On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Marco Ferrari wrote:
> I found the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF a very nice lens.
> At the 105mm end, wide open, I shot very nice portraits, with a
> very nice
> bokeh (in my opinion), only a bit soft.
> But when I try to shot landscapes a 105mm, even at F8, I find the
Hi Dario,
if you are having problems with lenses at infinity, especially wide
open, it could be several factors:
1) depth of focus is smallest at infinity and wide open, compared to
wide open and close focus. Thus every slight misalignment of the whole
system can lower the resolution severely. De
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Marco Ferrari wrote:
I found the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF a very nice lens.
At the 105mm end, wide open, I shot very nice portraits, with a
very nice
bokeh (in my opinion), only a bit soft.
But when I try to shot landscapes a 105mm, even at F8, I find the
lens ha
>In my experience, it is not uncommon that lenses perform better at close
>
>distances than at infinity. Of course, when focusing at infinity you have
>to
>consider that haze, smog, etc. will lower the resolution performance of
any
>
>lens... however, even leaving aside macro and close-ups, I've g
Nice to know. Thanks Bob.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Shell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Are most lenses optimised for short distance focusing?
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 08:43 AM, Dario Bona
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 08:43 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Your sentence is what the general theory claims. That's what you
usually read on photo books and magazines.
However, is it true? I don't think above statement to be so much
supported by evidence.
Yes, it is true. Most lenses
I wrote:
Among the prime lenses, once you leave apart the macros, the portrait
lenses and maybe the 50mm (also performing very well at close distance),
there's not so much left below 300mm: just a few Pentax prime lenses below
85mm are modern designs (20A/FA, 28FA, 31LTD, 35/2FA, 43LTD).
May
Boris Liberman wrote:
What focusing distance do you think most lenses are optimised for?
I think that at distances such as 5m or even closer the precision of
focusing becomes much more important. In fact, having no special
knowledge I cannot answer your question. I am under (probably wrong)
i
Bob Shell wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 06:33 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
What focusing distance do you think most lenses are optimised for?
Except for macro lenses, most lenses are optimized for infinity.
And except for portrait lenses, don't you think?
Your sentence is what the
Hi Dario, yes I get that feeling too sometimes.
I usually have a pile of tools and camera parts on my worktable that
often becomes the first "subject" after I clean/repair a lens.
This first test often turns out very nice, when the same lens
goes outside for a better test it sometimes fails miserab
Dario,
> In my experience, it is not uncommon that lenses perform better at close
> distances than at infinity. Of course, when focusing at infinity you have to
> consider that haze, smog, etc. will lower the resolution performance of any
> lens... however, even leaving aside macro and close-ups,
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 06:33 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
What focusing distance do you think most lenses are optimised for?
Except for macro lenses, most lenses are optimized for infinity.
Bob
12 matches
Mail list logo
