The el cheapo 650-1300mm zoom, for those who care
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Paul Furman on 2 Jan 2010 19:51 Bruce wrote: > > <regarding Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens> > > if you are using an APS-C DSLR, you will have slightly more > depth of field to work with, and the extra magnification (making it > effectively a 135mm f/1.4) will be useful. Less DOF :-) > One thing I didn't get an opportunity to say is that the lens is an > outstanding performer at f/8 or f/11 with biting sharpness across the > frame, excellent contrast and distortion that is almost too low to > measure. It's just an amazing lens for the money. > -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Bruce on 3 Jan 2010 07:15 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:51:40 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> >> <regarding Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens> >> >> if you are using an APS-C DSLR, you will have slightly more >> depth of field to work with, and the extra magnification (making it >> effectively a 135mm f/1.4) will be useful. > >Less DOF :-) My point was that there is more DOF on DX than FX.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 3 Jan 2010 08:08 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:15:28 +0000, Bruce wrote: >>> <regarding Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lens> >>> >>> if you are using an APS-C DSLR, you will have slightly more depth of >>> field to work with, and the extra magnification (making it effectively >>> a 135mm f/1.4) will be useful. >> >>Less DOF :-) > > My point was that there is more DOF on DX than FX. True, but not when you use the same lens. The Samyang 85mm has more DOF on FX than on DX. If you use a 85mm _equivalent_, like the Pentax DA* 55mm f/1.4, then you'll get more DOF on DX. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Rich on 3 Jan 2010 13:11 Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in news:3bftj5poog5imbn484avgd5arpr2sv6for(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:55:41 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> > wrote: >: Robert Coe wrote: >: > RustY � wrote: >: > : RichA wrote >: > : >: > : > long exposure needed >: > : > with an f16 focal length ............... >: > : >: > : What? >: > >: > Don't be snarky. Rich has no particular reason to know the >: > difference berween aperture and focal length. Neither of them is >: > made of plastic. >: >: I disassembled a 28-200 old-ish film super-zoom and it has plastic >: aperture blades. I wouldn't be surprised if that's used in high end >: lenses too. > > They wouldn't rust, and you might not have to oil them. And oil that > isn't there won't drip onto a lens element. > > Bob > The more moving plastic parts in a lens, the greater the problems from plastic dust, which is WAY worse than metal dust as it is static charged, always. Do this; Take a Nikon or Olympus lens with a plastic mount. Mount and unmount it from the camera ten times. Now run your finger around the lens's mount. BLACK plastic dust will coat your finger. The abraision with metal that used to take years takes only weeks.
From: Bruce on 3 Jan 2010 13:21
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:11:12 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >The more moving plastic parts in a lens, the greater the problems from >plastic dust, which is WAY worse than metal dust as it is static charged, >always. Do this; Take a Nikon or Olympus lens with a plastic mount. >Mount and unmount it from the camera ten times. Now run your finger >around the lens's mount. BLACK plastic dust will coat your finger. The >abraision with metal that used to take years takes only weeks. BLACK plastic dust? Definitely the WORST kind! |