All Forum Comments
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on New W90 waterproof at 08/02/2010 - 10:40
I come up as the number 1 result.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Where in the world are you? at 08/02/2010 - 10:27
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on 'Ere - where's our George got to? at 07/02/2010 - 19:49
It would be possible to use 3 X AF540FGZ flashes with this device. 1 hot shoe mounted and set as wireless master, 2 fixed to the O-rig set as wireless slave. That's a combined GN of 162, 10 times the available light output of Pentax's AF160FC ring flash. Awesome.
Max. Loading (flash weight): 2 x 230g (included batteries)
So I think the 540 is probably way too heavy to have a pair of them mounted.
Also, like Barrie, I would think the flash heads would be too far away from the lens to be effective at macro distances, but I could be wrong. I suppose with the Sigma 180mm it might be perfect. It will be interesting to see how you get on with it Peter.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on THE O BRACKET at 06/02/2010 - 16:09
Why don't you use the 12-24mm Mike?
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Least used, but difficult to part with ? at 30/01/2010 - 23:37
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Weekly Competition # 134 "Size Contrast" at 30/01/2010 - 23:00
I had a nice day up there, speaking to several potential customers, and playing with various lenses I haven't had the chance to before, including the 17-70, 50-135, 100mm WR macro (there's not a lot of places with stock around these parts)...
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Pentax Day at LCE Colchester , 30th January at 30/01/2010 - 19:34
Well I'm certainly glad I don't collect lenses
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on A very rare takumar on ebay at 30/01/2010 - 00:21
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Pentax Day at LCE Colchester , 30th January at 30/01/2010 - 00:19
135/2.5 = 54mm
So assuming there has to be a certain amount of space around that for the blades to fold back into then I'd imagine the barrel would have to be around 65mm minimum at the aperture point. I wouldn't say that a 58mm front element ruled out a f/2.5 aperture - on this particular lens the body is wider than the front so f/2.5 is plausible but space must be tight in there!
I'm thinking specifically of my old Tamron 300mm f/2.8, where the physical aperture can have been only about 60mm at most, but looking down the lens it appeared much bigger than that. The filter thread however was 112mm I think.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Real max aperture of Pentax 135mm f2.5? at 29/01/2010 - 16:21
Dan