oceanphysics

AJAX is not a language.

Based on a casual inspection of the first few pages of the gallery it looks more like a mediocracy of images, but to each his own.

<i>There are a number of different types of distortion - the only one that really of any particular relevance with these two lenses is perspective distortion.</i>

<p>

Says who? Both lenses will no doubt exhibit some level of barrel distortion, and it is a legitimate question to ask which exhibits more.

Don't know about the lenses in question, but you need to be aware that there are two very different meanings of "distortion" when it comes to wide angle lenses.

 

First there is actual barrel distortion, which is a limitation of a particular lens design that causes straight lines to bend into curves. And there is perspective "distortion," which is geometrically inevitable when shooting with wide angle lenses. It exaggerates perspective and makes receding parallel lines converge more quickly, but does not bend straight lines into curves. It's responsible for exaggerating the keystoning of buildings you see when the camera is pointed upward rather than being kept level with the ground.

 

The former will vary with lens design. The latter will be the same with the same focal length on the same format.

<i>Particularly as seen on this site, once one owns a body, he or she will want L and L only lenses</i>

<p>

So the millions of non-L lenses sold have been to persons not owning camera bodies? Seems odd.

It's a total crap British tabloid -- what do you expect?

He can he be 17 -- he was on <i>Blossom</i> in the early 90's.

The K1000 is completely outclassed by either of the others, and in fact by most other SLR's you could buy. The main virtue, to the the extent it had any, was that it was cheap, but in the current era of cheap film SLR's it's pointless.

Cute. Looks like the original campus of the School of Rock.

I agree. Novices spend all their time worrying about/finding/travelling to subjects to shoot, then treat the lighting as an afterthought. They'd do better if it were the other way around.

<i>But pros have always worked under that pressure.</i>

<p>

Doctors have always worked under the pressure of saving patients' lives, but they don't restrict themselves to the tools that were available decades ago. There's something wrong with your logic here.

<i>This beneficial because it gives more choice to the consumer.</i>

<p>

What an unbelievable load. Being forced to buy at MSRP is hardly "more choice."

<p>

What it's really about is eliminating choice and competition at the retail level. You'll pay enough to support a full-service low-volume boutique retailer occupying expensive space in a fancy mall whether you actually buy there, or at a more efficient big-box store, or mail order.

It's certainly not a matter of "manufacturing tolerances." That term implies that different lenses coming off the line would have noticeably different focal lengths, which is certainly not the case.

 

It's marketing and has already been mentioned, the fact that some lenses are only at their nominal focal length when focused at infinity.

<i>All snakes will avoid you if possible</i>

<p>

Not all. Eastern (and from what I understand Western) diamondbacks will just as often stand their ground, but fortunately there aren't any in GSMNP. Cottonmouths can be similarly hardheaded.

Well you've already got the 28-105, so it wouldn't be your widest lens. I guess I don't understand the question. But anyway, on a crop camera I'd want something in the 17mm range at least. On such a camera a 35mm is really a (very) short telephoto.

The XTi is a Canon by the way. A Rebel.

<i>has panned the M8 as being several generations behind the latest DSLRs (and even the little Sony XTi) in both image quality and electronics. Quite possibly true, but quite unfair, I think.</i>

<p>

I have no idea if it's true or not. But if it's true, I don't see how it could possibly be unfair to point it out. Does Leica suck so badly as a company that they need special consideration in reviews? And there's some reason they should get it?

There are two 28-105's. The f/3.5-4.5 is an excellent consumer zoom. The f/4-5.6 I haven't tried, but judging by the price, it's likely junk.

 

Other consumer zooms aren't going to be noticeably better than the f/3.5-4.5. However, you might consider something that starts wider than 28mm, or that has image stabilization.

Based on what? The fact that no logo is visible, the camera is never mentioned, and is nearly unidentifiable? If were a placement the photographer would be wearing it around his neck when he was interviewed.

 

There's no reason it shouldn't have been used. It's perfectly capable. What's with all the celeb-photographer jock-sniffing on this forum lately anyway? A good photographer can get good results with whatever they want to use. And if you're not, it it's not the camera.

Good lord. All that justification and you're worried about <i>other people's</i> gear envy? Sounds to me like a raging Pentax inferiority complex.

<p>

Why anybody cares what anybody else uses is a mystery to me. I barely care what I use.

I don't have time to read the article and it looks boring as hell. But anyone who thinks that's a legitimate quote at the top has a deficit of common sense.

It's not a "p&s digicam" and it's not being used (primarily) as a polaroid. It's also not "35mm digital" by the way. But's perfectly capable of magazine shots, or even fairly large prints.

<i>The 1D and 1Ds bodies, being 1.3x and full-frame, will never take a Nikkor lens.</i>

<p>

Utter nonsense. People have been using Nikkors of all sorts with full-frame EOS digital and film bodies with adaptors forever. It works fine. The only ones that wouldn't work are the DX lenses, and the G lenses because there would be no way to control the aperture.

EOS Rebel XT or XTi with 17-85 f/4-56. IS lens. It's crazy to buy a camera with as limited a selection of compatible lenses as the D40.

The 2-element ones work really well with long lenses. I don't know anything about Hama. I was under the impression that Canon and Nikon make the only 2-element ones, and they cost $50-80. If the Hamas are much cheaper then they're probably single-element, in which case I wouldn't bother.