neild

It must be the mechanical lever for the aperture setting (or an absence of one). The exposure is fine on your 5D because you are using stop-down metering. Can you not also use stop-down metering with the Nikkor when on the OM-4Ti? I know the Zuiko has a button which toggles between stop-down and wide-open - perhaps the Nikkor has a similar feature?

By the way Steven, in case you are unfamiliar with the cameras, I myself prefer the ergonomics of the OM-2(n) over that of the OM-4T(i) any day of the week, even though the OM-4T(i) is really a better camera. One thing I don't like about the OM-2(n) though is the hotshoe: they are plastic and break easily; the OM-4T(i) does not have this problem - its hotshoe is quite sturdy. Perhaps the take home message from this is to try to handle each model of camera before you decide on which one to buy.

 

I have all of the lenses you mention except the 28/2 (I have the 28/2.8) and I am happy with all of them. I think the 21/3.5 is better stopped down to at least f/5.6, but the others are fine wide-open IMO. I have no direct experience with Zeiss on 35mm format so I cannot offer you a comparison between the brands. I'd strongly suggest you try them out yourself before committing to them if you can.

Yes, the "the real Conon" hoods are quite well-made ;-)

Olympus Zuiko OM lenses are usually considered to be close to - but not quite as good as - Zeiss lenses (but they cost much less naturally). Here's one comparison with the OM 21/3.5 and the Zeiss 21/2.8: <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/239431"><b>link</b></a>

<p>

As mentioned, there does exist lens variation, and at times I've had a bad performing Zuiko: I just sell it off and buy another and the problem is usually solved.

<i>"The girl is looking at us saying with her eyes, now I'll be dying soon what you look is the result of your idealized world of dancing bodies, where mental sickness begins. Goodbye you sick world, I'm dancing my way out"</i>

<p>

This may be what you interpret her to be 'saying' Billy, but the reason people like her become this way is that they cannot see that they are thin - in fact, she probably imagines that she is still too fat! She may be about to die, but I think she will be the person most surprised if that happens!

I'm no expert, but the hands don't look skeletal enough when you consider the rest of the body. I imagine that the hands would appear to be too big in a real case because more bulk can be lost from the arms relative to the hands... but the hands should still look quite boney.

 

On the question of the head, it does appear too small compared to the hands and body, and while it is not from a fat girl by any means, it does appear to have quite generous cheeks. Therefore, as sure as I can be (never can be 100% sure I think) this is a fake.

 

On another question, I think it is good to show such photos (if they are real) but only if the model agrees and is really aware of what she is agreeing to (as the condition is about distorted perceptions, perhaps such a woman could never be considered to truly understand what she is agreeing to, and following this logic we come to the idea that such photos should never be shown).

 

I don't pretend to have resolved this argument to my own satisfaction as yet...

I think it converts URLs to hyperlinks automatically in plain text mode, but all other tags need to be entered via HTML mode.

Just a <i>test</i>.

A beautiful woman does not make a beautiful photograph, although a beautiful woman can appear in a beautiful photograph. This also applies to remarkably beautiful women...

Not a big deal, but if you want the site to look it's best, then have a look.

There's now a scroll bar along the bottom of the page, but scrolling to the

right shows no new anything. This only began happening the last couple of days

or so.

 

Also, if you go to the other pages (forums etc) there is no problem: so far,

I've only noticed it on the Community page. As I said, not a big deal, and

likely someone just accidently changed some coding... but as they say,

"Appearances are Everything!"

Go to 'Forums', go right to the very bottom of the page, click 'Contact Us', and then it's the 3rd link down.

Or buy a camera with a crank that you turn (not the camera) to wind in the film - it is easy to keep the tongue out when you do it yourself.

Why don't you request them to include all of the image and the black strip in the prints you get: then you can crop the strip off yourself and get 4x3 with no loss of image area. (I guess if they refuse to do this for their customers then a competitor will.)

<i>"One suggestion made to me a while ago was to go out for a walk / photo exploration session with just one lens."</i>

<p>

This is exactly what I do every now and again, and in fact the other day I only used the 135/2.8 for the entire day - it is refreshing to do so I think (and the 135 hasn't had much use lately before that).

I had one once, it had a chip out of the front element and was the old silvernose version (I presume single coated). The coating was probably scratched as it gave very low-contrast photos, especially into the light, but also away from it.

 

Anyway, I sold it and got myself a newer version (blacknose). It works like a dream: the images I get from it are crisp and clear with good contrast. It is very sharp.

 

So, I recommend you try out the lens if you are able to. It certainly can be an excellent buy if it has been looked after.

 

I don't often use this focal length but I was out using it yesterday actually. I use the focal length which is required for the type of photo I want to get at the time.

Wow, great information!

 

I'd heard about many 8/2.8 fisheyes getting severe fungus and now I'm glad to see that mine is one of the older single-coated versions - thanks for that.

I'd suggest as a start:

<p>

1. f-stops and how they relate to DOF;<br>

2. the f-stop/shutter-speed/ISO(ASA) exposure triangle;<br>

3. shutter-speeds and how they relate to movement blur (also hand-holding);<br>

4. focal length and how it relates to FOV and DOF.

<p>

This should give them a firm basis... but does the average novice photographer own a camera which allows these factors to be studied?

Ben, there's only one cure that I know of!

 

Luis, I don't think it has: there is no visible warping or deviations of any kind noticeable, and the plastic is quite hard so it should not be from pressure from the front when it's on the lens.

 

James, this might work if I could figure out where it should go.

 

I had wondered if I should file down the offending ridge with sandpaper, but I don't really know how thick the cap is at this point - I wouldn't want to go through it, so I don't think I will be doing this, but the O-ring idea could possibly work... Thanks for all of your input!

And here is a photo of the lens cap...<div></div>

Hi all,

 

Recently, I noticed that the front element of my 8mm OM Fisheye has a circular

mark running right around it, about half a centimetre (perhaps 1/5 of an inch?)

in from the edge of the glass (see photo). At first, I was at a loss as to how

this could happen, but then I noticed that the plastic lens cap has an inner

circular ridge which seems to be the same diameter as the mark.

 

Now I'm wondering if the cap itself has caused this mark on the lens. Note that

this is the original manufacturer's cap, made specifically for this lens.

 

My question is: Has anybody else with this lens noticed a similar thing happening?

 

I'm sure that the mark will not affect the image quality, especially as it would

lie very near to the edge of the circular image in any case. Even so, I am a bit

concerned about it, and was wondering if I'm tightening the lens cap too much

(but surely not!).

 

Any thoughts from you guys?<div></div>

How about attaching a kind of Holga lens to it?

Oh, also you don't usually use an extention tube with a wide angle lens (but you can, it still works). The 25mm e.t. would be powerful on the 35mm lens, but would be alright for the others (sorry, on my previous post I passed over the fact that you had those lenses...)

Regarding children, unless you want to photograph the pimple on the end of their nose, you don't need any extention tubes. Just a cheap 50mm f/1.8 or a lens with focal length about 85-135mm (or a zoom covering some or all of the range 50-135mm) will be fine.

 

Nature shots, eg. very tiny flowers, could use an extention tube or two - for this purpose, feel free to buy them!

Just think of how original you'll look walking down the street! People will want one, but the won't be able to find them - you'll be one of a kind!

Then you know what you're going to have to do - bad luck!