"Question 1:
"I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always
going to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming
that both were set at the same f-stop?"
Pentax 50 primes are probably sharper than any of Pentax's 28-105s at
50. Other lenses (such as th
No, the 50/1.4 performs poorly with A2X-S.
Yours regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender?
Will it be as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro?
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam p
-- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian
> From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Question 1:
>
> I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going
> to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true,
> assuming that both
> were set at the same f-stop?
> I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going
> to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming that
both
> were set at the same f-stop?
I guess it depends on the f-stop. At f/8 the should givie similar sharpness.
Disclaimer - it's just a thought,
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Francis Alviar wrote:
> How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender? Will it be
> as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro?
Probably not. The teleconverters are generally designed to work a
variety of lenses and need to make some compromises. The 50/1.4 plus
telecon
Ppro wrote:
> Well, HCB, IMHO, would probably have used a zoom. It fits the application
> he often applied himself to.
Honestly, I don't know why you would say such a thing. He used nothing but
the Leica for his whole career, and he used the 50mm for 98% of every shot
he ever took. If any phot
Since my primary camera for most of the last fifteen years was a
Mamiya Universal, I don't think so.
But, if my primary income, instead of just occasional, was from
photography I would have felt the need for a newer system. The
reason for that is the need for off the shelf equipment
availablit
Well, I will agree that the very best primes are better than the
very best zooms. But, once you get to the point the lens is
professionally acceptable it becomes more of desire than a
need.
If the quality of the image is very important I will go with a
bigger negative. Remember, my Graphic wi
>> I would venture if you make your living with your camera you won't be
using elderly equipment, you could not
afford to. <<
Well I can see where some might not want to "risk" it from the standpoint of
reliability and the problem of getting stuck all or part way through an
assignment with a brok
- Original Message -
From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: Primes Vs. Zooms
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> >> Looking at those "Leica
I live in a small town (Poolesville, Maryland) that has several historical
buildings. While visitng one such building with my Super Program and a 28mm
lens, I noticed an old-timer in the backyard, setting up his SLR on a
tripod.
"Hi!" I said. "Do you live around here?"
"No. I'm a longtime photog
Thanks Mike. Man, this group has just been jamming the 67II down my throat
the last month. I like it! Keep it up!
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: Re:
Oops, wrong link in my previous message:
In :
>Tests of classic 50mm's in
>http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Cadrag.html and following
>(with M50 f1.7, which had the bad luck of having the sun behind a cloud
when
>it was it's turn)
that should be :
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Te
aimcompute wrote:
> Your comment above points to
> the reason I'm going to purchase a 67II... if I'm going to take this much
> time, why not maximize the benefit by moving to a larger frame size?
Very smart! You'll be very pleased, I'll bet.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Ma
Hi,
regarding the link I mentioned yesterday about the purist 50mm vs. Hightech
zoom comparison
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire1.html
and
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire2.html
Some people have commented about Nikon vs. Leica lens quality and color from
this, but
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
>> Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I can't help to think the obvious
>> difference in brightness is caused by the scanning/adjusting in
>> Photoshop much more than by the difference in lenses ...
>>
>
>Ignoring the colour and ton
Alan Chan writes:
> >I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down
> >here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :)
>
> Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-)
I'm sure I would. The 77mm is faster and looks nicer, and
On Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:47 AM, Rob Studdert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2001, at 21:31, Erwin Vereecken wrote:
>
> > An old Leica M2 with 50mm versus the F100 with 80-200f2.8
> > Interesting results, even if you don't understand French (many pictures)
> >
> > http://www.pict
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> "This is my way. What is
> your way? There is no such thing as THE WAY."
> --Tom
I never said it was the right way
But it's m
Sure, Bill, I agree with you to a point. But those large slow
moving cameras are for that kind of work. Except for folks who
are too poor to own but one camera, why would one want to work
that way with 35mm? And, those relatively poor photographers
aren't going to have a bag full of primes.
I
> William Robb wrote:
> >
> > What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
> > played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
> > photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
> > to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
> > think that
Dosk wrote:
> Saw: A Kiron lens for Pentax. 24mm, f2. ($69.00?)
> Whatsit? Any good atall? Never heard of this brand before
> Skip
Kino Precision ( Kiron ) was a behind the scenes third-party manufacturer.
They made lenses for Panagor ( and others? ), and the made many of the
early Vivit
Your comments make some sense for ups Pentax users who can use
just about any lens Pentax ever made. But, for those other
brands? However, I would venture if you make your living with
your camera you won''t be using elderly equipment, you could not
afford to.
--Tom
"Provencher, Paul M." wrote:
William Robb wrote:
>
> What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
> played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
> photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
> to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
> think that it is cheatin
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> Hi Tom,
>
> I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ),
I suspect Bill is
> referring to considered composition not s
At 02:14 AM 3/6/01 EST, you wrote:
>
>Todd<< : It would end up going against the A 50mm F1.4, and maybe a Sears
>50mm F1.7 for kicks.>>
>
>That comparison might be good for you, but wouldn't satisfy the test
>requirements.
>The tests are ~not~ for consumer zooms, just pro zooms.
I wasn't sure.
Mike wrote (in the Bresson thread)
>But I'll bet if anybody on this list got a chance to do some moderately
>heavy shooting for a few days--say, 5 rolls a day over the course of a
>10-day vacation, of some subject matter that really engaged them--9 out of
>10 would end up doing better work with o
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 6, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and agai
I can't help but reply to this, and I will probably regret doing so... But
here goes...
>>Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe
sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom
won't? <<
Well, without commenting about image quality, flexibilit
On 6 Mar 2001, at 9:41, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again
> disparaged the use of zooms and cropping in this never ending
> thread (renamed several times), and that your gallery entry this
> month is a highly cropped zoom lens photo.
> How do you r
William Robb wrote:
> Even in medium format, there are only a handful of zooms
> available from all the manufacturers combined.
Pentax makes a whole ONE zoom for the 67: the 55-100.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and fo
>I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down
>here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :)
Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-)
regards,
Alan Chan
__
>Zooms make you lazy? Huh? How? That is a new twist on an old urban legend.
Applied to me. I had the same problem with zooms.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
Mafud writes:
> I stand firm for zooms in the hands of the skilled against all those "prime
> only" folks and here, is not only a voice of reason, but clarity.
I am sure that any *skilled* photographer could use a zoom or a prime lens
equally well, but some (most?) situations definitely suit o
Mafud quotes extensively and says:
> Paal responds to Mafud:
>
> Not Mafud > You need to be a good photographer to take full advantage of a
> zoom
>
> Pal<< :Probably true of taking *full* advantage of any lens, but I'll grant
> that with more to control on a zoom, there's more to learn h
I have a headache and am not sure how coherent this is going to
wind up being, but here goes anyhow. I need to wrap this up
and get back to work, so I'm going to be a bit more lazy with my
text-editing than I'd usually allow myself... How, ah, ironically
_a_propos_. Didn't plan it that way, hon
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 5, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what
would HCB, Adams
> and the other "prime only" gre
Comments mixed in.
At 05:24 PM 3/5/01 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 3/5/2001 11:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><< I agree - either cropping with a zoom or copping by proximity works for
me.
> >>
>
>Hi Tom!
>
>We often forget, when shooting primes, that composi
John Francis wrote:
> That said: I haven't seen any image
> problems using the zoom hand-held;
> in fact it's the lens that is usually
> mounted on my PZ-1p. Both lenses
> show significant light drop-off in
> the corners, especially wide open.
Wouldn't "significant" light fall off be an imag
At 11:52 27.1.2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks, everyone. This was educational.
[...]
>I still like my zooms, though. And my primes. Heck, I like all my
>lenses.
>Joe
Who doesn't ;-) Reminds me of having to get some more (after that nefarious
"lens purchase enabler" started enabling, I can't resist
So what are we saying? Expense zoom's and prime's are
much better than cheap zooms, cheap Zoom's at there
worst focal lenght are poor, even on 4x6" colour
prints.
I like the test method of writting on the back of the
prints, suffling and sorting on percived "goodness". I
used the same test for so
From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners
can resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior
to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens sharpness
of a prime would not translate into e
>> There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film
>> scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who
>> says you have to scan your film at all?
>
>I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good
>lenses when all you're going to do is make 4x6s?"
Mark Roberts wrote:
> There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film
> scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who
> says you have to scan your film at all?
I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good
lenses when all you're going to d
There are some differences apparent, especially at the edges, even with the
Pentax 28-70 f/4 AL, which is one of the best zooms around.
An example of this can be seen at
http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/infinitytest.htm
Other zooms perform considerably worse than this. I used to have a 35-80,
Sacrilege!!! You dare question the superiority of primes?
HAR
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 25, 2001 1:57 PM
Subject: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
> The quote below came up on rec.photo.film+labs. It brings
Because:
#1 Effective results
The better the sharpness on edges, the better
the results, even at every level of loss.
Better lenses minimize loss.
#2 Barrel & pincusion distortion
... are reduced or eliminated. The Tamron
70-300 LD IF lense may be extremely sharp,
47 matches
Mail list logo
