Re: first question
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Stan Halpin wrote: Enjoy what you have, don't get too caught up in what you might like to buy sometime later, and you will do just fine with a 28/50/135 set of lenses. ...and perhaps a converter, as Stan said (or possibly the 1.7 AF, which will turn a cheap but good K or M or A 50/1.7 to a nice 85/2.8). Kostas p.s.: Width is addictive, but so is Length, I have found. And steer clear of K lenses, get one and you will want them all...
Re: first question
Like he said. But if you want more... 1. Any Pentax 50mm is good. If youwant 'portrait', add a Pentax or other good brand 1.4 telextender. 2. The M-100/2.8 is not all that common, but also not all that expensive. It might be a better length than the 135mm for portraits. 3. But 135/3.5 will give you a lot to work with. Only drawback is the need to get a bit further from your subject, requires shooting outdoors or in a relatively big space indoors which can also cause lighting problems. 4. Width, like length, can be addictive. 28mm is wide. We may lust for 24mm or 20mm or 19mm or 16mm or 14mm or even wider, but 28mm is adequately wide most of the time. Enjoy what you have, don't get too caught up in what you might like to buy sometime later, and you will do just fine with a 28/50/135 set of lenses. Stan On Aug 6, 2004, at 11:50 AM, graywolf wrote: You could not go far wrong with an M28/3.5 and an M135/3.5 as a starter outfit. Cheap, excellent optics. The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots, but then 1/2 length or more works will with your 50mm, thus only compromising on head and shoulder shots. The 28mm is a compromise between a 24 and a 35mm, meaning you can mostly use it where you would use either of them. Anyway millions of photographers have done excellent work with just those three lenses in their kits. Another posiblity to consider is to just work with that 50mm lens for awhile. There is a lot to learn, and limiting yourself until you have gotten most of it down pat is helpful. The late Henry Carter Bresson who has been the subject of several posts recently used just a 50mm most of the time (Whatever, I think of the hype surrounding him, his work certainly stands on its own). -- Paul McEvoy wrote: Hello there, I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly. But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent photographer too. I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and make some mistakes along the way with it. I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens. I read that I should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: first question
true but useless. you're assuming the same COC applies across all imaging element sizes. this isn't remotely true. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: RE: first question No need, how in the world can DOF change AFTER the image is already captured? It CANT. DOF is the relative sharpness of the foreground and background compared to the plane of focus. Enlarging or reducing an already captured image never changes that!
RE: first question
Please rephrase your comments. What is useless? And what exactly do you think I am assuming? All I said is you cant change the relative DOF in an image by enlarging or reducing it after the fact. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question true but useless. you're assuming the same COC applies across all imaging element sizes. this isn't remotely true. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: RE: first question No need, how in the world can DOF change AFTER the image is already captured? It CANT. DOF is the relative sharpness of the foreground and background compared to the plane of focus. Enlarging or reducing an already captured image never changes that!
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: first question Please rephrase your comments. What is useless? And what exactly do you think I am assuming? All I said is you cant change the relative DOF in an image by enlarging or reducing it after the fact. I think that the entire COC thing is fine in theory, but doesn't really make a lot of difference in practical terms. William Robb
Re: first question
Now that starts to make more sense. Not what you said originally though. Why not be honest and just admit you got it wrong first time round? Antonio On 8/8/04 5:20 am, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding. What both Bill Robb and I were saying is that if you take a photo from the same position with both the 24mm and the 100mm it will have the same perspective. Then if you blow up the photo from the 24mm so the subject is the same size in it as in the one from the 100mm and crop it so both are say 4x6 inch prints the images will be the same except the grain in the 24mm shot will be far more obvious. (Obviously that is not cropping in camera) I also said for the DOF to be exactly the same in those 4x6's you need to use the same aperture (f-stop is focal-length/aperture, so focal-length/f-stop is aperture). For instance f/2.0 with the 24mm is approximately a 1/2 inch aperture, so is f/8.0 with the 100mm. ONLY that is WRONG (muddy thinking on my part), because of the blowup of the 24mm shot, you have to factor the extra magnification into the equation. In this case it is 4x (100/24). Because of that magnification factor you would need the same f-stop. (DOF is determined by aperture and magnification) To recap, if you take the photos from the same position, with the same f-stop, and enlarge, and crop the photo taken with the shorter lens. The photos will be identical except for the problems caused by the higher magnification enlargement. However, if you took the photo with the 24mm from a distance where the subject appeared the same size as in the 100mm shot , say 5 feet and 20 feet (no extra magnification, or cropping) the apertures, not f-stops, would need to be the same for the same DOF. But then they would have different perspectives (as you said). Obviously, in this case you probably would not want to use a 24 in place of the 100. The quality cost would most likely be too high. But you might use your 50 as the loss would only be a 1/2x. If you, like I do, carry 24, 50, and 100mm lenses then the extra blowup of the enlargements can easily take the place of 35, 85, and 135mm lenses. Giving you the equivalent of 6 lenses with the weight and cost of only 3, as you still get to use about an APS size portion of the negative.
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 1:42 AM Subject: Re: first question Now that starts to make more sense. Not what you said originally though. Why not be honest and just admit you got it wrong first time round? Antonio It's exactly what he said first time around. I got it. A few others got it. Not his fault you are too goddamned stupid to actually read and assimilate a post before spewing forth your email vomit. You've done the same thing to me. Normally I just ignore it, and you. I refuse to talk baby talk just for your benefit. Most of us have pretty good comprehension. You should try it sometime (comprehension that is). I'll go back to ignoring you now. Regards William Robb On 8/8/04 5:20 am, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding. What both Bill Robb and I were saying is that if you take a photo from the same position with both the 24mm and the 100mm it will have the same perspective. Then if you blow up the photo from the 24mm so the subject is the same size in it as in the one from the 100mm and crop it so both are say 4x6 inch prints the images will be the same except the grain in the 24mm shot will be far more obvious. (Obviously that is not cropping in camera) I also said for the DOF to be exactly the same in those 4x6's you need to use the same aperture (f-stop is focal-length/aperture, so focal-length/f-stop is aperture). For instance f/2.0 with the 24mm is approximately a 1/2 inch aperture, so is f/8.0 with the 100mm. ONLY that is WRONG (muddy thinking on my part), because of the blowup of the 24mm shot, you have to factor the extra magnification into the equation. In this case it is 4x (100/24). Because of that magnification factor you would need the same f-stop. (DOF is determined by aperture and magnification) To recap, if you take the photos from the same position, with the same f-stop, and enlarge, and crop the photo taken with the shorter lens. The photos will be identical except for the problems caused by the higher magnification enlargement. However, if you took the photo with the 24mm from a distance where the subject appeared the same size as in the 100mm shot , say 5 feet and 20 feet (no extra magnification, or cropping) the apertures, not f-stops, would need to be the same for the same DOF. But then they would have different perspectives (as you said). Obviously, in this case you probably would not want to use a 24 in place of the 100. The quality cost would most likely be too high. But you might use your 50 as the loss would only be a 1/2x. If you, like I do, carry 24, 50, and 100mm lenses then the extra blowup of the enlargements can easily take the place of 35, 85, and 135mm lenses. Giving you the equivalent of 6 lenses with the weight and cost of only 3, as you still get to use about an APS size portion of the negative.
Re: first question
Thanks. Continuing education classes begin anew... graywolf wrote: OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding. No problem. I suspect we all have flaws in understanding, at times. That's what this dialog is all about. What both Bill Robb and I were saying is that if you take a photo from the same position with both the 24mm and the 100mm it will have the same perspective. Then if you blow up the photo from the 24mm so the subject is the same size in it as in the one from the 100mm and crop it so both are say 4x6 inch prints the images will be the same except the grain in the 24mm shot will be far more obvious. (Obviously that is not cropping in camera) I follow that. The only problem is, and this may be out of sequence, so far as where to put the question... but, what about the compression of the subject you get with increasingly longer lenses? When I say perspective that naturally (to me) includes this effect. One of our members, as I recall, took a tele shot down the length of the Santa Monica pier, and managed to get almost a dozen pedestrian gawkers in the frame. They looked as tho' they were bunched up, 2 or 3 feet apart, while they were probably 10 or 15 feet apart. I really don't know, so I must ask...if the first shot was taken with the 100mm lens and the second with the 24, and we go thru the same enlargement exercise, to bring all images to the same size, are you telling me that both photographs would display the same compression effect as I first noticed in the long lens image? It would seem they must, yet the answer doesn't yield to expectationsI'd think somehow the long lens image would still give you a comopression effect not present in the 24mm lens image, but can't explain why I think that. My brain tells me that both images should be identical. My feelings tell me, no, that dude's an idiot. Believe ME! These questions only come up for stuff I've never made an example of, and actually tested myself. Obviously I haven't. I've only posed the question to myself. And now posed it here... I also said for the DOF to be exactly the same in those 4x6's you need to use the same aperture (f-stop is focal-length/aperture, so focal-length/f-stop is aperture). For instance f/2.0 with the 24mm is approximately a 1/2 inch aperture, so is f/8.0 with the 100mm. A look at my 24, 100 and 105mm lenses reveals the following aperture sizes (roughly measured) calc. dia. in parentheses: With my FA*24mm f/2.0: f/2.0 was about 7/16 (12mm) With 100mm SMC Pentax-M f/2.8, and 105 SMC Tak f/2.8: f/4.0 was 15/16 (25mm), and f/8.0 was (12.5mm) diameter. Which says that the DOF is close to being the same between the 24mm @ f/2.0 and the 100mm at f/8.0. ONLY that is WRONG (muddy thinking on my part), because of the blowup of the 24mm shot, you have to factor the extra magnification into the equation. In this case it is 4x (100/24). Because of that magnification factor you would need the same f-stop. (DOF is determined by aperture and magnification) To recap, if you take the photos from the same position, with the same f-stop, and enlarge, and crop the photo taken with the shorter lens. The photos will be identical except for the problems caused by the higher magnification enlargement. Gotcha. However, if you took the photo with the 24mm from a distance where the subject appeared the same size as in the 100mm shot , say 5 feet and 20 feet (no extra magnification, or cropping) the apertures, not f-stops, would need to be the same for the same DOF. But then they would have different perspectives (as you said). Obviously, in this case you probably would not want to use a 24 in place of the 100. The quality cost would most likely be too high. But you might use your 50 as the loss would only be a 1/2x. If you, like I do, carry 24, 50, and 100mm lenses then the extra blowup of the enlargements can easily take the place of 35, 85, and 135mm lenses. Giving you the equivalent of 6 lenses with the weight and cost of only 3, as you still get to use about an APS size portion of the negative. Yeah, if I was still doing BW. I don't use a custom lab... but, I'm thinking of it, more and more. Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it. Cobwebs mostly cleared out! g keith
RE: first question
No need, how in the world can DOF change AFTER the image is already captured? It CANT. DOF is the relative sharpness of the foreground and background compared to the plane of focus. Enlarging or reducing an already captured image never changes that! JCO -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question Well, one of us is wrong. I suggest people try it out to find out which. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: DOF is solely dependent on CAPTURE magnification ratio and f-stop. If you shoot with a 24mm and a 100mm of the same object at the same distance and same f-stop, the 24mm image will have greater DOF than the 100mm image, EVEN IF you later blow it up to match the 100mm image size in a print. Enlarging the captured image after the fact has no effect on the DOF in an image! JCO -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding. What both Bill Robb and I were saying is that if you take a photo from the same position with both the 24mm and the 100mm it will have the same perspective. Then if you blow up the photo from the 24mm so the subject is the same size in it as in the one from the 100mm and crop it so both are say 4x6 inch prints the images will be the same except the grain in the 24mm shot will be far more obvious. (Obviously that is not cropping in camera) I also said for the DOF to be exactly the same in those 4x6's you need to use the same aperture (f-stop is focal-length/aperture, so focal-length/f-stop is aperture). For instance f/2.0 with the 24mm is approximately a 1/2 inch aperture, so is f/8.0 with the 100mm. ONLY that is WRONG (muddy thinking on my part), because of the blowup of the 24mm shot, you have to factor the extra magnification into the equation. In this case it is 4x (100/24). Because of that magnification factor you would need the same f-stop. (DOF is determined by aperture and magnification) To recap, if you take the photos from the same position, with the same f-stop, and enlarge, and crop the photo taken with the shorter lens. The photos will be identical except for the problems caused by the higher magnification enlargement. However, if you took the photo with the 24mm from a distance where the subject appeared the same size as in the 100mm shot , say 5 feet and 20 feet (no extra magnification, or cropping) the apertures, not f-stops, would need to be the same for the same DOF. But then they would have different perspectives (as you said). Obviously, in this case you probably would not want to use a 24 in place of the 100. The quality cost would most likely be too high. But you might use your 50 as the loss would only be a 1/2x. If you, like I do, carry 24, 50, and 100mm lenses then the extra blowup of the enlargements can easily take the place of 35, 85, and 135mm lenses. Giving you the equivalent of 6 lenses with the weight and cost of only 3, as you still get to use about an APS size portion of the negative. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: first question
Hello there, I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. Hi Paul and welcome. I have not read all the replies,but i have several K1000 cameras in the Lowepro and really like them. I used the 80-200 f 4.5-5.6 for a number of years and got great results from it. Its not overly expensive and should be worth checking out. I also have the SMC A 70-210 F4 which works well and does a decent job at macro to. I have the M 135 f 3.5 and find i dont mind that one for closeups. These cameras are little tank.I think you;ll like it. Dave Brooks www.caughtinmotion.com And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: first question The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 125/135mm lenses, portraiture included. I generally try to use the longest lens possible for portraits (within reason). One of the things I like about our new studio is that I can back off and use the 150mm lens (on 35mm) and do half lengths with it. William Robb
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: first question Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in portraits, being one of the reasons for using short telephotos for portraits, where you don't want too much DOF, like a perfectly sharp nose or ears. Jens, the post was regarding perspective. Short telephotos for portraits are to keep the subject from suffering from the wonky distortions that you get from shooting too close with a short lens (feature streatching). Try this: stand in the same place and shoot with a short lens, then change to a long lens, using the same aperture on both. Crop the picture from the short lens to match the view of that from the long one. See if they are all that different regarding perspective and depth of field. Hint: They won't be. Anyway, try it yourself. I already have. William Robb
Re: first question
Hi, if you do get a zoom for your K1000, do get one with constant aperture (that is, like 80-210/4, not 70-210/4-5.6). Otherwise, your exposure will change when you zoom, and you will have to forever adjust for it. Good light! fra
Re: first question
Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before. -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote: The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 125/135mm lenses, portraiture included. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: first question
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: first question
There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: first question
Keith, I think that Tom lost the artument regarding focal lengh and perspective/AOV some time ago and just keep arguing so as not to loose face, digging an ever deeper hole for himself. A. On 7/8/04 10:40 pm, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: first question
I see you have given up argument yet again Greywolf and feel somehow insult will win you the argument. A. On 7/8/04 11:08 pm, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: first question
Okay, okay...let's try to get rid of the paranoia, alright? No, I mean you... I suppose I could have just said, Huh? Whaddya mean? But, I tried to talk to what you said... Just assume I'm an old fart and sometimes just don't get it, if the comments are a bit obscure. I wasn't funnin' you. It's obvious (to you anyhow) that I really don't know what you're trying to say. I thought I might have explained how *I* view it, but that explanation was obviously way out in left field. If you still think I'm being a troll, just drop it, okay? keith graywolf wrote: There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored). Have fun. -- Keith Whaley wrote: I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop. If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that opening diameter, NOT the f-stop? Is that what you're saying? This is cropping in the camera while recording the image, yes? What will that give me? Let's say I take my 105 mm lens and my 24 mm lens, set both cameras at a 20 foot focal distance, for example, and make both lens openings the same, and you're saying the photos I record will be the same, except for magnification of the grain? What will be the same? The area covered? Certainly not. The image sizes will not be the same. A person's head in the 24 mm lens shot will end up being smaller on the film frame than it will on the 105 mm lens image. Taking that a step further, if I took a 100mm lens shot, and after changing lenses (to the 24 mm), walked up to the subject and had their head image size match the first shot, the image might be the same, but the perspective will certainly and most noticeably change. What will be the same, Tom? keith whaley graywolf wrote: Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into the frame from the distance you have to work in. As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate subject distance. We tend to be comfortable holding conversations at about a five-foot distance. So we like portraits to show faces from about that distance. Then we try to impose that upon people who come from cultures where the norm is to get right up close. For them 2-3 feet is comfortable. We reason our discomfort away with silly statements about perspective. But that is really displacement on our part. As an example we are usually quite comfortable with portraits from about 3 feet, if we know that person intimately. Humans are such strange animals. An aside about cropping wide angles v. short tels: Distance, and aperture being the same, the only difference in the photos will be grain magification. Note I said aperture, not f-stop. That experiment will I show something about DOF that I have tried to explain here before.
Re: first question
You could not go far wrong with an M28/3.5 and an M135/3.5 as a starter outfit. Cheap, excellent optics. The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots, but then 1/2 length or more works will with your 50mm, thus only compromising on head and shoulder shots. The 28mm is a compromise between a 24 and a 35mm, meaning you can mostly use it where you would use either of them. Anyway millions of photographers have done excellent work with just those three lenses in their kits. Another posiblity to consider is to just work with that 50mm lens for awhile. There is a lot to learn, and limiting yourself until you have gotten most of it down pat is helpful. The late Henry Carter Bresson who has been the subject of several posts recently used just a 50mm most of the time (Whatever, I think of the hype surrounding him, his work certainly stands on its own). -- Paul McEvoy wrote: Hello there, I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly. But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent photographer too. I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and make some mistakes along the way with it. I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens. I read that I should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: first question
You may search eBay for SMC-M 28/2.8, SMC-A 28/2.8, SMC-M 100/2.8, SMC-A 100/2.8, SMC-A 70-210/4. SMC-M 135/3.5 is good, cheap, and plentiful as well, but you may find the gap between 50mm and 135mm a little big. SMC-A 35-105/3.5 is a very good zoom worth to consider too. All these are common on eBay except the SMC-A 100/2.8. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly. But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent photographer too. I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and make some mistakes along the way with it. I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens. I read that I should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: first question
Hi Paul, and welcome to you. It sounds reasonable to me to use film for a trip like that. A 135mm is a fin e portrait lens for outdoor purposes. Indoo it's often to long - a 105 or 85 mm might be better there. For inddor a 24mm is good, cause you can frame all the people at the dinner table - a 28mm or 35 can't really do that. But for Outdoor use the 28mm or 35mm is fine. In the 1970'ies a 28mm or 35mm, a 50mm and a 135mm would be a fine standard outfit. Today it's more like a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm, perhaps supplemented by a 24mm and a 200mm along the way. So, the 80-200 zoom could be a very nice choise - perhaps along with a wideangle zoom 28-70 or 35-80mm - but I don't specificly know this 80-200mm lens. Others may. Have a nice trip, and be sure to post some shots when you get back. All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul McEvoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 18:19 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: first question Hello there, I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things out. It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly. But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent photographer too. I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and make some mistakes along the way with it. I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens. I read that I should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens? My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks Paul
RE: first question
First of all, thanks for the awesome help. Of course your help leads me to having other questions: Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8? Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And any to totally avoid? Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash? To answer Norm's questions 1) What's your price range? Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap. I'd like to make out under $400 for everything including tripod, case, etc. 2) Are you concerned about weight? I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day trips. So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be totally weight down. Again, thanks a million. Everybody had something useful to say. I do appreciate it. Paul
Re: first question
The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass. I don't know about 3rd party, don't use them, but you can get good 135mm and 28mm M series lenses pretty cheap. Norm Paul McEvoy wrote: First of all, thanks for the awesome help. Of course your help leads me to having other questions: Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8? Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And any to totally avoid? Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash? To answer Norm's questions 1) What's your price range? Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap. I'd like to make out under $400 for everything including tripod, case, etc. 2) Are you concerned about weight? I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day trips. So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be totally weight down. Again, thanks a million. Everybody had something useful to say. I do appreciate it. Paul
Re: first question
Hi, Paul McEvoy wrote: I'm new here Greetings. As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? Pentax used to make a 24-35 zoom. It's not fast and there is some distortion at wider angles but it is sublimely sharp. Should be available in user condition for about $70 - 100. I highly recommend it. For your longer lens, you could try one of the off brand makers such as Tamron, Tokina or Sigma. They all made manual focus, ~f2.5, 90~105mm macro lenses that should be available for the same price. You get two competences (mild telephoto and macro) for the one price. Good luck. mike
RE: first question
Third party a 100% recommendation?? Well, nothing is 100%, not even Pentax. They all make lenses for different purposes, or valids. So check out tests (i.e. www.photodo.com). But I kinda agree with Norm. But, anyway, I beleive I can recommend Tamrons (i.e. Adaptall mounts and especially SP ones), and Tokina (especially ATX-zooms) - as well as Kenko converters. If money is an big issue - why don't you buy a Pentax 105WR: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=626item=3829349944r d=1ssPageName=WDVW You may actually never notice the photographs were not made with an SLR. They are quite afforable at ebay - perhaps 50 USD. It's a brilliant camera for travelling - and it's water resistant. All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 20:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: first question The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass. I don't know about 3rd party, don't use them, but you can get good 135mm and 28mm M series lenses pretty cheap. Norm Paul McEvoy wrote: First of all, thanks for the awesome help. Of course your help leads me to having other questions: Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8? Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And any to totally avoid? Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash? To answer Norm's questions 1) What's your price range? Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap. I'd like to make out under $400 for everything including tripod, case, etc. 2) Are you concerned about weight? I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day trips. So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be totally weight down. Again, thanks a million. Everybody had something useful to say. I do appreciate it. Paul
Re: first question
should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal portrait lens range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of wide angle distortion of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 compresses the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally compressed in the facial features. If you are actually looking for a telephoto lens rather than a portrait lens, I might recommend a 200mm instead. They are cheap and plentiful. Pentax made a couple of 85s, all of which are a bit spendy and hard to find, to wit: 85mm f/1.8 SMC (K) which is very rare and sought after, thus expensive and hard to find. 85mm f/1.4 A* and 85mm f/1.4 FA*, both very nice lenses but WAY too expensive to cut your teeth on. 85mm f/2.0 M, which is small, light, and somewhat affordable. It has a mediocre reputation, primarily due to a bit of softness at large apertures. Depending on what your portrait preferences are, this may not be an issue. This is the lens you are most likely to find on the market. Pentax made a couple of 100/105s, all good, and also relatively expensive and hard to find. 100mm f/2.8 M, which seems to go for about $175 in used camera shops and has a good reputation. 105mm f/2.8 SMC (K), which is rare and sought after. I have not seen one of these on the used market in a while. 100mm f/2.8 and f/4 macros, which have a good reputation but macros are likely to be larger and more expensive than would be ideal for portrait work, and by definition a macro lens is optimized to be equally sharp across the field in one flat plane (so you can photograph stamps and the like) which may well mean that theya are less well optimized for portraiture of 3D objects at longer ranges. Pentax made a couple of 120mm lenses, but I have never seen one on the used market. I think they were designed for portraiture. Given that the 135/3.5 M lens is cheap, good, and readily availible, it might be a good alternative to finding or paying for one of the above. Two 135s to avoid would be the 135/2.8 A and the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5, which have poor reputations. They might serve, but you can do better for not much extra money. As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? As a novice, I'd steer you aggressively towards the 28. Optically, 28s are better than 24s almost uniformly, plus they are substantially cheaper and easier to find. I'd recommend the 28/3.5 M as the best choice for good and cheap. I find 24mm to be a bit of a challenge compositionally because of the wide angle of view. You have to get very close to make smaller subjects fill the frame, and perspective distortion is very easy to achieve whether you want it or not. I have always had a 24mm or 20mm lens in my bag, but I find the 28mm is still my standard wide-angle. Mind you, 24 IS noticeably wider. Often, this is not a good thing until and unless you know what to do with it. DJE
RE: first question
Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal portrait lens range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of wide angle distortion of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 compresses the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally compressed in the facial features. SNIPPED
RE: first question
I will sell you my Tamron adaptall 28mm f2.8 in excellent condition if you can get an adaptall mount your self. I never ever use it, because I also have a Pentax A 28mm. My adaptall mount I will keep - it is sitting on my 3.5/75-150mm Tamron, which is quite good for candid portraits. Why don't you make me an offer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Unfortuneately I already sold my M 2.0/85mm as well as my A 2.8/135mm a few weeks ago. Cheers Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 20:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: first question should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal portrait lens range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of wide angle distortion of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 compresses the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally compressed in the facial features. If you are actually looking for a telephoto lens rather than a portrait lens, I might recommend a 200mm instead. They are cheap and plentiful. Pentax made a couple of 85s, all of which are a bit spendy and hard to find, to wit: 85mm f/1.8 SMC (K) which is very rare and sought after, thus expensive and hard to find. 85mm f/1.4 A* and 85mm f/1.4 FA*, both very nice lenses but WAY too expensive to cut your teeth on. 85mm f/2.0 M, which is small, light, and somewhat affordable. It has a mediocre reputation, primarily due to a bit of softness at large apertures. Depending on what your portrait preferences are, this may not be an issue. This is the lens you are most likely to find on the market. Pentax made a couple of 100/105s, all good, and also relatively expensive and hard to find. 100mm f/2.8 M, which seems to go for about $175 in used camera shops and has a good reputation. 105mm f/2.8 SMC (K), which is rare and sought after. I have not seen one of these on the used market in a while. 100mm f/2.8 and f/4 macros, which have a good reputation but macros are likely to be larger and more expensive than would be ideal for portrait work, and by definition a macro lens is optimized to be equally sharp across the field in one flat plane (so you can photograph stamps and the like) which may well mean that theya are less well optimized for portraiture of 3D objects at longer ranges. Pentax made a couple of 120mm lenses, but I have never seen one on the used market. I think they were designed for portraiture. Given that the 135/3.5 M lens is cheap, good, and readily availible, it might be a good alternative to finding or paying for one of the above. Two 135s to avoid would be the 135/2.8 A and the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5, which have poor reputations. They might serve, but you can do better for not much extra money. As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is 28mm just as good? As a novice, I'd steer you aggressively towards the 28. Optically, 28s are better than 24s almost uniformly, plus they are substantially cheaper and easier to find. I'd recommend the 28/3.5 M as the best choice for good and cheap. I find 24mm to be a bit of a challenge compositionally because of the wide angle of view. You have to get very close to make smaller subjects fill the frame, and perspective distortion is very easy to achieve whether you want it or not. I have always had a 24mm or 20mm lens in my bag, but I find the 28mm is still my standard wide-angle. Mind you, 24 IS noticeably wider. Often, this is not a good thing until and unless you know what to do with it. DJE
Re: first question
That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: first question Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal portrait lens range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of wide angle distortion of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 compresses the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally compressed in the facial features. SNIPPED
Re: first question
Dont forget the different AOV between an 85mm and 135mm lens - I am getting rid of my SMC 135/2.5 - nice as it is I just dont use it. The SMC 85/1.8 and 105/2.8 cover that range very nicely for me. In fact I have ended up selling all the 135mm lenses I have owned over the years - it just seems that focal lengh is too long for portraits and too short for telephoto. Antonio On 6/8/04 10:40 pm, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: first question Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: first question should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things? The normal portrait lens range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for some sorts of portraits. The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a little bit of wide angle distortion of features compared to what we are used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 compresses the relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive to most people. For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard portrait lens, rather than 100. Much longer than 105mm and you start to get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally compressed in the facial features. SNIPPED
Re: first question
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Re: first question Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Well, no. It is true in practice. Cropping has nothing to do with it. If the cropped 28mm shot was taken at the same aperture as the uncropped 35mm shot, the DOF would be about the same as well. Not that DOF has anything to do with perspective. William Robb
RE: first question
Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in portraits, being one of the reasons for using short telephotos for portraits, where you don't want too much DOF, like a perfectly sharp nose or ears. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. august 2004 04:06 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: first question - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: Re: first question Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same camera position! That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Well, no. It is true in practice. Cropping has nothing to do with it. If the cropped 28mm shot was taken at the same aperture as the uncropped 35mm shot, the DOF would be about the same as well. Not that DOF has anything to do with perspective. William Robb
Re: first question
Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does not change perspective). ...if the 25mm and 85mm lenses are both used from the same distance. Fred
Re: first question
The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. Fred
Re: first question
On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote: The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the subject. I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 125/135mm lenses, portraiture included. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: first question
Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one (but certain ones might be adequate for some particular uses). Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8? I have never seen any evidence that any of them were made by Pentax. And, especially since they were originally sold as economical alternatives to name-brand lenses, they would have been unlikely to have the same premium qualities anyway. Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? The short answer - No. (Not 100%.) The longer version (well ~my~ longer version) - 1. I am fond of many (most, actually) of the older Vivitar Series 1 lenses. (However, like many other companies, Vivitar ended up applying the VS1 label to lesser lenses as time went on.) I guess that there are ~very~ few manual focus lenses that carried the VS1 tag that could be considered dogs, and most are gems. 2. The manual focus Tokina AT-X line has always served me well (and, in fact, I was using one of my favorites, the AT-X 100-300/4 for shooting whales just today) (well, make that yesterday - it's now after midnight here - g). There are some really nice lenses in this lineup. 3. Tamron has produced some nice lenses, too, although I have less experience with Tamrons (but, the Tamrons I have tried have seemed quite good) (except I haven't found the Ka version of the Adaptall 2 mount to be reliable, even though I like the K version just fine). And any to totally avoid? I've found that the lineup of Joe's lenses is to be avoided... ;-) Fred
