>> Hi Alan,
>> I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
lens. The question is rather if you like it's
characteristics or not. But that is a totally
different matter ...
>>
>Guess I just can't stand the bright-edge bokeh of the
43. :)
> I know which one for Cartier-Bresson, but what about Winnogrand
and Salgado?
Winogrand used a 28mm almost always, and Salgado, when I heard him
interviewed, said he used a 28, 35, and a 60.
--Mike
Thanks Mike. I did a rapid check on the web yesterday but could not
find the answer for Salga
On my most recent trip, I shot 99+ % with the 20-35 or the 50 1.4. I
used the 50 mainly for speed reasons. I had never been a fan of wide
angles, and I thought I would force myself to think in that mode. It
worked fairly well, although the f4 was slow, and a tripod was
impractical. One interest
>> definition only uses a few focal lengths--no zooms, nothing over
>> 135mm if that, no macro (no, the DR doesn't count ).
> I've found myself more and more using only a 35mm and 85/90mm lens.
Well, this post ~is~ about a zoom, but it responds to your point,
Bob. I've been using the ol' VS1 35-
- Original Message -
From: Fred
Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> > manual focus feel is good
>
> Well, speaking for the minority once again, I have to say that
I
> don't like it (or the 43/1.9) for manual focus - too much of a
> "whirring&q
> But Mike, how faithful have you been to any of them? Hmm?
Well, very faithful, Dan, if all you're talking about is the focal length!
Of course I did a series of reviews of medium format equipment for _Camera &
Darkroom_, and have tried or owned or used dozens if not actually hundreds
of lenses
> I know which one for Cartier-Bresson, but what about Winnogrand and Salgado?
Winogrand used a 28mm almost always, and Salgado, when I heard him
interviewed, said he used a 28, 35, and a 60.
--Mike
P.S. Anyone closely associated with using a Leica rangefinder almost by
definition only uses a f
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We did a pretty extensive survey on CompuServe that I wrote up for the old
>_Camera & Darkroom_ magazine. We wanted to determine what a basic kit of
>primes would be for most photographers. The consensus was that an "average"
>kit would consist of four len
I also bet that this thread becomes meaningless, because for every
photographer who used a minimal kit you can find one who carried a trunk
full of gear with them.
BR
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And I bet their macro, sports, architectural and panoramic landscape pics
sucked :-)
That's fine if you want to shoot photojournalistic pictures. If everyone did
the same thing the same way then there would be no need for more than one
camera and lens; the world isn't like that though. Further more, two
staple lenses of photojournalists these days are 20-35mm and 70-200mm zooms.
Hi Mike,
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:32:22 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > You always need more [lenses] ...
>
> No you don't! [snip] Many photojournalists carry no
> more than four.
Well, it depends on what you're doing and the environment in which
you're doing it. I can agree with four a lot eas
>> FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
Cartier-Bresson carried three lenses but only used one of them.
Garry Winogrand used one.
Sal
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
>
>
> >> FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
>
> > You always need more...
>
>
> No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three
> lenses at once
> in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
>> FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
> You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
Cartier-Bresson carried three lenses but only used one of them.
Garry Winogrand used one.
Sa
> FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
Of course !!!
Fred
And that's what this list is all about --- enablement!
>> You always need more...
Hallo here is a nice article about the limeted lenses.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
regards
Rüdiger
You always need more...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 16:12
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
> I support this. Especially do I like the angle of
I support this. Especially do I like the angle of view. My normal lens seems to be a
tele-lens now - it gets dusty now in the cupboard.
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
Bernd
- original Nachricht
> how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
Mor
>> In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur
for portrait
>> shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length
(plus f1.4).
> 85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the
FA* 85/1.4 is
> ~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances,
so that the
> difference between the autofocus 8
> how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
More of the same but better in every respect.
Pål
>> how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and
really like
> I would consider the 43 is not particular great
optically while the 77 is very good imho.
> regards,
> Alan Chan
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
> In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait
> shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4).
85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the FA* 85/1.4 is
~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances, so that the
difference between the autofocus 85/1.4 an
> manual focus feel is good
Well, speaking for the minority once again, I have to say that I
don't like it (or the 43/1.9) for manual focus - too much of a
"whirring" gear train feel - not "fluid" like ~real~ manual focus
lenses (or even the FA* 85/1.4, with its focus clutch).
Fred
- Original Message -
From: whereswayne
Subject: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its
cracked up to
> be?
It's a pretty good lens. AF is good on my MZ-5, manual focus
feel is good. The finish seems tough and the build quality se
Yeah, I forgot this - the 85 is said to be poor at long distances near
infinity.
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 11:18
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
>
i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its cracked up to
be?
or is saving up for the 85mm better bet
i am looking for a portrait come landscape lens come people even a macro
lens with pentaxes marvelous convertor the heliocoid windout thing
i currently use the vivitar 35-85mm for
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
I would consider the 43 is not particular great optically while the 77 is
very good imho.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
thanks
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> I havent used the 43 seriously, so cant say. Opinion on the 43 seems to
>
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait shots, as
it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4). For landscapes and
general photography the FA77/f1.8 is said to be the better choice. See
http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm
Arnold
top
drawer. It can look overpriced based on specs and build, but the glass
is what you are buying.
Hope this helps...
> -Original Message-
> From: whereswayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 11:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm lim
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> I wondered if you woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 10:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
> how does it compare to the 24-90mm
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMA
how does it compare to the 24-90mm
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> It is EVERYTHING it is cracked up to be, and more
It is EVERYTHING it is cracked up to be, and more!
I would forget the 85 unless you feel like using the extra weight to
keep you fit, or REALLY need the extra stop or half stop whatever it is.
Some debate which of the two has the best bokeh, and I think it comes
down to personal taste. Both are
35 matches
Mail list logo
