to hear that John :( It's of course very good for marketing. I'm quite glad that Pentax seem to label everything correctly now and I believe that many brands except the third party use them more correctly or am I wrong about that?
Posted by Anvh on 04/07/2009 - 13:46
close-uplens filter or macro extension tube
I'm quite glad that Pentax seem to label everything correctly now and I believe that many brands except the third party use them more correctly or am I wrong about that? Most marques will label a prime Macro lens correctly and usually that sort of lens will be purchased by someone who knows what th...
Posted by johnriley on 04/07/2009 - 13:55
Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited
Glyn I simply use the hood only as protection when going into my bag it seems to offer more then enough protection (small hole and nothing in the bag that fits through it) When using a filter I simply put it in the Leather bag, that offers also enough protection in my case.
Posted by Anvh on 06/07/2009 - 20:56
135mm f1:2.5 K lens
I was in my local camera shop yesterday for the first time ever and they had a selection of old lenses including a Pentax 135mm f1:2.5 k mount manual lens. Are these any good and is the £20 asking price probably worth it? It's worth several times that if it's the SMC non-Takmar version with a 58m...
Posted by iceblinker on 07/07/2009 - 11:08
135mm f1:2.5 K lens
If it is the 58mm filter thread SMC K then in good condition it is worth a lot more than £20. Snap it up as long as the aperture blades are working properly and you can't see any fungus when you look through it.
Posted by JonSchick on 07/07/2009 - 12:49
Are 'fast' lenses less important with modern DSLRs?
that's nice but isn't really a DOF effect, you'd achieve that on film using a filter. The problem with doing DOF effects digitally is that the computer doesn't know which bits of the scene to blur. If you're very skilled it can be done manually, but it's pretty hard (I've tried it a few times but...
Posted by Mongoose on 08/07/2009 - 15:18
Are 'fast' lenses less important with modern DSLRs?
Photoshop includes a proper "Lens Blur" filter - but effective use of it requires creating an accurate focus depth map first. I've used it many times - it's very effective indeed, but it can be very time consuming :roll: Matt
Posted by MattMatic on 08/07/2009 - 15:26
Are 'fast' lenses less important with modern DSLRs?
Yes I know what you mean, I still have the filter from my wedding days, you can vary the amount of effect in the program and that's what I ended up with. :mrgreen:
Posted by jackitec on 08/07/2009 - 15:26
Are 'fast' lenses less important with modern DSLRs?
that's nice but isn't really a DOF effect, you'd achieve that on film using a filter. The problem with doing DOF effects digitally is that the computer doesn't know which bits of the scene to blur. If you're very skilled it can be done manually, but it's pretty hard (I've tried it a few times but...
Posted by BODYHEAT on 08/07/2009 - 15:31
Is the Da 50-200mm zoom lens any good?
The 50-200mm is compact, light and inexpensive. It's also very good. The 55-300mm is a bigger lens, but is slightly better i think than the 50-200mm. One advantage of the 50-200mm is that if you are also using the 18-55mm they share the same 52mm filter thread, so the same filters and accessor...
Posted by johnriley on 08/07/2009 - 11:32
can back focus be fixed?
"SAFOX" stands for Sensor Ability Fortifying Optical Compensating System. It has gone through four revisions, with SAFOX-I being used in the SF series AF bodies, and SAFOX-IV being used in the ZX/MZ bodies. All SAFOX-type lenses are fully compatible with all SAFOX bodies. Basically, this means that ...
Posted by Anvh on 13/07/2009 - 00:06
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
Does anyone have a recomendation for a polariser to use with the DA*16-50 f2.8 ? Will I need an ultra thin one to avoid vignetting ?
Posted by pschlute on 14/07/2009 - 10:25
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
I believe Hoya do an ultra thin one.Hoya Pro 1 D may thin enough also.A bit costly though. I picked up a Pro 1 D Circ Pol from Camera world for £52,cheapest I could find for a 67mm filter.HTH a little bit, mm
Posted by missmarple on 14/07/2009 - 11:02
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
Hoya Pro 1 D gets my vote too...decent quality, no vignetting (on my 17-70 anyway simon
Posted by simonkit on 14/07/2009 - 11:21
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
Ouch the Pro 1 D Circ Pol 77mm is not cheap !
Posted by pschlute on 14/07/2009 - 11:53
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
I read an online comparison of polarising filters last week. Not scientific but seemed objective enough. Can't remember the link. Anyway, the conclusion was that cheap polarisers with little or no coatings added a whole lot of flare and reflections to images in certain situations. They recommende...
Posted by mpjx on 14/07/2009 - 12:49
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
mpjx Thanks for that. I quite agree that if I am going to put anything in front of the lens it will be the best quality I can get. I don't use any filters (uv ; skylight)normally on the lenses I own. The polariser is a one off purchase so it is worth going for the best.
Posted by pschlute on 14/07/2009 - 13:26
Polarising filter with DA*16-50
B+W gets my vote
Posted by rbubbly on 14/07/2009 - 13:29
