tomascastelazo

<p>I´ve used the latest download (7.1) and it works great for my G1X... I am running Lightroom 3.6 and it does not support the Raw files, but will run the converted DNG files. This is the way to go!</p>

<p>Thanks Tom!</p>

 

<p><a href="

<p>As talented as Mr. Cadden may be, he sure has no regards for copyrights. He took one of my photographs, located here <a href="../photo/7169868">http://www.photo.net/photo/7169868</a>, copies it, as is passing it on as his own creation infringing on my copyrights. Here is the comparative: <img src=" alt="" /> <a href=" >http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomascastelazo/7166352094/in/photostream</a></p>

<p>I got my first Koni about a 2 months ago... I now have a Rapid M and an M, plus the 60, 90 and 180 lenses.<br>

Shot my first test roll and loved it... Tomorrow I am taking it out for a long early morning walk.<br>

I have a full RB system, which I love, but the handiness of this system is great.</p>

JC Uknz,

<p>

Thanks for your reply.

<P>

I appreciate the link! One of those jewels hard to fnd on the net!

<p>

Now, I embrace ditital media, but what can I say? I like toys! Also, I have a bunch of really great lenses and I think it is a shame to let them collect dust, etc.

<p>

Yesterday I ran a home-test of my canon lenses vs the Zeiss planar and just visually on the camera screen, it beats the canons hands down. Much better contrast and sharpness, really evident.

<p>

The 135 Takumar was also a bit better than the canons.

<p>

I will run a series of comparison tests soon and hope to post them here for everyone?s benefit.

Kari

<p>

Basically I am interested in knowing/comparing sharpness, color rendition, contrast, etc. and experiences of people who have used both lenses. I am just getting into it. So far with the lenses that have, I am happy with results, but I don?t know if it is the novelty of it, or there are true benefits of using those great old lenses on digital bodies.

<p>

For example, the Zeiss Planar 50mm gives me a very sharp, creamy feel, different colors than my 28-135 IS, for example.

<p>

The link that Rainer provided answered a lot of questions that I had, my remainng doubt is about the chromatic aberration attributed to analog lenses, about light not falling perpendicular to the lens, uneveness of exposure due to the supposed angle of incidence, etc. I want to know if these arguments are true, and if so, what focal lengths are more prone to the aberrations or create uneven exposure, etc.

<p>

Tomas

Thanks Rainer! definitely a great answer! Now I have to find out about the quality.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Tomas

Ok folks, it turns out that my "new" interest is on using what has become known

as "analog" lenses.

<p>

I've read a bunch of things about both lenses being different. And here is where I

need help from

<p>

a) knowledgeable people technically speaking, without a lot of story to the

answers and

<p>

b) knowleadgable people practically speaking without a lot of story to the answers.

<p>

So the questions are:

<p>

1. How true it is what is said about "digital lenses" focusing on the sensor in a

much perpendicular manner as opposed to "analog lenses" having a light

incidence of greater degree and thus affecting image quality?

<p>

2. With the smaller chip, due to the circle of coverage, the "analog lenses"

become a relatively longer lens in digital cameras (I accept and understand this),

however, what happens to the Depth of Field? A wide angle has ample DOF, at full

use of image circle. When the usable area is reduced, to an equivalent, lets say,

of a 50mm (35mm analog converts to 52mm aprox in digital), does the ample DOF

characteristics are retained despite the fact that the effective area of coverage is

that of a longer lens? Another example... an 80mm lens in analog photography

has nice bokeh, different than what a 50mm lens would yield, but when I use a

50mm lens in a digital camera and it turns in effect into an 80mm equivalent, will I

get the same bokeh?

<p>

3. I have bought from ebay a series of Takummars screw mount to use on my

canon 20d. They are a 35mmm f2.5, a 105 2.5, a 135 3.5. I also have two Tamrons

SPs, a plastic fantastic 100mm vivitar macro, a Zeiss planar t, 50mm 1.4. Has

anybody has an experience using these lenses on digital cameras?

<p>

I already have some in my possession, and they definitely render something

different than the canon lenses I have. But since I do not have the equivalent in

canon lenses, I cannot compare.

<p>

Can anyone share some real life experiences with these lenses?

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

Tomas

Thanks Kevin, I am using an RB67... have the 180 and 250 lenses... wanted to avoid the 360.... I paid 62 bucks... so at least it will be a 62 bucks experiment...

Does anyone have the Kenko 2x teleplus? I?d like to hear from personal

experiences as far as results of using this teleconverter. Thank you!