Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Optimist. At 12:33 PM 8/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: >I'd like to have one of those! If only to enhance the >aesthetics of my PZ-1p. ;-) > >Len >--- > >- Original Message - >From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:21 PM >Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > > > > Of course not, Len! You must be aware of that that Pentax >manufactures > > black FA43/1.9's only to enhance image quality. > > > > Peter >- >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 .
RE: Lenses in the field
At 11:51 AM 8/13/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Peter, > >The focal range you mention works out well. The 135 would probably not get >used as much, in my opinion. I tend to carry the longer focal lengths but >find their use is minimal in my case. Sorry this is a bit delayed but I was out-of-town this week. You're right that the 135 would not get a lot of use but, when I was at the Parthenon, the moon happened to make a daytime appearance coming up between two of the pillars. The longest I had with me was 100mm. I would have killed for something that would have made the moon look larger. Gary J. Sibio - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Well, at least I'm not the only one. Some quotes from Stan's site regarding various lenses: Paul Stregevsky - And it feels oh so nice in the hand. . . Paul Stenquist - The focus feel and aperture ring movement are very nice. Mike Wilson - Feels good when it is new... Ralf - manual focus feel is very good. David A. Mann - The manual focussing feel is really nice. This lens just looks too weird on the Z-1p but it suits my chrome K2 pretty well. . . Adding filters makes it look even stranger Fred - . . . Not counting its silver or chrome color (which I still can't get used to, though I guess I've now stopped trying), George Stanley - This is purely subjective-- but I like the feel and handling of this lens. I enjoy using it! Bruce Dayton - . I have to agree . . . that it looks odd on the all black PZ-1p. Mark Roberts - . . . it's a beauty. Great optically of course, but the heft and "feel" of the thing is just unsurpassed. . . . . Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
I'd like to have one of those! If only to enhance the aesthetics of my PZ-1p. ;-) Len --- - Original Message - From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > Of course not, Len! You must be aware of that that Pentax manufactures > black FA43/1.9's only to enhance image quality. > > Peter - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Of course not, Len! You must be aware of that that Pentax manufactures black FA43/1.9's only to enhance image quality. Peter >The oddness doesn't seem to hurt the sharpness of the images >taken with that particular combination but I understand that >it's the appearance that counts most. Right? > >Len >--- >- Original Message - >From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 2:25 AM >Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > > >> The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use >manually on an LX >> too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a >black body)? >- >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 . Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
> It's not the appearance that counts the most. It's the feel of > the focus ring. Amen. ;-) Fred - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
On 17 Aug 2002 at 10:41, Len Paris wrote: > Considering that I've heard all that stuff right here in the > PDML for years, it's no wonder I'm begining to spout the party > line. And, of course, you're right. It's not the appearance > that counts the most. It's the feel of the focus ring. > > What seems to count the least is the imaging performance. Agreed, however if its a complete bitch to use then you're hardly going to make it your number one image making optic :-) The focus ring on the "Pancake" is a real PITA Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Considering that I've heard all that stuff right here in the PDML for years, it's no wonder I'm begining to spout the party line. And, of course, you're right. It's not the appearance that counts the most. It's the feel of the focus ring. What seems to count the least is the imaging performance. Len --- - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Len Paris > Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > > > > The oddness doesn't seem to hurt the sharpness of the images > > taken with that particular combination but I understand that > > it's the appearance that counts most. Right? > > Hmmm, Len you seem to be trying to take over my position of PDML > Butthead > Of course appearance counts for something. Who wants to use ugly > equipment? > However, "it's the appearance that counts most" is a pretty > retarded statement, even for this group. > William Robb > - - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
- Original Message - From: Len Paris Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > The oddness doesn't seem to hurt the sharpness of the images > taken with that particular combination but I understand that > it's the appearance that counts most. Right? Hmmm, Len you seem to be trying to take over my position of PDML Butthead Of course appearance counts for something. Who wants to use ugly equipment? However, "it's the appearance that counts most" is a pretty retarded statement, even for this group. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
The oddness doesn't seem to hurt the sharpness of the images taken with that particular combination but I understand that it's the appearance that counts most. Right? Len --- - Original Message - From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 2:25 AM Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) > The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX > too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)? - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX >too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)? I don't have the LX anymore but I like it on my MX. :) regards, Alan Chan _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
On 17 Aug 2002 at 9:25, Peter Smekal wrote: > The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX > too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)? Well I don't know about joy but it's far more easy to use than the 40mm "Pancake" lens IMHO (I have both). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)? >>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so >>favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression? > >I had one. Personally, I don't like this lens too much for the fact that >it's focus ring is too thin. Never managed to grip the focus ring fast >enough without actually looked at it first. Compared to 50/1.4/1.7/2, >compact size is the only selling point imho. On the other hand, the FA43/1.9 >is a joy to use. > >regards, >Alan Chan Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8, 300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135 or 150. >> Stan, A very small kit if you used the M20/4, M40/2.8, M85/2, and M150/3.5. I've also used the back to back rear lens caps epoxied together to carry the 40 and 85 together for year. It is really compact. Regards, Bob S. - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>A nice slightly odd-ball kit I have tried is 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/2.8 macro, 85/1.8. >A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8, >300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135 >or 150. >Stan 150... 3.5? About your variation, Stan, I would suggest to pick the 85/2 because of filter size and too high a value for the 85/1.8 (if you drop it or anything else...). 85/2 is 200-300 bucks, the 85/1.8 is double that... Actually, the whole kit is rather expensive, as the 20 M goes for 300-400$ and the 40/2.8 for 100-150$. And I am sure you meant (in your dream) a 300/4*... that is still a comparatively heavy lens that will outweights all the others... 825g/800g. So what about the 20 M + 40 + 85/2 + 150/3.5 + T6-2X (for an occasionnal 300/7)? A bit over 2 pounds, less than a kilo (940g)! 3 pounds with a small MZ body. For my last outings, I found myself using 20/4 (M) + 40/2.8 + 85/2 and a LX. Everything fits in the small Lowe "Topload zoom 1". A spare films on each side of the body's lens. In the top part, a Minolta achromatic close-up lens (fits both 40 & 80 but I have to test these combinations), a YG filter and/or polarizer, and a bubble level. A bubble level? With a wide-angle, if some water surface (a lake, a river) is not level, the result will give the viewer a strange unbalanced feeling. I put the level on, finalize what I want and check the level. It is usually fine, but maybe 25% of the time I have to correct it. The corrected photo might have to be recomposed a bit. In fact it is usually quite easy to do it without a level, but not always for some reason. Sometimes strong elements in the picture seem to create a diversion. Andre -- - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
> From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2) [In reference to the 40mm lens] > It's a perfect match for MX or ME-S. I use it with MX and love it. Very > sharp. Very natural field of view -- a perfect small walkaround (or, in > my case, bikearound) "1 lens + 1 body" kit. > > Mishka I agree - the 40mm is a nice little lens, good in all respects except for a bit of a fiddle to focus without planting a large fingerprint on the lens surface. A nice slightly odd-ball kit I have tried is 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/2.8 macro, 85/1.8. Add a 1.4x or a 2x converter and you have most contingencies covered. Substitute a 50/1.4 and a couple of extension rings for the 50/2.8 macro and you have given yourself a bit more dim-light capability. Note that all of the lenses I have mentioned are small and reasonably light. To carry them more easily, I have epoxied several pairs of rear lens caps back to back. A 30mm + 85mm takes up less room in a camera bag or jacket pocket than a 28-105. A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8, 300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135 or 150. Stan - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so >favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression? The "newer" comments say "I don't know why this lens is said to be a so-so performer, etc..." There must have been one "so-so" comment that have gone a long way. It is a fine lens for most purposes. As all Tessar formula, you have to stop down a bit to get sharp corners. This lens is SO small. Not easy to handle especially if you have big hands. Personnaly, I would keep the 50mm. You're not climbing high mountains... Andre -- - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so >favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression? I had one. Personally, I don't like this lens too much for the fact that it's focus ring is too thin. Never managed to grip the focus ring fast enough without actually looked at it first. Compared to 50/1.4/1.7/2, compact size is the only selling point imho. On the other hand, the FA43/1.9 is a joy to use. regards, Alan Chan _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>What is your experience. Would one lack the 50mm when taking a 24-35-85 >combo? And in what situations? Not for me. Besides, there are always some holes when using a set of primes. 24/35/85 looks ok to me. regards, Alan Chan _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Any suggestions as to brands or so for such a flash, Andre? I have an old Braun 260BC that still works. It's not LX-dedicated, but should work together with it in its automatic mode. That would not be TTL though, but as a "life saver" ... it might work. >And think about a tiny & powerfull (20GN) flash that takes only 2AA >bateries. It could "save your life" a few times, at night or in a >dark room. Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Sorry this reply is rather late - I could receive and read the PDML while in Oslo, but could not post (or send any email) for various reasons >Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to >Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some >photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) >but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. >The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old >primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom >you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? >Flash or winder? If I'm travelling light I would not take a tripod at all. I haven't had one while travelling in Norway recently, and I didn't miss it. In fact when visiting the Kon-Tiki museum, I photographed Thor Heyerdhal's boat (sorry about the atrocious spelling Jostein ;-) using the LX and Tokina 17mm, and boy was it dark in there. I went to floor level, popped the FA-1 off and used the exposed focussing screen to compose, resting the camera on the floor and against a railing so that it was tilting backwards, looking up at the Kon-Tiki. Stopped down to f/8 or so and braced the camera. The exposure was in the order of 3 or 4 seconds, and the LX comes into it's own! The fact that I had in my backpack a table-top tripod (bendy-leg type) is of no concern. The fact that I completely forgot it was there, is. The words 'memory' and 'none' spring to mind... Actually I do not believe that there is such a thing as 'travelling light'. I think that you travel with the amount of gear that you think you will need. At least, I do. For my Oslo trip, I had LX body + drive 17mm 28-70 2.6 70-200 2.8 AF280T Rangefinder + 40mm I used everything. The lens I used least was the 70-200. The lens I used most was the 28-70, and usually at either 28 or at 70, so in my case would I have been better off taking a 28 and my beloved 85mm? I think not. The 28-70 is (for me) a good focal range and the Tokina (which I have) is a good performer. The camera I used most was the LX. The rangefinder got a good look-in doing some street stuff in Oslo (the outdoor city-centre 'Earth From the Sky' exhibition is superb...and free!). I only used the AF280T on a mountainous train-ride as fill flash shooting kid's faces as we rode (some presents for my host, Jostein) - I suspected there would be such an occasion and hence the only reason I brought the flash. I actually didn't have the flash with me when visiting the Kon-Tiki or I would have used it there also. But then, if I didn't think I would have been shooting those indoor train passengers, I may not have brought the flash. As it was, all the kit went in a LowePro along with a PowerBook plus various bits - and *that* is a fair weight. But for photo-touring, the Mac stayed put. Again, I think I took with me what I thought I would use, and it did get used. In your case, you are asking is it better to go with the zoom or the primes. I would say take the primes. The zoom is less weight, but the primes will beat it for quality IMO. 35-105 at f/3.5? How can you focus with that? 24 and 85 are a great match. I wouldn't bother with the 135mm - just move a bit closer with the 85! While in Norway I had a chance to use Jostein's FA 20 f/2.8 which was a great joy. I was not impressed with the build quality, but the image looked fantastic in the finder. It will beat my Tokina 17 (old-style) readily, and 17 is little improvement on 20. I would consider such a lens, although I would prefer the A 20mm perhaps for a sturdier feel in the construction? Sorry this turned out to be so long. The lights of the city are spread out before me, a twinkling carpet on a hot summer's eve. It's late and I'm last to bed. It seemed a good time to sit and write, especially as the Perseids are not playing ball with us tonight (13th August). I need to find out who to write to complain to about this - perhaps the Norwegian Museum of Stars (well they have a museum for everything else, so why not... :-) Hope you have a good trip and go with your gut instinct! Cheers, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
You might need the 1.4 of your 50mm lens. Another combo is 24-40-85. The 40mm (actually it is a 41/42mm) is very small, 2.8 like the 35mm. It can be found for less than 100$ sometimes, but usually not... And think about a tiny & powerfull (20GN) flash that takes only 2AA bateries. It could "save your life" a few times, at night or in a dark room. Andre >Thanks once more all good advices. A follow-upp question: >A few recommended a 35mm lense as an allround/workhorse lense - rather than >a 50mm as far I understood. I have no 35mm, but could of course try to get >one - in Sweden some 2.8's in good condition are not too difficult to find. >What is your experience. Would one lack the 50mm when taking a 24-35-85 >combo? And in what situations? > >Peter Smekal >Uppsala, Sweden >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >- >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 .
Re: Lenses in the field (2)
Hi, On 15 Aug 2002 at 15:01, Peter Smekal wrote: > A few recommended a 35mm lense as an allround/workhorse lense - rather than > a 50mm as far I understood. I have no 35mm, but could of course try to get > one - in Sweden some 2.8's in good condition are not too difficult to find. > What is your experience. Would one lack the 50mm when taking a 24-35-85 > combo? And in what situations? Last time I packed 24/2.8, 35/2 and 100/2.8. (A 85/2 could be a better choice, but unfortunately I haven't got one.) About 80% of the pictures were taken with the 35. I didn't lack my 50/1.4 a single time. A 35/2.8? Maybe I could do with it too. BUT: That extra stop seems to be important to have on a "normal" lens. Even F2 isn't too fast... Gabor - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
On 14 Aug 2002 at 10:16, Keith Whaley wrote: > Thank you Rob. May I then assume the true macro has a limited range, > and will not go to infinity? > I have used ordinary lenses that incorporate the lens motion to > encompass a macro range, and do rather well, but have never owned a > true macro lens. > For me that would be an excess, as the poor thing would sit idle for > weeks at a time. Hi Keith, I haven't owned a dedicated Macro lens that won't focus to infinity and most seem to be better performers at infinity when compared to non-Macro lenses of similar focal length and speed. However I would assume that most are performance optimised for close distances much some like enlarging lenses are optimised for a limited range of working distances or magnifications. Unfortunately Pentax provides very little technical information on its lenses, if you are interested comparing lenses the Carl Zeiss site has detailed down- loadable pdfs for each of its Contax SLR lenses. The pdf files for the macro lenses are quite detailed and provide MTF curves for infinity and closer magnifications. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Thank you Rob. May I then assume the true macro has a limited range, and will not go to infinity? I have used ordinary lenses that incorporate the lens motion to encompass a macro range, and do rather well, but have never owned a true macro lens. For me that would be an excess, as the poor thing would sit idle for weeks at a time. Thanks for the answer, keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 14 Aug 2002 at 4:22, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Good morning, Peter, > > > > What distinction do you hang on the word "true," in "true macro." > > Must be a subtlety there that I'm not aware of. Or, more > > likely, I've forgotten it's accepted meaning. > > Hi Keith, > > Of course I'm not Peter but I assume that he meant (as I read) as vs a > dedicated macro lens i.e. one specifically designed for close focus with a flat > focus field, excellent sharpness, great contrast and very little geometric > distortion? > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
I would consider either a 20-35 or 28-70 plus a 100mm macro. The 20-35 is great for interiors but that leaves quite a gap between 35 and 100. Perhaps the 20-35, 50 (or 43) and the 100 macro. Patrick _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Oh my! What a difference! And I thought the lenses for my Retina Reflex III were overly large... keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 14 Aug 2002 at 7:51, Bob Walkden wrote: > > > I have 2 35/1.4s - one by Leica, the other by Carl Zeiss and it's a > > lesson in the differences between RF and SLR lenses to put them side > > by side. The Leica is tiny, the CZ is enormous. > > And just to illustrate Bob's point (as I had the same combo): > > http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/35ASPHlux-m_vs_CZ35f1.4_top.jpg > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Good morning, Peter, What distinction do you hang on the word "true," in "true macro." Must be a subtlety there that I'm not aware of. Or, more likely, I've forgotten it's accepted meaning. Peter Smekal wrote: > > Thanks guys for all these very constructive ideas. > It seems to boil down to: > 24/2.8 + 85/2 + tripod. No 50/1.4, no 135/3.5, no winder. The flash I own > is the AF280T, and it seems it will have to stay at home too. > The only thing I have not been able to make up my mind about yet is the > 35-105 zoom. Of course it is rather heavy and big. It even looks that way. > Its definitely not unobtrusive. But I like it as a "walking-around lense". Seeems to me, if you plan to be taking photos not exactly related to your original quest, and you will be able to stand the weight and bulk, have at it! Having a lens with you with which you're totally familiar is always useful... Here's something to think about, however...if you've tested that zoom well enough to be quite satisfied with it's performance capabilities, maybe you don't really need that 85/2? If you're really reducing bulk... You will be sacrificing the f/2.0 speed of the 85, but if you can/will use the tripod, maybe even that doesn't matter. > And I like its "macro" capabilitites. Although it isn't "true macro" I've > used it many times to shoot interesting details, like door-knobs, coins, > stones, fruits, flowers etc ... > Can anyone talk me out of it? > > Peter Smekal > Uppsala, Sweden > [EMAIL PROTECTED] keith whaley Los Angeles - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Hi Bob, > John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s This isnt the same guy as off the LUG is it? > I could easily get by with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or similar. Now Pentax just have to get around to making a 35/1.4! This is probaly the only lense that i wish Pentax made, that they dont. Paul - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Hi, I usually carry 35/2 and something in the 80mm range. Although i often feel need for something wider than 35 and i usually opt for a 24mm. Even though i carry a lense in the 80mm range i rarely use it and the 35mm seems to cover most of my shots. If you have fast lenses then ditch the flash, unles you have a very small one just on the off chance you need it, you probaly dont need a winder also. Just adds weight. It all depends on your shooting style. The only lense i would definately not go with out is a fast 35mm. Paul - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:28 AM Subject: Re: Lenses in the field > Hi, > > as it 'appens, guys & gals, I have a book called "Visual Anthropology" > by John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s and has taught and > published widely on this very subject. The book was first published in > 1967 but mine is a 1992 edition, so it's not particularly out of date. > > He likes 28mm, 50mm and 85-100mm and seems to prefer speed over zooms. > Zooms in the 28-100mm range are his recommendation. > > This matches my own experience. Although I'm not an anthropologist by > any means I am interested in that general field and when I go abroad > I'm interested in photographing people and their culture, so I try to > take a sort-of very amateurish anthropological approach to what I'm > doing. I could easily get by with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or similar. > > I would take a small flash and a winder, but use the flash only when > absolutely, absolutely necessary. Collier recommends bounced flash for > its modelling effects. He also suggests using the open flash technique > if you're not sure that the flash or camera is reliable - presumably a > consideration after some time in the field. This technique means open > the shutter on 'B', fire the flash, close the shutter. I've used this > technique successfully myself, but with the LX and I let it decide when > to close the shutter. > > If you're not afraid of looking at other people's photos before you > go, I can recommend "A Greek Portfolio" by Costa Manos. > http://www.magnumphotos.com/Manos.html > > --- > > Bob > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 4:20:42 PM, you wrote: > > > Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to > > Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some > > photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) > > but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. > > The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old > > primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom > > you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? > > Flash or winder? > - > 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
On 13 Aug 2002 at 17:20, Peter Smekal wrote: > Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to > Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some > photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) > but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. The > question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old primes > (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom you own > (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? Flash or winder? Hi Peter, I've come in late but I tend to agree with a few of the other listers. I'd forget the zoom, winder, flash and 135mm and concentrate on fitting the other prime lenses in a neat little kit. You will need to go wide and if you want to capture the atmosphere inside houses or to use their natural light for candid portraiture then the faster lenses will be of most benefit. As long as you are prepared to swap films mid roll on occasion you'll be able to tackle a wide range of shooting conditions. Good luck should the trip take place :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Peter, I'd take the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 M, 85/2.0 M and a AF280T or AF200T with the LX. Do you have anything wider? I might consider a 28/3.5 K instead of the 24/2.8. And I might would love to try a 20/4 M with the 35-105/3.5 A as a kit. I'd leave the 135/3.5 at home for sure. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? Flash or winder? >> - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
When I'm traveling "light" I carry my MZ-S and three lenses, the FA*80-200, FA*24/2.0 and the K15/3.5. When I'm going "extra-light" I have an MX, FA28/2.8, 43/1.9 and 200/4.0. Then "ultra-light" would be an MX with either an M28/3.5 or the 43/1.9 Limited. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Lenses in the field
>Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to >Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some >photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) >but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. >The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old >primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom >you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? >Flash or winder? > >Peter Smekal >Uppsala, Sweden >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter, I have done all my anthropolical field trips in andean highlands and wanted of course a light kit. I had 2 bodies (Spotmatics, then MXs) because I was interested in black & white AND chromes, depending on the light. I kept a third body in town. Today, I would probably take only one body to save on weight as my knees are beginning to ask me favors. But I would still keep a spare body around. In Greece, you can always find a spare body in a big town (?), so I guess a spare body is to be considered only for the field stay if it's a remote place. I had 28mm, 50mm/55mm and 100mm macro. 28+normal combo would be used more than 80% of the time. The 100 macro almost only for macro shots. I think I was more after the relationship between elements of the landscape (villages, fields etc.). Non macro tele photos with the 100mm were always kind of abstract. I was not using it for portraits as I tended to take people in groups and also without cutting a part of their body (the posture speaks so much). 35-105mm? Hmm... It is fun to have a body + a small prime in hand or around the neck. Discreet (important for you) and light. If money is not a problem I would say, MZ-5n + 24-90mm. So, yes, you have a nice kit (I would also bring a 24mm the next time, I don't care for the gap between 24 and 50) but I would go for a 100 macro instead of the 85 & 135 OR I would leave the 135 (you won't use it a lot and it is a bit of an invasive tool with people) and find posibly a good 2X (to get an occasionnal 170mm f4) and a Minolta 49mm achromatic close-up lens No 1 (15$ used on eBay about once a month) for occasionnal close-ups with the 85mm or the 50mm. No winder! Weight! Small 200T flash with off-shoe TTL cable (the one that fits the hot shoe is better as it can be used with other bodies). And a small table tripod, there is an extremely light one for mountaineers, I don't remember the name. Of course without a real tripod, you need to pack some 400asa film also. I hope this might help you make your decisions. Andre -- - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Having just returned from a field trip to France (uhm... not quite
anthropological, but your description is very close to what I did
there), I found that a tripod, 24/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.5 was enough
for 99.9% of what I tried to shoot ("people, houses, interiors,
decorations, landscapes"). Ok, I have used 200/4 a few times. I had a
flash, but haven't neede it even once (since I had the tripod, and LX
sync is too slow to do daytime fill flash, at least too slow for me).
Now, the winder? Why?
Best,
Mishka
> From: Peter Smekal
> Subject: Lenses in the field
> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:02:32 -0700
>
> Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to
> Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do
some
> photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations,
> landscapes) but travel really light at the same time. You're taking
> an LX and a tripod.
> The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old
> primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the
> one zoom you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the
> previous?
> Flash or winder?
>
>
>
> Peter Smekal
> Uppsala, Sweden
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
-
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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
Hi, as it 'appens, guys & gals, I have a book called "Visual Anthropology" by John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s and has taught and published widely on this very subject. The book was first published in 1967 but mine is a 1992 edition, so it's not particularly out of date. He likes 28mm, 50mm and 85-100mm and seems to prefer speed over zooms. Zooms in the 28-100mm range are his recommendation. This matches my own experience. Although I'm not an anthropologist by any means I am interested in that general field and when I go abroad I'm interested in photographing people and their culture, so I try to take a sort-of very amateurish anthropological approach to what I'm doing. I could easily get by with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or similar. I would take a small flash and a winder, but use the flash only when absolutely, absolutely necessary. Collier recommends bounced flash for its modelling effects. He also suggests using the open flash technique if you're not sure that the flash or camera is reliable - presumably a consideration after some time in the field. This technique means open the shutter on 'B', fire the flash, close the shutter. I've used this technique successfully myself, but with the LX and I let it decide when to close the shutter. If you're not afraid of looking at other people's photos before you go, I can recommend "A Greek Portfolio" by Costa Manos. http://www.magnumphotos.com/Manos.html --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 4:20:42 PM, you wrote: > Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to > Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some > photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) > but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. > The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old > primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom > you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? > Flash or winder? - 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 .
Re: Lenses in the field
If I'm traveling really light, it would be my MZ-S with the 28-105 zoom and the AF360 flash. Probably would also leave the BG-10 grip on since AA batteries are easier to come by than CR-2s. Bill - Original Message - From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: Lenses in the field > Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to > Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some > photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) > but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. > The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old > primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom > you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? > Flash or winder? > > > > Peter Smekal > Uppsala, Sweden > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > 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 .
RE: Lenses in the field
Peter, The focal range you mention works out well. The 135 would probably not get used as much, in my opinion. I tend to carry the longer focal lengths but find their use is minimal in my case. I would rather use the faster primes over the zoom. This way you still have the ability to close the lens down and not be forced to shoot it wide open if the lighting gets poor. I can see the use for flash especially in the interiors. But then again with the zoom you would again be shooting wide open. So this again shows my preference for prime lenses. I really do not see a need for a winder. Mine gets used very little as a matter of fact. It is also less obtrusive without the winder. Experience-wise I have used a similar kit when travelling abroad to visit new places or an archaeological dig or two. My two cents, Cesar Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Peter Smekal Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:21 AM Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? Flash or winder? Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - 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 .
