Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
On 9/30/05, Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: . > > Well, the lens certainly helps. > Don't be modest... -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
Bob Sullivan wrote: Terriffic gallery Doug! If I thought it was just the lens, I'd be ordering now... :-) Regards, Bob S. Well, the lens certainly helps. Thanks, Doug
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
I use my A35/2 on the DS as its normal lens. The results are actually better with digital than with film. Collin KC8TKA mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
Terriffic gallery Doug! If I thought it was just the lens, I'd be ordering now... :-) Regards, Bob S. On 9/29/05, Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is another little gallery shot entirely with the FA35/2AL on the > *istD: > > http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm > > It is by far my favorite lens, and I've some good ones. > > Doug > > On Sep 29, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Erickson wrote: > > > All, > > I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby > > pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've > > been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I > > like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits > > and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. > > I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 > > lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will > > be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a > > number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the > > FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the > > 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > > > > >
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
Here is another little gallery shot entirely with the FA35/2AL on the *istD: http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm It is by far my favorite lens, and I've some good ones. Doug On Sep 29, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Erickson wrote: All, I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
- Original Message - From: "Mark Erickson" Subject: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. The 35 is a longish standard, and is a focal length I quite like on the digital. For me, the standard lens is my workhorse focal length. The perspective is what it is. I find it pretty useful, but thats just me. I've never used a 43, but have both of the other two you mention, as well as the A 35/2. All of them are very good optics. Esthetically, the black 31 is most pleasing. William Robb
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
I've always liked my Normal lenses on the longish side, I really like the AOV of the 55mm on 35mm more than a 50mm. I find the 43mm to be just a tad long on the *ist-d but good enough for most purposes. Mark Erickson wrote: All, I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
On Sep 29, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Mark Erickson wrote: I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. The FA35/2 AL is a near-perfect normal lens, equivalent in FOV to a 50mm on a film SLR. I like it a lot ... It, the FA20-35 and the FA50/1.4 have become my most used lenses. The FA35/2 is the sharpest of them, particularly wide-open. I had the FA31 Ltd and, while I loved the imaging quality, I found it heavy and a bit awkward in use. I sold it to Tom C, who seems to be happy with it. Godfrey
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
I love the FA 35/2 on the *istD. It's my "normal" lens. I shot this little BW gallery using only that lens: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=528625 Paul On Sep 29, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Erickson wrote: All, I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Did you like the 50 on 35mm? Kostas :-) That's my problem--I don't have enough recent experience to really say one way or the other. Before I got my *ist-Ds I was doing a fair amount of landscape and urban architecture photography with a Rolleiflex and a Galvin 6x9 view camera. The Rolleiflex (a 3.5E with a 75mm lens) is slightly wide, I was using a moderately long lens (a recent-vintage 150mm Schneider Xenar). That's all a whole different all of wax compared to people pics with the *ist-Ds --Mark
Re: 35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Mark Erickson wrote: I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. Did you like the 50 on 35mm? Kostas :-)
35mm F2.0 for *ist-Ds
All, I have a *ist-Ds that I've been using a lot for family and baby pictures. Rather than use the 18-55 I got with the camera, I've been shooting with either my FA 50mm F1.7 or my FA* 24mm F2.0. I like the slightly long perspective with the 50mm lens for portraits and the 24mm does nice duty as a moderate wide-angle lens. I've been thinking about splitting the difference with a 35mm F2.0 lens, but I'm a little concerned that that normal perspective will be neither wide enough nor long enough. That said, I see that a number of folks on the list shoot with lenses like the 31 Ltd, the FA 35, or the 43 Ltd. Any thoughts and input on the utility of the 35mm lens with various subjects would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark
