I bought John Riley's 75-300 FAJ, and I've used it a lot. Much more at the long end than the short end (I used it at 300mm for the bee/flower shots on the other thread), and I've been very pleased with it.

The thing about having SR, digital and effectively a more telephoto angle of view (I know the focal lengths don't actually change) all in one package is that they make photographing distant objects a lot more accessible than before, so the longer lengths become more appealing.

I'd never in a million years have contemplated

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP2385-1b.jpg

with film, for instance.

So I think that unless you're already a landscape specialist, the longer focal lengths might become appealing quite quickly.

If 2nd hand is acceptable, the 75-300 FAJ comes up on eBay quite often.

Strongly agree with this. I loved my ME Super, enjoyed using it, was pleased with the results. But now I can't even imagine buying a film any more.

I have a bunch of P filters I was thinking of putting on eBay at some point.

80 : Incolor 1
027 : + 1/3 Warm (81B)
057 : Star 4
020 : +2 Blue (80A)
083 : Diffuser 1
084 : Diffuser 2

All in original cases and unscratched. There might be the odd fingerprint, but that's about it.

PM if interested.

One of my biggest regrets about going digital is that my ME Super is now gathering dust. It's worth practically nothing, I'll probably never use it again now, but it holds the imprint of so many memories, nearly 20 years worth. I think in all that time I replaced the battery maybe twice, and it never gave even a hint of unreliability. I dig it out from time to time, cock the shutter and fire it just to hear the noise it makes.

Makes your ears bleed, let alone weep.

Not sure the pictures he's published at Flickr are all that amazing, though. I think if I was going to boast of a kit list like that, I'd want some amazing photos to justify it...

There's hope for the rest of us yet, I think

If only it was possible to keep the things that you want to photograph stationary.

I took these in my garden recently:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP3654-1cr.jpg

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP3666.jpg

The bees were flitting around a lot, they were spending literally only a couple of seconds in each flower. I suppose with a tripod pointing at one flower I might have got one eventually, but the breeze was blowing them about quite a bit, so it would have been hit and miss even if a bee had arrived in the one I was pointing at. It was easier to follow the bees hand-held. I used the built-in flash to supplement the rather harsh daylight, and got a couple of decent captures out of the dozen or so I took.

The second one isn't bad, I think (comments gratefully received), but the first one really emphasises John's point about depth of field - the bee isn't sharp, although the buds are, and that spoils a shot that I'd otherwise be quite pleased with. The second one is better, I think, but I'd prefer it sharper still really.

I don't know how to do this, sadly.

Anyway, I've replaced the images; this time I was a bit more careful to not cut out stuff that shouldn't be.

Damn. Yes you're right, I've been a bit aggressive in the selections in places.

I'll see if I can do a better version later on tonight.

I'll pull it for now, thanks.

I took some pictures at a Ruby Wedding celebration at the weekend, and one of them ended up as this.

Thoughts?




A bigger version is at:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP4298-2-1050.jpg

I agree - I don't think you're pixel peeping. You might not notice it at full frame, but once you do, it's obvious and drives you nuts.

I had exactly this experience with a Sigma 400mm lens - I noticed the purple fringing at full frame (it was worse than this), and only then cropped to have a closer look.

I'd metered for the foreground, but there was a high contrast, light background just as in your example.

I never noticed PF before I went digital, and I don't think this is entirely accounted for by the fact that I crop more, and look more closely, at my digital photos than I ever did with film.

As Matt says, and as some of the various references suggest, it isn't just down to the lens.

There's an interesting article at

http://wiki.panotools.org/Chromatic_aberration

and another one at

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html

They don't answer all the questions, and you start to lose the will to live quite quickly once you start to try and work it all out. There's no simple answer, I suspect.

Could we see the whole frame from which the "Thomson bureau de change" crop is taken? Sized suitably, of course