Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
- Original Message - From: Pål Audun Jensen Subject: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...) > William wrote: > > > >If diffraction is going to be a problem with MF, it will also be > >a problem with 35mm, if DOF is the same, and field of view is > >the same. > > > Sure if DOF is the same. However, in many instances getting the necessarily > DOF with MF is sometimes impossible due to the fact that focal lengths are > different for the same angle of view. If you get the desired DOF with you > 35mm system with a 28mm lens at F:22 you're lost trying to shoot the same > scene with your Pentax 645 and the 45mm at F:22. Agreed. But if you get the desired DOF on a 35mm system with a 28mm lens at f/22, you are well and truly in diffraction land. 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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Paul wrote: >There are other 17 and 18mm choices out there: There are but I would strongly advice against all of them. In a super wide is where Pentax SMC really shine. All the Pentax super wides can be shot directly into the sun. You'll need good flare resistance in a super wide angle lens. - 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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Bruce wrote: >Wheatfield, Aaron and others pointed out that if I really >wanted to make a difference in my photos, I should go to a bigger >negative. I don't think this is such a good idea considering that the original poster wanted DOF. A super(?) wide for the 67 is a 45mm with DOF similar to the FA 43 Limited. So you get a super wide with the DOF of a standard lens. This means that diffraction problems show up earlier on MF than on 35mm because you have to stop further down the MF lens. Taking those wide angle landscape with close foregrounds can be problematic in MF. Pål - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Guys: what speed of film are you using. It really should not be an issue if you're using a slow speed, high saturation film. 100asa or less... In a message dated 4/28/02 11:49:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <> - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
If you can shoot at f22, either increase your shutter speed or decrease your film speed. I don't believe I have ever had to shoot at f22... In a message dated 4/28/02 10:38:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: < wrote: Why would you want to use 1/22 in the first place? I am just curious.>> - 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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Jonathan, There are other 17 and 18mm choices out there: 1. Ricoh made an XR Rikenon 18/2.8. A couple months ago one was on German EBay. It sold March 10 to a European PDMLer for just 156 Euros (about $120). It resembles the Pentax 18/3.5 but uses a 67mm filter (vs. 58). I have a photo of it; it looks like a serious lens. But almost impossible to find; the German one was one of two I've seen. 0.25m close focus, 348 g, 76mm wide, 71mm long; 11 elements in 9 groups, multicoated. 2. Since 18mm is something of a specialty lens, you may decide you don't need the K mount. If so, you might consider the Pentax SMC 17/4, or the highly regarded Sigma XQ 18/3.5 in screwmount with a YS adapter. It was also sold by Ritz as the Quantary Tech-10. 72mm filter size. I have a photo or two of the Sigma, if you're interested. It sells for $175 to $275 when you find it online. I'm reasonably sure this was different from the Sigma that was rebadged as the Spiratone, Vivitar, and Tokina. 3. Before introducing the ATX 17/3.5 PRO in AF, Tokina sold the ATX 17-AF, the same optics but not as well built. Unlike the PRO, it was offered in K mount! And even if the focal length was fudged 1mm, you're still in the 18mm ballpark. Collected comments: Average Overall Rating: 4.33 out of 5 stars with 3 review(s) Submitted by Arnon Hubara , Date Reviewed: 1/14/01 12:10:37 AM Professional photographer from Helsinki Finland. With 11-20 years experience in Outdoor photography. Price Paid: $350 Purchased At: helsinki Strengths: The lens I own produces excellent images. Sharpness and contrast is very high thanks to the aspherical element. Weaknesses: The lens I own is AT-X non pro, it's mechanism is very weak and causes a lot of problems. Other Products Used: Pentax-A 15mm 3.5 Nikon 20mm 2.8 Customer Service: It was repaired once by Tokina's representative, good service. Twice by an independent, excellent service! Review Summary: Boasts excellent optical quality specialty comparing to it's very low price. Produces far better images than the much more expensive Pentax that I had before. However due to mechanical problems I intend to exchange it with the Pro model which is optically identical. The rating I submit is only for the non pro lens. 4 stars value, 4 stars overall. Submitted by Alberto Baffa , Date Reviewed: 4/29/00 4:56:16 PM Intermediate photographer from Lecce, Italy . With 6-10 years experience in Outdoor photography. Strengths: Very good construction quality and - surprise! - good (never said) resistance to ghost and flares! Weaknesses: on the plastic mount of a Minolta HTsi it sometimes fail in monitoring shutter opening (just a stupid problem); you have to be used with a bit of distortion (but it's a 17...) Other Products Used: no one so wide Review Summary: I falled in love with super wide angles shoot, and decided to got this Tokina for the 17 vs price; I took my first three rolls from the lab two days ago (superia100, ultra100 and Ekta100vs): no vignetting with polarizer and, believe me, I am very very happy. TIP!: choose this or another prime super wide, and not a zoom like 17-35 or similar: very close focus is ESSENTIAL (imho) to got smart pictures with this focal length. 5 stars value, 4 stars overall. As reviewed by Ken Welsh , Date Reviewed: 4/21/00 1:36:48 PM Professional photographer from Dublin, County Dublin Eire. With 21+ years experience in photography. (Note: This review is apparently for the PRO version) Strengths: Exceptionally well built. My sample offers extremely sharp optics. Have duped some shots up to 6x9cm Weaknesses: I'm happy. Other Products Used: 20mm Nikon f4 and 20mm Nikon AF f2.8 Customer Service: No problems, so far (3 years) Review Summary: My sample is a bargain alternative to much more expensive marquee optics. I have two other ATX Tokina lenses which are also excellent: the 28-70mm f2.6-F2.8 and the 100-300mm f4. The only bad luck I have had with Tokina ATX lenses is with the f2.8 20-35mm. My tests - on a tripod - showed the edges to be soft. I sold it. 5 stars value, 5 stars overall. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 8:21:23 PM, William wrote: WR> - Original Message - WR> From: Mishka WR> Subject: Re: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide WR> Anglers! (Now a few more questions...) >> now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few WR> times. >> once was last year when i was trying to shoot a waterfall and WR> wanted to get >> a "bridesweil" effect -- i needed a long exposure and even WR> 1/22 aperture was >> too large for that. WR> Get a 4 stop ND filter. Or get a camera that can do perfect-registration multi-exposure. Generally, shooting flowing water, I got much nicer results using several shorter exposures than one long exposure, because the water still looked like water, unlike the long exposure's water. It's about diff. tastes :) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 6:19:33 PM, Mishka wrote: M> Thanks Paul, M> That didn't occur to me. Seriously. M> I thought more along the DOF line, and 20mm should have everything in focus M> way before f/22. With the F/Calc, I computed, using a circle of confusion for APS film size (because the COC formulation is for 20x30cm prints, and I do bigger than that, so I need smaller COC), that I get DOF from 1m to infinity if I focus my 20mm at 2m and set f/8. I generally shoot this in good light forgetting about focus altogether (which is good as the lens is M42 used via adapter, and at f/8 I can't focus anyway due to dark view). But if I shoot something critical, and have time, I focus even with such DOF, as it will show. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers!(Now a few more questions...)
I might get the name wrong. What i meant is the effect you get when you set a really long exposure (1s+) and get the water washed out (kinda like a veil) rather than stopped in action. I rarely have film slower than 100 and often even that is too fast if I want to have a reasonable (>1/8) aperture on a wide lens. Of course, ND filters are much better (if you have them in your bag -- I didn't at that time) > What's that? Could you not use a slower film? > > > Mishka wrote: > > > > a "bridesweil" effect -- > > i needed a long exposure and even 1/22 aperture was > > too large for that. > > > > -- > > Shel Belinkoff - 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
I have this filter now. Didn't have then. But I agree that this is a much better option than stopping down that much. And as for the slower film -- it was a cloudy day and the only roll I had was the one (400) in my camera. > > now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few times. > > once was last year when i was trying to shoot a waterfall and wanted to get > > a "bridesweil" effect -- i needed a long exposure and even 1/22 aperture was > > too large for that. > > Get a 4 stop ND filter. > > 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
- Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...) > now that i think about it, i remeber i needed that a few times. > once was last year when i was trying to shoot a waterfall and wanted to get > a "bridesweil" effect -- i needed a long exposure and even 1/22 aperture was > too large for that. Get a 4 stop ND filter. 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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
> Now, something that you haven't mentioned that I find as a more > usable combination is the F 17-35 fisheye and one of the 20's. > The fisheye zoom is unique in that it zooms from almost 180 > degrees to almost the same focal length of the 20mm rectilinear. > At the 35mm end, it is about the same focal length as a 20mm > keeping it ultrawide and you still have the fisheye on the 17 end. I am assuming that you really meant "almost the same angle of view" and "about the same angle of view". > I have also found that the drama of a minor fisheye can be > stronger than a really wide rectilinear. Remember that both > distort in some fashion. The rectilinear distorts by making > object near the edge of the frame fatter. The lines stay straight > but it still alters the look of objects. It makes objects looked > smashed (shorter and wider). The fisheye does the opposite - > objects retain relative proportions, but lines curve. That's a very good description of the comparative pluses and minuses of a rectilinear w/a versus a fisheye. 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: Why some need f/22 (was: Re: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers!(Now a few more questions...)
if the dof is not important, one can also use a filter to slow down the shutter further if one doesn not have issues about using a filter :) On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 09:54:29AM -0400, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > What's that? Could you not use a slower film? > > Mishka wrote: > > > a "bridesweil" effect -- > > i needed a long exposure and even 1/22 aperture was > > too large for that. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
On 27 Apr 2002 at 21:22, Jonathan Donald wrote: > #1)I was inspired to save up and hold out (look > harder?) for a Pentax K18/3.5 until I learned its true > focal length of 19mm. That seems so close to 20mm, > that I might as well just get the A20/2.8 which is > [somewhat] cheaper, easier to find, and faster (but > not as wide as I wanted). Does anybody know if the > A20/2.8 is ~truly~ 20mm,... or is it 21mm or 22mmish? > Can it take the Cokin P system without vignetting? Well the measured FL of the FA20f2.8 at the photodo site is 20mm if this is of any help? > #2)How does one "bodge" a gelatin filter to the rear > of a K or A 15mm/3.5? Has anyone ever tried to have > the built in filters changed out at a repair shop? Thought about changing the filter sets in my 15f3.5, 16f2.8 and 28f3.5shift but decided that the money would be better spent one the new digital SLR :-) > #4)Speaking of f22, does anyone know how the A20/2.8 > does at this aperture? Stan's lens comment site > indicates the K18/3.5 is poor in this respect. > Elsewhere I remember reading that the K/A 15mm/3.5 is > a bit soft wide open but sharp as hell down to minimum > aperture. Does this reflect the experiences of the > lucky PDMLers who own these lenses? Never use the A20f2.8 at f22 as the DOF is pretty broad unless you're at the minimum focus distance. The A15f3.5 is pretty sharp at f5.6. > As you can probably tell, I'm leaning toward aquiring > a 15mm ~and~ a 20mm to cover the ultra-wide range. I > don't really want to do this, but it seems I have > little choice. There dosen't seem to be a decent > quality "in between" lens that can take the place of > both. The combo of the A20f2.8 (at around US$375) and A15f3.5 (At around US$750) would be quite costly compared to the 18f3.5 (at around US$450). I haven't used the 18mm, from all that I have read it seems to please most of it's owners performance wise but it won't allow you to do what the two lens combo will at any rate. The AOV difference between 15 and 18mm is quite large. The 20mm is nice light compact lens whereas the 18mm is getting bulky. All depends on how much you are wishing to spend I guess, you could acquire all three? 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: Thanks Ultra-Wide Anglers! (Now a few more questions...)
Jonathan wrote: >#1)I was inspired to save up and hold out (look >harder?) for a Pentax K18/3.5 until I learned its true >focal length of 19mm. Where did you learn that? Mine seem awfully wide >Can it take the Cokin P system without vignetting? The 18/3.5 can take it if you're careful with the alignment of the filter holder. If you cut the two outermost filter slots it should be no problem. >#4)Speaking of f22, does anyone know how the A20/2.8 >does at this aperture? Stan's lens comment site >indicates the K18/3.5 is poor in this respect. The 18/3.5 isn't really that poor (you should have seen the results with my FA645 45/2.8 - that's poor). It suffers from soft corners at F:22. I have not used the 20mm lenses but I doubt that you will find any super wide angle that's not so-so at F:22 due to diffraction. Anyway, I recommend the 18/3.5. It is not that good wide open but it is excellent at mid apertures. A drawback for some will be the very warm color rendition. >As you can probably tell, I'm leaning toward aquiring >a 15mm ~and~ a 20mm to cover the ultra-wide range. I >don't really want to do this, but it seems I have >little choice. There dosen't seem to be a decent >quality "in between" lens that can take the place of >both. Well, I think the 18/3.5 qualifies... Pål - 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 .
