All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on New to DSLR Buying advice required please. at 27/05/2010 - 15:36
MrCynical wrote:
Basically (and I'm cribbing from that other thread here!) with QS lenses the focus ring is not actually directly connected to the lens elements. Instead it turns them via a clutch as intermediary (the same reason AF doesn't turn the focus ring - the AF motor has no physical connection to the focus ring). When the lens reaches one of the focus limits the clutch disconnects and so the focus ring can keep turning (whereas it wouldn't, for example, on an FA or DA-L lens if I understand this right).
Sorry David that isn't fully correct.Anvh wrote:
From what I know it only does that with lenses where the focus ring does not turn when using auto-focus, the DA*50-135 is for example also such a lens maybe your DA*300 as well?
It's because of quickshift - none of the QS lenses have their focus rings turn during AF, so what you said is also correct From what I know it only does that with lenses where the focus ring does not turn when using auto-focus, the DA*50-135 is for example also such a lens maybe your DA*300 as well?
Basically (and I'm cribbing from that other thread here!) with QS lenses the focus ring is not actually directly connected to the lens elements. Instead it turns them via a clutch as intermediary (the same reason AF doesn't turn the focus ring - the AF motor has no physical connection to the focus ring). When the lens reaches one of the focus limits the clutch disconnects and so the focus ring can keep turning (whereas it wouldn't, for example, on an FA or DA-L lens if I understand this right).
You've the DA 18-55 Mark II and that one has quickshift but it doesn't have a slipping focus ring.
I've the DA40 that also doesn't have a slipping focus ring and I've seen the DA70 doesn't do it either.
It's also logical that the focus ring turn during auto-focus because the focus distances are marked on the ring so if they didn't turn the focus wouldn't match up
The DFA100 has a little window where the focus distance is shown, the same is true with the DA*50-135 and since I have that lens I can confirm it slips.
These lens also have a window for focus distance so I suspect they also slip; DA14, DA*16-50, DA*60-250, DA*55, DA*200, DA*300 & DFA 50 Macro.
The rest of the lenses have focus distance on the focus ring so I don't think they slip.
Comment by Anvh posted on Pentax D-FA 100mm Macro - problem? at 27/05/2010 - 15:31
Seems there is little to do then to get the lens
@Peter, I'm also for primes but they are simply not handy always, I would now have a sold range with 2 zooms (16-50, 50-135) so that would give me a lens that I could use in most situations. I'm still hoping to get the limited series complete on day but for now at least I can keep on going. It would also be very useful for the 3 year photography study I'm hoping to start over some months.
@Peter, I'm also for primes but they are simply not handy always, I would now have a sold range with 2 zooms (16-50, 50-135) so that would give me a lens that I could use in most situations. I'm still hoping to get the limited series complete on day but for now at least I can keep on going. It would also be very useful for the 3 year photography study I'm hoping to start over some months.
Comment by Anvh posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 27/05/2010 - 15:25
smegg wrote:
Thanks guys for spotting that - hope it will be as enjoyable as my 50mm
Did you bought?Thanks guys for spotting that - hope it will be as enjoyable as my 50mm
It seems quite a lot were interested in the end.
24mm is a quite useful focal length I believe at least it will most likely find a spot inside your bag.
Comment by Anvh posted on wide primes? at 27/05/2010 - 15:18
Mannesty wrote:
Yes and that has happend.Anvh wrote:
With 18cm it would be 1:5,31 with 18,5cm it would be 1:5,53 sadly not much macro but close enough
24mm you only need a small extension tube or reverse mount it and you can get very close.
Should this be measured from the film/sensor plane?With 18cm it would be 1:5,31 with 18,5cm it would be 1:5,53 sadly not much macro but close enough
24mm you only need a small extension tube or reverse mount it and you can get very close.
Lets be optimistic so the dof is at 14cm in the photo and 45mm was added to that and that this the register of the mount brining it to 18,5cm
Is it now correct or not?
Comment by Anvh posted on 24mm PK-A Macro at 27/05/2010 - 15:17
Thank you James, I'll do my best but I never had myself high in my mind but your comments that I do have some style is great to read for me . I just need to believe I can do it but I think I need to be critical though since that's pushing me along to do my best.
Wadna, at least you confirmed what someone else said nothing wrong with that
btw, when you read a comment of someone else you see on the end a read text that says "Quote this post" if you do that you got that post nicely in a white frame inside the comment you're writing. like this.
@ Yves & James - the discussing finally went on it seems it has to do with the viewing distance of the print, it the most natural to have the photo taken at the same distance as the print would be viewed it seems.
So a wide angle can be done as long as the print is large or you stand very close to it, it would appear quite alright.
Does that sound plausible or not?
It did sound quite correct in my ears
Wadna, at least you confirmed what someone else said nothing wrong with that
btw, when you read a comment of someone else you see on the end a read text that says "Quote this post" if you do that you got that post nicely in a white frame inside the comment you're writing. like this.
wadna wrote:
"wadna wrote:
The other advantage of longer lenses which, in a quick scan of the thread, I haven't seen mentioned is the ability to throw annoying/distracting backgrounds out of focus & limit the area of BG showing.
Thank you Ian, one named this under the word isolate the model. I believe you two mean the same and this was indeed an aspect I didn't thought about but is certainly true."
Indeed we do mean the same thing. My quick scan missed that one.
Regards, Ian.
It saves some time copy and pasting "wadna wrote:
The other advantage of longer lenses which, in a quick scan of the thread, I haven't seen mentioned is the ability to throw annoying/distracting backgrounds out of focus & limit the area of BG showing.
Thank you Ian, one named this under the word isolate the model. I believe you two mean the same and this was indeed an aspect I didn't thought about but is certainly true."
Indeed we do mean the same thing. My quick scan missed that one.
Regards, Ian.
@ Yves & James - the discussing finally went on it seems it has to do with the viewing distance of the print, it the most natural to have the photo taken at the same distance as the print would be viewed it seems.
So a wide angle can be done as long as the print is large or you stand very close to it, it would appear quite alright.
Does that sound plausible or not?
It did sound quite correct in my ears
Comment by Anvh posted on Best focal length for portrait at 27/05/2010 - 15:12
puma wrote:
i have just got the Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited and its superb for close up long and great for portraits and its sharp
Strange focal length isn't it?i have just got the Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited and its superb for close up long and great for portraits and its sharp
Comment by Anvh posted on Best focal length for portrait at 26/05/2010 - 23:40
Daniel Bridge wrote:
I think the way the way the focus ring keeps moving is something to do with the quick-shift, but I could be wrong.
From what I know it only does that with lenses where the focus ring does not turn when using auto-focus, the DA*50-135 is for example also such a lens maybe your DA*300 as well?I think the way the way the focus ring keeps moving is something to do with the quick-shift, but I could be wrong.
Comment by Anvh posted on Pentax D-FA 100mm Macro - problem? at 26/05/2010 - 23:16
I was talking about the front window, that's round. I believe non of the spitfires had that. Just looked up some photos of various models and couldn't find one at least.
Could the seafire also fold her wings or not?
Could the seafire also fold her wings or not?
Comment by Anvh posted on Warbirds at North Weald at 26/05/2010 - 23:09
Thank you Yves, didn't knew that and indeed that would be a reason to go for a Pentax lens for me.
I do use AF but I dont rely on it to get it right so well a lost of the times I use the quick-shift to get the focus where I want it and that's one of the reasons I really want quick-shift. If the lens would focus the others way than that's also a bit problematic since it's mostly one of a lifetime shots, nothing critical but still.
I do use AF but I dont rely on it to get it right so well a lost of the times I use the quick-shift to get the focus where I want it and that's one of the reasons I really want quick-shift. If the lens would focus the others way than that's also a bit problematic since it's mostly one of a lifetime shots, nothing critical but still.
Comment by Anvh posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 26/05/2010 - 22:48
Thanks for the advice and opions everybody.
For once I'm looking forward to shopping!