On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Stan Halpin wrote:
> Enjoy what you have, don't get too caught up in what you might like to
> buy sometime later, and you will do just fine with a 28/50/135 set of
> lenses.
...and perhaps a converter, as Stan said (or possibly the 1.7 AF,
which will turn a cheap but good K o
Like he said.
But if you want more...
1. Any Pentax 50mm is good. If youwant 'portrait', add a Pentax or
other good brand 1.4 telextender.
2. The M-100/2.8 is not all that common, but also not all that
expensive. It might be a better length than the 135mm for portraits.
3. But 135/3.5 will give y
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: first question
> Please rephrase your comments. What is useless? And what exactly
> do you think I am assuming? All I said is you cant change the
> relative DOF in an image by enlarging or reducing it
, 2004 8:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: first question
true but useless. you're assuming the same COC applies across all
imaging element sizes. this isn't remotely true.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: &
true but useless. you're assuming the same COC applies across all imaging
element sizes. this isn't remotely true.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:36
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: first question
Well, one of us is wrong. I suggest people try it out to find out which.
--
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> DOF is solely dependent on CAPTURE magnification ratio and f-stop. I
Thanks. Continuing education classes begin anew...
graywolf wrote:
OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding.
No problem. I suspect we all have flaws in understanding, at times.
That's what this dialog is all about.
What both Bill Robb and I were saying is that if you take a photo from
the same
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: first question
> Now that starts to make more sense. Not what you said originally
though. Why
> not be honest and just admit
Now that starts to make more sense. Not what you said originally though. Why
not be honest and just admit you got it wrong first time round?
Antonio
On 8/8/04 5:20 am, "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, Keith, I apologize for misunderstanding.
>
> What both Bill Robb and I were saying
Okay, okay...let's try to get rid of the paranoia, alright? No, I mean you...
I suppose I could have just said, "Huh? Whaddya mean?"
But, I tried to talk to what you said...
Just assume I'm an old fart and sometimes just don't get it, if the comments
are a bit obscure.
I wasn't funnin' you. It's o
I see you have given up argument yet again Greywolf and feel somehow insult
will win you the argument.
A.
On 7/8/04 11:08 pm, "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are
> not that dumb. Second, that means you are being a
Keith, I think that Tom lost the artument regarding focal lengh and
perspective/AOV some time ago and just keep arguing so as not to loose face,
digging an ever deeper hole for himself.
A.
On 7/8/04 10:40 pm, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm
There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are
not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored).
Have fun.
--
Keith Whaley wrote:
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use
mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop.
If I car
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use
mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop.
If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the
first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that
opening diameter, NOT the f-stop?
Is
Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens
can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into
the frame from the distance you have to work in.
As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate
subject distan
Hi,
if you do get a zoom for your K1000, do get one with constant
aperture (that is, like 80-210/4, not 70-210/4-5.6). Otherwise,
your exposure will change when you zoom, and you will have to
forever adjust for it.
Good light!
fra
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: first question
> Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a
25mm so it
> looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal
length does
> not change perspective). I believe DOF i
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: first question
>
> > > The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight
head
> > > shots
> >
> > ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from
the
>
> Hello there,
>
> I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of
> questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of
> pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying
> a Nikon Digit
> Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?
I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one (but certain ones might be
adequate for some particular uses).
> Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8?
I have never seen any evidence that any of them were made by Pentax.
And, especially since th
On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote:
> > The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> > shots
>
> ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
> subject.
I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my
125/135mm lenses,
> The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> shots
...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
subject.
Fred
> Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a
> 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm.
> (focal length does not change perspective).
...if the 25mm and 85mm lenses are both used from the same distance.
Fred
you don't
want too much DOF, like a perfectly sharp nose or ears.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 7. august 2004 04:06
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question
- Ori
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: first question
>
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and
shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm might me perfect f
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: RE: first question
>
>
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm m
get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: first question
Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head
dt: 6. august 2004 20:48
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question
>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem
>to
>find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There
>are
>a lot of 135mm l
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: first question
>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't
seem
>to
>find much on ebay.
>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem
>to
>find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There
>are
>a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things?
The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
s
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 20:42
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question
The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif
your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the
price difference between it and a Pentax is not that gr
Hi,
Paul McEvoy wrote:
I'm new here
Greetings.
As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or
is 28mm just as good?
Pentax used to make a 24-35 zoom. It's not fast and there is some
distortion at wider angles but it is sublimely sharp. Should be
available in "user" co
The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif
your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the
price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on
Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass.
I don't know about 3rd part
First of all, thanks for the awesome help.
Of course your help leads me to having other questions:
Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax?
Specifically the 135mm 2.8?
Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And
any to totally avoid?
Hi Paul, and welcome to you.
It sounds reasonable to me to use film for a trip like that.
A 135mm is a fin e portrait lens for outdoor purposes. Indoo it's often to
long - a 105 or 85 mm might be better there.
For inddor a 24mm is good, cause you can frame all the people at the dinner
table - a 28m
You may search eBay for SMC-M 28/2.8, SMC-A 28/2.8, SMC-M 100/2.8, SMC-A
100/2.8, SMC-A 70-210/4. SMC-M 135/3.5 is good, cheap, and plentiful as
well, but you may find the gap between 50mm and 135mm a little big. SMC-A
35-105/3.5 is a very good zoom worth to consider too. All these are common
You could not go far wrong with an M28/3.5 and an M135/3.5 as a starter outfit.
Cheap, excellent optics.
The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots, but
then 1/2 length or more works will with your 50mm, thus only compromising on
head and shoulder shots. The 28mm
37 matches
Mail list logo
