>> Julian Loke wrote:
>> ... bad bokeh is one of the weaknesses of the 100-400, so if I shoot
>> with that lens, there are certain things to avoid. ...
> "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it (The 100-400 IS) works for Andy Rouse then it works for me (And
> it does too :-)
Hi Mark,
>From t
I think we are both saying the same things: that bad bokeh is one of
the weaknesses of the 100-400, so if I shoot with that lens, there are
certain things to avoid. On the other hand, you make a point that
choosing a more expensive lens with better bokeh would also solve the
problem.
The bokeh
--- Shawn Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, thinking along those lines. Will DO make it
> possible to build more
> exotic lenses at reasonable sizes such as a 300/1.8
> or a 600/2.8?
DO may decrease the length of those lenses, but I
don't think it can do anything for the required
diameter
> >
> > Can you tell more about the area in which you can see those rings and
> > their spacing? I'm curious about how diffractive it is.
>
> from what I remember, the rings appear to be about an 20-40mm from the
front
> element and about 3-4mm apart
Sorry, my question wasn't clear enough. The r
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian
Montgomery
Sent: 21 May 2001 14:07
To: Canon EOS Digest
Subject: EOS EF 400mm f4 DO
>CONGRATULATIONS NIKON! Yep, the latest issue of Outdoor Photographer has
>pictures taken with their yet to be rele
Well, thinking along those lines. Will DO make it possible to build more
exotic lenses at reasonable sizes such as a 300/1.8 or a 600/2.8?
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.nl/phomep
> > you should see in the front of the lens, you can see the diffracting
> > rings.
>
> Can you tell more about the area in which you can see those rings and
> their spacing? I'm curious about how diffractive it is.
from what I remember, the rings appear to be about an 20-40mm from the front
elem
Sudden thought - perhaps the reason the 200/1.8 never got an IS
version was that they intend to make a DO/IS version. It would
probably weigh the same as the 135/2 !
Chris.
--
http://www.hockeyphotos.com/
*
***
***
* For list i
"Sir Douglas the Fearless" wrote:
> you should see in the front of the lens, you can see the diffracting
> rings.
Can you tell more about the area in which you can see those rings and
their spacing? I'm curious about how diffractive it is.
Seeing the rings also makes me wonder about contrast w
>From: Ian Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>I thought it had been mentioned before that a red stripe simply indicated
>an
>L-series lens, which simply indicated the lens has flourite and/or aspheric
>and/or Ultra-low dispersion glass? From what's been bouncing around here
>and
>elsewhere
> "Ray Amos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right about not being impossible. But I was speaking of every
> shot out of 1,000 shots a weekend many weekends a year. Not just one
> set up shot. In your example, any 400mm lens focused 6" from the front
> of the lens will have good background
Julian Loke wrote:
>
> > "Ray Amos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know I'm going to get a lot of grief for this, but neither is the
> > Canon 100-400 IS lens ... I think it's fine for landscapes and other
> > things when Bokeh is not so important. I place more importance on
> > wildlife photo
> "Ray Amos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I'm going to get a lot of grief for this, but neither is the
> Canon 100-400 IS lens ... I think it's fine for landscapes and other
> things when Bokeh is not so important. I place more importance on
> wildlife photography because that's what I do.
I've seem some pretty incredible wildlife pictures taken with this
lens, one in particular is a poster from a lightjet of polar bear in
the arctic, it darned near made me buy the lens... I think this is a
spectacular lense for some wildlife photo situations and is pretty
darned versatile to
Julian Loke wrote:
The reports that I read also point out that the 80-400 VR bokeh is,
ummm, not very good.
Ooooh no! :-o
Bad bokeh. Thank you Nikon.
I will just have to keep using my Canon lenses. ;-)
Peter K
*
*
Julian Loke wrote:
>
> > "Gary Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Nikkor 80-400 VR has been released with reports from various
> > owners who comment on how nice the optics are ...
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> The reports that I read also point out that the 80-400 VR bokeh is,
> ummm, not very goo
> "Gary Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Nikkor 80-400 VR has been released with reports from various
> owners who comment on how nice the optics are ...
Hi Gary,
The reports that I read also point out that the 80-400 VR bokeh is,
ummm, not very good.
Cheers
Julian Loke
*
**
From: Sir Douglas the Fearless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(...)
Hi Douglas !
> When I was talking to the Canon reps they said the DO lenses were
going to
> be rated higher than L Lenses in the lens line up
On a fixed focal, is it possible ?? The Canon rep is perhaps too
enthousiast ! :o)
I'm so impat
-Original Message-
From: Ian Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[Snipped]
>CONGRATULATIONS NIKON! Yep, the latest issue of Outdoor Photographer has
>pictures taken with their yet to be released 80-400 VR lens. It does
exist!
Ian:
The Nikkor 80-400 VR has been released with reports from
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Sir Douglas the Fearless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can you see the diffracting rings through the viewfinder?
> No
If you could, they'd almost certainly be visible in the image!
> another bit I forgot to say before
> When I was talking to the Canon reps they sa
>
> That's worrying.
> Are the rings visible if the lens is viewed directly on-axis?
yes but you can only see the rings if you catch them in the right light
> Can you see the diffracting rings through the viewfinder?
No
another bit I forgot to say before
When I was talking to the Canon reps they
> "Sir Douglas the Fearless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes Julian, the DO lens has a nice bright green stripe
> you should see in the front of the lens, you can see the
> diffracting rings.
G'day Douglas,
That's worrying.
Are the rings visible if the lens is viewed directly on-axis?
Can you
From: "Ian Montgomery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Canon EOS Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Ian and List Members,
So, the old address in Helsinki still works (surprising
that Jannes .forward redirection is still there!), it is
not guaranteed to work forever.
The current address for the EOS Mailing
> > "Sir Douglas the Fearless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... i spent a lot of time on the Canon stand playing with all the
> > toys, one stood out more than all the rest the new EF 400mm f4 DO
> > lens, Have you seen how short and light this lens is? Can't wait
> > to see a test result of t
Julian Loke wrote:
>
> > "Sir Douglas the Fearless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... i spent a lot of time on the Canon stand playing with all the
> > toys, one stood out more than all the rest the new EF 400mm f4 DO
> > lens, Have you seen how short and light this lens is? Can't wait
> > to s
> "Sir Douglas the Fearless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... i spent a lot of time on the Canon stand playing with all the
> toys, one stood out more than all the rest the new EF 400mm f4 DO
> lens, Have you seen how short and light this lens is? Can't wait
> to see a test result of this new tec
26 matches
Mail list logo
