I used the number one tube and was able to get some good tight shots of ducks. I'm not sure how close to infinity I was on the focus. I can check it out this evening and see where it's at for a head shot. I too wish I could afford the new 300, but it's simply out of my range at the moment. However, the older lens is very sharp and quite useful. Paul
Bruce Dayton wrote: > Paul, > > I took my 80-200 f/2.8 zoom out today and zoomed to 150mm and then > manually focused at 6ft and then at 16ft. There is quite a > difference! Did you put tube #1 or #2 on for your shoot? I would > like to be able to get a headshot of a person with it. What do you > think? Also, with the tube in place how far towards infinity can you > focus? > > Based on capabilities, the much closer focusing plus tripod collar > seem very worthwhile on the new 300. However, the price is > significantly higher - not sure if it is justifiable or not. Mostly > it would depend on how workable the tube is. I wish I could try one > somewhere. > > Bruce Dayton > > Monday, March 11, 2002, 6:53:06 PM, you wrote: > > PS> I'm not JCO, but I've been using my 300/4 with and without an extension > PS> tube. It's the newest version of the old lens. I shot some ducks on a pond > PS> last weekend with the short extension tube in place. I was able to get them > PS> close to full frame. My PUG entry for this month was shot with the 300/4, > PS> handheld with ISO 100 film. > PS> Paul > > PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: > > >> JCO, > >> > >> I am thinking about some longer glass for the 67. My current longest > >> is 165. I would like more reach, but would also like it to be > >> handholdable or monopodable (new words?). What has been your > >> experience with the 300? I know there is an old and new version. My > >> understanding is the new version focuses much closer, but weighs more > >> and costs lots more. Have you tried using the 300 with an extension > >> tube to bring the focus closer than 16 feet? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bruce Dayton > >> > >> Sunday, March 10, 2002, 9:55:13 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> >> You can get some 67 stuff reasonably priced by going used. I believe > >> >> JCO has done pretty well that way. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Bruce Dayton > >> >> > >> JCOC> Definately. > >> JCOC> I bought 67 body, prism, grip, ext. tubes, > >> JCOC> strap, and 8 lenses 45,55,75,90LS,105,135,200, > >> JCOC> 300. Total outlay $4000. Everything is is > >> JCOC> excellent to mint shape. Cost would have been > >> JCOC> WAY more if I had gone all new....Believe me > >> JCOC> I have spent alot more on screwmount 35mm, probably > >> JCOC> $10K in bodies and lenses combined. But then again > >> JCOC> I have nearly 30 DIFFERENT screwmount lenses and > >> JCOC> about a dozen bodies. I like having BOTH P67 and > >> JCOC> 35mm. Different animals for different jobs. Getting > >> JCOC> truly excellent results from 35mm is much tougher > >> JCOC> than with the P67, but the challange makes it fun. > >> JCOC> Pentax Screwmount 35mm and P67 RULES!!! PS, I got > >> JCOC> about half of the 35mm stuff and ALL of the P67 > >> JCOC> stuff though ebay. > >> JCOC> JCO > >> - > >> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > >> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > >> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > PS> - > PS> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > PS> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > PS> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
