On Thu, 2 May 2002 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Mishka wrote:
I guess, what I would care to know is what are the situations when 1 or
less extra stop makes critical difference.
I can understand fast tele: when you stick 2X converter on 300/2.8, 1
stop initial difference would translate into 2 stops,
On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 03:49 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
As for the cost in weight and size, well, again, if you need the speed,
then you put up with the size and weight. However, many - not all,
maybe not even most - people who use fast glass also have slower,
smaller, lighter lenses
I paid $750 US for a 75mm f2.8 for the 67, when I could easily find a
75mm f4 for half that.
So it's worth at least double to me. ;)
-Aaron
-
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mishka
Tom, you said, you'd pay 3 times more for a 75mm normal
lens, but you
didn't say why.
Um...because from my perspective the biggest drawback to medFo is
speed. The lenses are slower...pretty
it rather depends on which stop it is, and which lens.
It also depends upon when the judgement is being made: If I'm in
the middle of balancing the checkbook I'd give a different answer
than if I'm in a situation where I need just a smidgeon more light
for a photo than I seem to have at that
why.
I don't intend to step on anyone's toes, just trying to figure out what
I am missing.
Best,
Mike
From: tom
Subject: RE: how much 1 stop worth?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:56:32 -0700
Depends on the lens. I would pay $1500 for a FA 645 75/2, which is 3
times the 75/2.8 price. I'd
I will pay as much as a couple hundred dollars for one stop on my
frequently used focal lengths. More for the focusing ease than the low
light shooting capability. But then, I'm old and my eyes are going away :-)
Paul
Mishka wrote:
a question for the collective wisdom:
just curious, how much
On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this popped to my mind as i just received a M135/3.5, light and smooth,
in absolutely gorgeous condition, along with hard case, BINned for
$49...
I have one of these lenses and it is quite useful. but I do alot of
Fred wrote:
If I'm in the middle of balancing the checkbook I'd give a different answer...
Fred,
If you're going to introduce a new term to the list, please define it. What, exactly,
is balancing a checkbook? :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger!
The bigger the glass the brighter the screen and (most importantly) the
narrower the depth of field. This makes focusing s much easier,
especially in dim light. The big glass is worth it's weight in gold for this
alone.
Regards,
Bob...
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
Kevin Waterson wrote:
Now I am in search of a yet another fast lens (is'nt this the essence of
the photogaphers quest) a 135/2 or 1.8 would be quite nice, but it is a
substatial increase in price. So I will search for a reasonably priced
used unit, unless a job arises that will justify the
Spoken like a true wedding photographer, Bruce. g
On the street and shooting in poor light, fast glass is good because it
allows one to hand-hold the camera at a faster shutter speeds in low
light. F1.4 v F2.0 is a stop, and means the difference between 1/8sec
and 1/15sec, which may mean the
Fred,
If you're going to introduce a new term to the list, please define it. What,
exactly, is balancing a checkbook? :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul,
Think trained seals...
Regards, Bob S.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net
Fred wrote: If I'm in the middle of balancing the checkbook I'd
give a different answer...
Fred, If you're going to introduce a new term to the list, please
define it. What, exactly, is balancing a checkbook? :)
Good point, Paul. But, please be aware that I was only speaking
14 matches
Mail list logo
