All Forum Comments
I paid that for mine (on e-bay) early last year, It has a hair in the viewfinder which is why I got it cheap (not quite SRS excellent++ condition) even so it's proved to be an excellent bargain - worth every penny!
Comment by petrochemist posted on K100D +kit lens at 02/05/2011 - 19:39
I'm eagerly awaiting delivery of a UV transmitting filter (blocks visible). When that comes I hope I'll give it some use .
I do have standard UV filters for most (not quite all) my lenses, though I don't normally use them. The last time I was photographing near sea spray I didn't have one with me...
Sometimes I'd like to get a couple of camera bags big enough for all my kit, along with a Sherpa or two to carry it! Fortunately it's not too often I find I need something that's back at home.
I do have standard UV filters for most (not quite all) my lenses, though I don't normally use them. The last time I was photographing near sea spray I didn't have one with me...
Sometimes I'd like to get a couple of camera bags big enough for all my kit, along with a Sherpa or two to carry it! Fortunately it's not too often I find I need something that's back at home.
Comment by petrochemist posted on UV Filters at 28/04/2011 - 18:23
I think the Smugness is well justified.
Well done Kris!
Well done Kris!
Comment by petrochemist posted on Feeling a little pleased with myself at 20/04/2011 - 08:05
It certainly looks like a lovely spot, I'm rather tempted to stop of there on my way back from Knockhill in September (5th), it could even work out to be ideal for a lunch break. Not the ideal time for photography I know, but it's about 5 hours from home, so I'm not likely to get there otherwise.
Comment by petrochemist posted on Foxglove Covert Meet September 2011 at 20/04/2011 - 08:03
I thought the M50 only came in F/1.2 F/1.4 F/1.7 & F/2 variants, is there really a F/2.4?
If so a faster F/1.7 or F/2 should be available for very little (if MF & no Auto aperture) which would be an improvement.
The normal choice for portraits is of course a short telephoto, the slight flattening this gives being generally flattering. With the crop factor a 50mm is reasonably close to this, and the wide aperture helps with blurring out your background, as well as being better suited to low light levels generally seen indoors.
However I've got (distorted) outdoor portraits of my kids that I like at both 10mm & 300mm so in good light there's no harm in trying the other options
If so a faster F/1.7 or F/2 should be available for very little (if MF & no Auto aperture) which would be an improvement.
The normal choice for portraits is of course a short telephoto, the slight flattening this gives being generally flattering. With the crop factor a 50mm is reasonably close to this, and the wide aperture helps with blurring out your background, as well as being better suited to low light levels generally seen indoors.
However I've got (distorted) outdoor portraits of my kids that I like at both 10mm & 300mm so in good light there's no harm in trying the other options
Comment by petrochemist posted on Which lens would you use for portrait work? at 19/04/2011 - 22:16
PentaxExpert wrote:
Lovely, more pictures of flowers. At least these are dying off.
Don't worry PE in a few more months there'll not be many more to shoot Lovely, more pictures of flowers. At least these are dying off.
Great textures BTW Karl!
Comment by petrochemist posted on Dead Daffs at 17/04/2011 - 17:53
davex wrote:
IMHO, go for a macro lens, tubes and reversing rings are all very well in theory, if you want close ups of circuit boards,
Using above you will need lots of light + patience getting the focus spot on.
but am guessing you will want insects, butterflies etc?
Get a macro lens.
For these sort of subjects you need at least aperture control, and preferably auto focus to get close, then use quickshift to fine tune.
Once you have your macro lens you can then add the other bits if you need magnification.
Davex.
The circuit boards are actually one subject where the macro lens will perform better. With a standard lens the corners will focus on a slight diferent plane than the center, whilst this is usually tightly controlled with a macro lens.IMHO, go for a macro lens, tubes and reversing rings are all very well in theory, if you want close ups of circuit boards,
Using above you will need lots of light + patience getting the focus spot on.
but am guessing you will want insects, butterflies etc?
Get a macro lens.
For these sort of subjects you need at least aperture control, and preferably auto focus to get close, then use quickshift to fine tune.
Once you have your macro lens you can then add the other bits if you need magnification.
Davex.
Aperture control is still available with extension tubes, lens reversal & lens stacking though the first 2 will want an apperture ring on the lens.
None of my macro work has been done with AF & don't see it as any dissadvantage. The final focusing being done by subtle movement of the camera relative to the subject.
I've never found focusing with stacked lenses more difficult than using my macro lens alone, the amount of light you get it a function of the magnification (My 50mm f1.7 should actually give more light on extension tubes than my 100mm f3.5 macro lens at equivalent magnification).
Comment by petrochemist posted on Extension tubes or a second hand macro lens? at 15/04/2011 - 13:40
I've had a Sigma lens (second hand) that I'm convinced is a poor lens - Possibly due to a knock in it's earlier life, but there's no evidence of one - When I got it it filled the gap in my AF range between the DA18-55 and the F100-300 both of which give great results (unless I mess up).
The sigma really struggled to find a focus outside on a reasonably bright day, and has never given anything remotely as good as either of the others. Even my various MF supertelephoto/mirror lenses produce better images.
I've since got a DA50-200 to replace it which works fine, I don't know what I've done with the sigma but I wouldn't be happy selling it to some other poor fool.
Having seen numerous examples from the Bigma I know sigma can make excellent lenses, but it's left me somewhat wary of them.
Among my other lenses are some that have clearly been abused, but still produce quite reasonable images. I found a link today that gives an idea of just how badly a lens can be damaged & still give fairly reasonable results:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
The sigma really struggled to find a focus outside on a reasonably bright day, and has never given anything remotely as good as either of the others. Even my various MF supertelephoto/mirror lenses produce better images.
I've since got a DA50-200 to replace it which works fine, I don't know what I've done with the sigma but I wouldn't be happy selling it to some other poor fool.
Having seen numerous examples from the Bigma I know sigma can make excellent lenses, but it's left me somewhat wary of them.
Among my other lenses are some that have clearly been abused, but still produce quite reasonable images. I found a link today that gives an idea of just how badly a lens can be damaged & still give fairly reasonable results:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
Comment by petrochemist posted on How common are 'duff' lenses? at 13/04/2011 - 15:04
Jonathan-Mac wrote:
I´d say, on the whole, the differences are minor between 1.7 & 1.4, but they all have their own character. I´d say you´d gain little getting an A1.4 when you already have the better-built M variant. The A convenience is not all it´s cracked up to be, at least on older DSLRs, as metering is not very reliable anyway.
All AF lenses are useable with manual focus, but they don´t give anything like the pleasure of using a finely built, smooth-operating MF lens.
Thanks Jonathan perhaps your opinion will stop me looking for an A50-1.4 as they all seem to go out of my price bracket at the end I´d say, on the whole, the differences are minor between 1.7 & 1.4, but they all have their own character. I´d say you´d gain little getting an A1.4 when you already have the better-built M variant. The A convenience is not all it´s cracked up to be, at least on older DSLRs, as metering is not very reliable anyway.
All AF lenses are useable with manual focus, but they don´t give anything like the pleasure of using a finely built, smooth-operating MF lens.
[I've been lucky enough to grab a M50-1.4 at a good price, to add to the collection of old M&A 50 1.7s I've inherited]
I must admit there was a lot of satisfaction in using it without any metering a couple of weeks ago (several times my first guess looked ideal on the histogram, and the others wern't too far out). In a few months I might feel ready to see if my old Zenit can actually take photos!
Comment by petrochemist posted on 50mm lense choice at 11/04/2011 - 10:53
Brilliant Shots Algi, But that's never a sparrow!
Comment by petrochemist posted on Prime? at 06/04/2011 - 19:18
