Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-02 Thread jtainter
I'll do it tonight or tomorrow morning. What storage mode, ie., RAW, TIFF, ***L, etc? Well, I have a dial-up connection. I think unsharpened jpegs (***L) of around 100k will tell me what I need to know. Make that 100k jpegs of a small area of brick wall with lots of texture.. Appreciate it,

Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-02 Thread Steve Desjardins
OK. I just crop it down to 100k or so. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 11:21AM I'll do it tonight or tomorrow morning. What storage mode, ie., RAW,

Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-02 Thread Keith Whaley
What is the ***L supposed to stand for? keith whaley Steve Desjardins wrote: OK. I just crop it down to 100k or so. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 11:21AM

Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-02 Thread Steve Desjardins
What he said. ;-) I'm a lazy typist, and take any shortcut I can. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/04 12:03PM on 02.07.04 17:58, Keith Whaley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the ***L supposed to stand for? *** means best quality (lowest compression) JPEG, L stands for Large - max pixel size -

Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-02 Thread Keith Whaley
Of course! Isn't it always that way? Once you hear the answer, you feel stupid! I've been seeing that in the camera specs (my S4, for instance) for some time now, but when I saw it in conversation I didn't retrieve the memory. As tho' that's something new with me... hah. :-P Thanks, keith

Re: FA 135 f2.8

2004-07-01 Thread jtainter
I can't answer this off the top of my head, but I do have the lens. I can take some *ist images for you of a brick wall or something and post them so you can look. What would you like, i.e., iso, Av's, etc.? Thanks, Steve. A brick wall would be great. Just ISO 200 would be fine. Pix at

RE: FA 135 f2.8

2004-06-30 Thread Alan Chan
I could see a use for this lens on the *ist D. So herewith I ask my usual questions of those who own it: I owned it for a short while. How is it at wider apertures? Not sharp, worse than M135/3.5. Can one get decent enlargements (8-1/2 x 11 inch or A4) at f2.8? How does it perform on the *ist D?