Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Herb Chong]

i look around at my scene and i say to myself. i want this near thing to
block that far thing in that direction and i want that far thing in the
other direction at the edge of my frame. that means i have to stand in a
specific place. then i want both far things in the FOV at the same time.
that dictates what focal length i use.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angles for *ist D


> >moving changes the size relationships between different parts of the
> >composition in a different way than zooming. it't more noticeable with
wide
> >angles. i zoom specifically to get certain things in certain size
relation
> >to each other in the composition about as often as i zoom to fit
everything
> >in from a restricted position.
>
> You're kidding me.

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:

> On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >> work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
> >> interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!
> >
> >Would you share an example of the latter? I have only shot faces at
> >50, other than 70 and above, and that was because I was directly on
> >top of the face with 0.50m distance (if that).
>
> Sure.
>
> http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/spare2.html

Thanks. Not sure I agree with you that it's superb, but thanks for
sharing.

Kostas
p.s.: The picture has a great feelgood factor.

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Cotty]

On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>> work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
>> interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!
>
>Would you share an example of the latter? I have only shot faces at
>50, other than 70 and above, and that was because I was directly on
>top of the face with 0.50m distance (if that).

Sure.

http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/spare2.html


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Cotty]

On 13/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Honestly - with my MZ-5n I was very satisfied with the 28mm of my 28- 
>105PZ concerning wide angle. But it took only one day to change that:  
>When I tried this preproduction *istD with its 18-35 lens, I made the  
>mistake and put the 18-35 on my MZ-5n. After that I did wonder, why I  
>don't own a lens wider than 28mm... :-)

A couple of years ago I sold a Pentax 17mm f/4 for list member Albano
Garcia. When he sent it to me, I tried it on the LX and I was bowled over
- it was a wonderful lens with some amazing converging parallels to be
seen - I was really impressed.

I think the FA20mm is pretty nice and if I was shooting full frame Pentax
or film, that would be my wide of choice.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[mike.wilson]

Hi,

Kostas wrote:

> >
> > You're kidding me.
> 
> Fisheyes?

No, he's just suprised.

mike

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:

> On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >> I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
> >> and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
> >> confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide already,
> >> you could simply move forward to frame if you were too far back.
>
> >moving changes the size relationships between different parts of the
> >composition in a different way than zooming. it't more noticeable with wide
> >angles. i zoom specifically to get certain things in certain size relation
> >to each other in the composition about as often as i zoom to fit everything
> >in from a restricted position.
>
> You're kidding me.

Fisheyes?

Kostas

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote:

> As you know, I'm a manual focus guy. I do us the AF on my AF lenses
> sometimes, though rarely. Mostly on the 70-200 with my lad's football or
> whatever. I personally think AF on 14mm lens is a complete and utter
> waste of time and I never have it switched on. Why? The depth of field at
> this focal length renders focus almost academic. Certainly with
> landscapes. I set for good depth of field and let it go. I have not been
> disappointed.

I am mostly an AF guy, but I can't agree more on this. Even with the
K24/3.5 I set it to f8 and infinity and that's me really.

> work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
> interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!

Would you share an example of the latter? I have only shot faces at
50, other than 70 and above, and that was because I was directly on
top of the face with 0.50m distance (if that).

Kostas

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Cotty]

On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>> I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
>> and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
>> confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide already,
>> you could simply move forward to frame if you were too far back.

>moving changes the size relationships between different parts of the
>composition in a different way than zooming. it't more noticeable with wide
>angles. i zoom specifically to get certain things in certain size relation
>to each other in the composition about as often as i zoom to fit everything
>in from a restricted position.

You're kidding me.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Heiko Hamann]

Hi Cotty,

on 12 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:

>Ah, zooms. I never considered a wide zoom when I wanted my wide angle.

Honestly - with my MZ-5n I was very satisfied with the 28mm of my 28- 
105PZ concerning wide angle. But it took only one day to change that:  
When I tried this preproduction *istD with its 18-35 lens, I made the  
mistake and put the 18-35 on my MZ-5n. After that I did wonder, why I  
don't own a lens wider than 28mm... :-)

So I decided to get a wide angle lens or better: an ultra-wide-angle  
lens as it will be cropped on my new *istD. And I agree, that it doesn't  
has to be a zoom: One of my favourite lenses n the MZ-5n is the SMC-FA  
35/2.0. Some years ago this lens would have been called a wide angle ;-)  
So I'm used to move when using a lens like this. A toom has bigger  
advantages in the tele range - FullACK!


>Plus there's a part of me that still thinks a prime lens has got to be
>better than a zoom. I'm not sure how true that is in this day and age

I think, this is still true. And the difficulties, building a good zoom  
instead of a prime, should be even bigger in the wide angle range.

>As you know, I'm a manual focus guy. I do us the AF on my AF lenses
>sometimes, though rarely.

It's quite opposite with me ;-) but...

>The depth of field at this focal length renders focus almost academic.
>Certainly with landscapes. I set for good depth of field and let it go.

...this makes the SMC-A 15/3.5 my new favourite ;-)

>My focal length choice (he rambled on) has settled well over the years
>and I now have the right combination for me. I'll use 35mm equivalent here:

You're a lucky one: I have some very nice lenses but still haven't  
sorted out, which give me the right combination. And the *istD is a  
whole new variable... For example: I like the 35/2.0 very much, but on  
the *istD it is a 52.5mm lens. Or the 43 Limited: what the heck will a  
64,5mm lens be good for? Of course theese lenses are still great, but it  
will take me much time to find their new fields of operation. Maybe it  
is easier to define it the other way round: I shouldn't ask, how I can  
use my lenses, but which lenses I will need. And then go shopping =:-|

>Sorry to ramble on. Good luck with your wide quest Heiko.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! I will keep you up-to-date  
about my quest for the holy wide angel.. :-)


Cheers, Heiko

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Herb Chong]

moving changes the size relationships between different parts of the
composition in a different way than zooming. it't more noticeable with wide
angles. i zoom specifically to get certain things in certain size relation
to each other in the composition about as often as i zoom to fit everything
in from a restricted position.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angles for *ist D


> I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
> and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
> confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide already,
> you could simply move forward to frame if you were too far back.

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Cotty]

On 12/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>>Heiko, I have the Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and use it on my D60, giving an
>>effective focal length of  22.4mm. On an *ist D it should work out to
>>about 21mm.
>
>That's a good hint. Maybe I was focused on wide angle zooms, too much.

Ah, zooms. I never considered a wide zoom when I wanted my wide angle.
I'm not sure why. I had a play with a 15-30 or something like that and to
be honest I couldn't see the point of the zooming range. I figure if
you're going to be wide and want to zoom in a bit, just move forward
instead!  The thing with wide zooms that goes against the grain with me
is that it instills laziness. With a tele zoom, you can cover a lot of
ground without moving a foot, much more than you could if you had to walk
to get the right shot with a prime tele.

I can understand using medium wide mostly, and then not being wide enough
and needing to zoom out as wide as possible (say, shooting a group in a
confined space / small room etc). But if you had the big wide already,
you could simply move forward to frame if you were too far back.

That's my twisted thinking anyway.

Plus there's a part of me that still thinks a prime lens has got to be
better than a zoom. I'm not sure how true that is in this day and age

>
>>Personally, with a Pentax I would go for the A 15mm 3.5.
>
>I have an eye on them at eBay. Sometimes you can get one at 450-500 Euro  
>- that would be about the same as the Sigma EX14. So it comes to a  
>trade-off: SMC without AF or AF without SMC. At the moment I would go  
>for the Pentax, too.

As you know, I'm a manual focus guy. I do us the AF on my AF lenses
sometimes, though rarely. Mostly on the 70-200 with my lad's football or
whatever. I personally think AF on 14mm lens is a complete and utter
waste of time and I never have it switched on. Why? The depth of field at
this focal length renders focus almost academic. Certainly with
landscapes. I set for good depth of field and let it go. I have not been
disappointed.

My focal length choice (he rambled on) has settled well over the years
and I now have the right combination for me. I'll use 35mm equivalent here:

Primes
22mm - wide for landscapes and street.
38mm macro - street and portraiture
80mm - portraits

Zooms
44-112mm - street, general use, walkabout, only one lens
112-320mm - landscape, people, sport, everything else + 1.4 TC if needed.

I have it all covered in 5 lenses. I seriously can't think of anything I
don't do with that lot. I don't do wildlife (ha!) so I'm not into big
glass. Okay, maybe a 100mm macro might be nice but I don't do the macro
work to justify it. Besides a 38mm in macro (24mm EX macro) is a very
interesting focal length for a macro and it's superb on faces!

Sorry to ramble on. Good luck with your wide quest Heiko.


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Mark Roberts]

This article might be of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/14-vs-16.shtml


-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Wide angles for *ist D

[Heiko Hamann]

Hi Cotty,

on 11 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:


>>here made experiences with the Sigma wide angles (17-35, 15-30 or the
>>new 12-14)?

>Heiko, I have the Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and use it on my D60, giving an
>effective focal length of  22.4mm. On an *ist D it should work out to
>about 21mm.

That's a good hint. Maybe I was focused on wide angle zooms, too much.

>It is a large lens with lots of glass, the front element is weird - a
>huge spherical block of ice peering out from a built-in lens hood.
>Remember Hal? He's here.

Ohoh... I will have to put that set into a closet in order to prevent  
any paranoid developments...

...

>Otherwise, it is a good performer and considering that you won't be using
>the edges on an APS DSLR - typically the worst part of the frame in terms
>of performance - then things aren't too bad at all. It is pricey (UK
>about 6 to 700 quid new) but they can be found on eBay.

I have never seen one on eBay Germany (but I did never search one there  
;-)). Let's see if I can find one. But the price is quite high - you're  
right.

>I use it frequently for landscape and street. It
>is plenty wide for me which is a good thing - to go wider on an APS DSLR
>is near impossible.

There will be this Sigma 12-24 with 122° angle of view. They say that it  
will work on a 35mm SLR, too. I can't imagine how that could work -  
seems to be against all physics.

>Personally, with a Pentax I would go for the A 15mm 3.5.

I have an eye on them at eBay. Sometimes you can get one at 450-500 Euro  
- that would be about the same as the Sigma EX14. So it comes to a  
trade-off: SMC without AF or AF without SMC. At the moment I would go  
for the Pentax, too.

Cheers and thanks,

Heiko

Wide angles for *ist D (was: Re: istD Histogram display)

[Cotty]

On 11/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>>i have the auto review turned off. i review only when i think there might be
>>a problem. since that doesn't happen very often, i save battery power by not
>>having it on except when i need it.
>
>I'm doing the same. My *istD has arrived some weeks ago, but as I havn't  
>had much time to use it, I didn't write any reports, here. The camera is  
>really fine - especially with the grip. The only thing that I'm missing  
>is a wide angle lens - my lenses start at 28mm (i.e. 42mm). Has anyone  
>here made experiences with the Sigma wide angles (17-35, 15-30 or the  
>new 12-14)?
>
>Cheers, Heiko

Heiko, I have the Sigma EX 14mm 2.8 and use it on my D60, giving an
effective focal length of  22.4mm. On an *ist D it should work out to
about 21mm.

It is a large lens with lots of glass, the front element is weird - a
huge spherical block of ice peering out from a built-in lens hood.
Remember Hal? He's here.

Although multi-coated, the lens does flare in bright sunshine so be
prepared to flag it. See:



Otherwise, it is a good performer and considering that you won't be using
the edges on an APS DSLR - typically the worst part of the frame in terms
of performance - then things aren't too bad at all. It is pricey (UK
about 6 to 700 quid new) but they can be found on eBay. Mine was about
£350 from a US seller. I use it frequently for landscape and street. It
is plenty wide for me which is a good thing - to go wider on an APS DSLR
is near impossible.

Personally, with a Pentax I would go for the A 15mm 3.5.

Good luck and HTH,




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk