lovethismoment

I love the angle of view of the 24mm. There are a few times I wish I had a wider lens but most of the time I think the 24 is a lot more usable than the 20, but really it comes down to personal preference - if you could at least try them out at a store you might get a better idea. I actually find the 24 to be quite a bit different to the 28 end of my old crap zoom, and as others have said I find the view to be more interesting.

 

I had a friend who was looking at buying an SLR and was asking me recommendations. I went on and on about the 24mm lens and he just smiled and nodded, then I actually got him to look through the viewfinder and he went, "Wow, I want one of those!"

 

Here's a photo with the sun in the frame to show the little flare there is (BTW it's the Canon 24mm f2.8). I find it very flare resistant - I always use the lens hood...excpet for when my last one got loose and I managed to lose it...oops.<div></div>

Thanks for your responses. Sorry, forgot to say it's for 35mm...too carried away with the products!

 

I asked about the difference in quality between the Mamiya 8x and 5x because I saw a thread where someone said they had the Mamiya 5x, thought it was fantastic, then got the Mamiya 8x and were disappointed in comparison.

I'm looking at finally getting a good quality loupe. After a little

investigation the Mamiya loupes look to be a good deal with good

reviews and a good price, particularly given B&H has them on special

at the moment. A couple of questions though for anyone that's used

them.

 

1. Is the 8x loupe full frame? I did see one response from someone

saying it was, but I was under the impression it wasn't.

 

2. Is there a difference in quality between the 8x and 5x?

 

I'm having a look at lightboxes too. I was thinking of the Cabin 8 x

10" Light Panel as it also seems to be good value. Does anyone have

any comments on it?

 

Thanks!

I'd say in these days of manufacturers wanting to save a buck wherever they can a lemon is certainly a possibility. Maybe you could post an example of what you get from the lens and then others with the same lens could comment compared to their own.

 

For myself I love my 24mm f2.8 and don't find there to be any discernible difference in sharpness from my 50mm f1.8 or 85mm f1.8. I admittedly haven't done many enlargements but the ones I have done I've been very happy with.

On the x-rays. I was there in March and all my film went through the machine since I didn't even think about it. I had no problems with colour shifts or fogging - everything was fine. I had Sensia 100 and 400 and Velvia. In fact a lot of my film has been through many many x-ray machines by now and I've yet to experience any problems. Maybe I'm just lucky... (wish I was so lucky with my cameras but that's another story).

An interesting question for me at the moment. I'm in IT but am in the process of jumping ship since I hate the industry. It's not actually programming etc that I hate, I actually still quite like that, just being stressed working for big companies that don't give a damn about anyone, be it their employees or their clients. I've realised that my main, or only reason infact, for staying in IT is the money, and life's too short for more money to be your main purpose.

 

I'm planning to start a business of my own, but have a bit of work in the interim to get myself up to scratch for that. I don't know what business yet but it most likely won't be photography. I'm currently doing a website to try to sell my photos, but that's just a sideline I'm hoping may pay for some of the expenses of the hobby - I have no expectations of making much from it. Whatever business though I've realised that I need more fulfilment from work - I need to feel like I'm achieving something for myself. I guess I've always known that I've wanted to work for myself, it's just taken me a little while to get to it.

 

Something that I've started to tell myself is "Live the life you want to live, not the one you think you should". Life really is too short.

<div></div>

<div></div>

I was at Uluru last September and a heat wave went through making it mid to high 30's C, but that's not usual and it can still get quite cold at night at that time of year.

 

I would recommend doing the Valley of the Winds walk at Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) as the number one thing, then the walk around the base of Uluru...I thought both were fantastic. Kings Canyon is definitely worth going too as well, though a little more strenuous if you go to the top of the canyon.

 

One very strong recommendation I would make is to keep away from the toilets at Uluru! They would have to be one of the foulest things I have ever smelt in my life, and I discovered afterwards that 10km away at the Cultural Centre they have absolutely lovely toilets.

 

Oh, and while I haven't been there I have heard from a lot of other people that the Flinders Ranges are fantastic.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I'll stop responding soon! I forgot (again) to mention Castlepoint on the North Island. It's kind of out of the way, and there isn't much there except a lighthouse, but the scenery is lovely (and so is the drive to get there) and there are next to no tourists, which is always a bonus!

<p>

I've just put some of my New Zealand photos up in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=392378">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=392378</a> if you want to see them. They're only with my digital as I have no way to scan in my slides at the moment.

</p>

<p>

I forgot to mention Punakaiki before. The blowholes and "pancake" rocks are worth stopping to see if you're driving past. If you can try to get there at high tide. Franz Josef Glacier was good but I'm a bit anti it as I got 3 really disgusting blisters on a walk there that took weeks to heal (it was 4 1/2 weeks ago and I still have scabs!)

</p>

You are going to be very busy in 18 days! At best you'll probably only be able to get to maybe half of each island (though not actually see all in each half). Driving times between places are longer than you might think since most roads are quite windy, and when I was there (in March this year) there were lots and lots of roadworks. And I came across 2 bridges you share with the train (and one intersection where the train ran through the middle of a roundabout...weird).

 

Anyway, getting distracted. The absolute best thing I did while I was there was Tongariro Crossing, which is a walk over Mt Tongariro, which is an extinct volcano. It's in the centre of the North Island just north of Mt Ruapehu, if you've heard of that. The walk goes past Mt Ngauruhoe, which is an active volcano that was used as Mt Doom in the Lord of the Rings movies and is a really cool looking mountain. You walk through 2 craters, view a spectacular red crater, and there's a few brightly coloured lakes. The landscape is amazing in a very stark way, and it's definitely not something you are going to see every day. The downsides of it are that it's a 17km walk and most of the climbing is very steep. I'm not hugely fit, so with all the camera gear I had I found the climbing pretty painful. Also I imagine there could be snow up there by the time you go as it was pretty cold up there in March.

 

Other recommendations. I'd recommend staying at Taupo rather than Rotorua to see all the thermal stuff as it's by a lovely huge lake and it doesn't stink like Rotorua (believe me, you'll be sick of the smell of sulphur very soon).

 

On the South Island, I've been to Queenstown and Milford Sound before so didn't go this time, though the area around Queenstown is lovely. If you're already planning to be around Abel Tasman NP though I doubt you'll find time to get down to Queenstown. Top of the list on the South Island then would be Farewell Spit in the Golden Bay area (in the general vicinity of Abel Tasman). There were a lot less tourists and the area is lovely, and there is a gorgeous beach. Then the Banks Peninsula, which is near Christchurch. It's all mountainous with many bays. Then Kaikoura with the whale watching. I'd recommend taking sea sickness tablets as I'm not normally a person that gets motion sick but for some reason the jet boat made me feel terrible.

Marcio, I think you're right. 1:1 means the image on the film is the same size as the image in real life. So a 35mm subject on 35mm will fill the frame, on digital will be bigger than the frame, and on LF will be only a small part of the frame, so not exactly suitable for macro work.

If you do decide on extension tubes I'd suggest the Kenko set of 3 rather than the Canon. You get 12, 20 and 36mm tubes for the price of the Canon 25 - much more versatile.

I don't know about 120 but from memory (from about 3 months ago when I was there) 35mm was close to the price of film at B&H. Certainly a lot cheaper than Australia where I live!

 

I didn't really shop around either. I went to Wing Shing in Mong Kok, which I found in other threads on photo.net (do a google search as I don't recall the exact address).

I just thought I'd (finally) do a follow up to this question. I tried star trails with Sensia 400 and was very happy with the film and pretty happy with the photos (need to take more)...except for the fact it was the first time I shot with my EOS 10 and I didn't realise it put the date right in the frame (doh). I won't make that mistake again (dare I ask why anyone would want a date right in the middle of the frame?). Anyway, definitely go slide film all the way. I'd put up an example but I can't use my laptop at the moment (damn dodgy technology).

 

In a few weeks time I'm off to the Northern Territory, Australia for 3 weeks holiday and so will have ample opportunity to try more...along with lots of other photography of course. I love holidays!

Thanks heaps for everyone�s responses. Living in Australia I don't know how easily I'd find hypered film, though if the suggested store has a website that might be an option. I've got some Sensia 400 so I'll have a go with that when I next find an opportune night. On the bright side I did at least get some reasonable photos with the NPZ of a friend�s band playing a gig, so all was not lost :)

 

As an aside, can anyone recommend a good book on astrophotography, ranging from the basics to the more advanced techniques?

I�ve just had my first foray into astrophotography � nothing fancy,

basically just an attempt to capture the stars as points using 24

f2.8 and 50 f1.8 lenses and Fuji NPZ. After reading up a little bit

(doesn�t seem nearly enough now) I left the aperture at f2.8 on both

lenses and had shutter speeds between 6 and 30 seconds. The area I

was in was reasonably dark, no moon, but there was a little bit of

light pollution from one direction.

 

I get my prints done on a Fuji Frontier and was very disappointed

with the results. I was well prepared for out-of-focus stars or

completely black prints, but what I got was a sky that is a murky

grey-dark green colour and so grainy you can only just tell the

difference between the stars and the gain. I assume this is a result

of the very thin negatives and the scanning process but the question

is what can be done about it?

 

I have a Canon FS4000 scanner at home and have been attempting to get

something resembling an attractive scan from my negatives. Mostly

they turn out looking like the prints, sometimes they look worse. I

have tried using Vuescan and grain reduction, but maybe I just don�t

know how to use it properly because it seems to do a worse job than

Canon�s software. I�ve gotten better results scanning them in as

positives and adjusting the exposure on the scanner, but still can�t

seem to get anything that really resembles what I would expect to see

(ie. a dark sky and stars).

 

Does anyone have any tips about how to scan thin negatives without

all the grain? It must be possible since I�ve seen some great photos

on the web with really dark skies�or are they just from scanning the

prints? Would I be better off using slide film for astrophotography

and scanning? Can I get good prints from the Fuji Frontier or should

I forget digital processing? Or is it just a crummy photographic

technique?

 

BTW, examining the negatives shows there is certainly not much there

except for the stars, so maybe I just need more exposure???

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Here Here for the 24. I started with the kit lens and then bought the 50 1.8 and 24 2.8 while travelling. I love them both but the 24 is my favourite and gets used the most. I'll be looking at the 85 or 100 next but given that landscapes and architecture seem to be what I like to take the most photos of wide is better. I have a very crappy Sigma 70-300 I can use if a really (really) want a longer lens, but it hardly ever gets used. At the end of the day I'd prefer to be stuck with wider than I need than longer.

What city are you in Latham? In Brisbane there's a big store called Photo Continental. I think they're probably a bit more expensive than what I saw on Dirt Cheap Cameras but they've matched prices when I've asked. Don't forget that a lot of stores can be bargained with.

<p>

I have the 24/2.8 and love it. I got it and the 50/1.8 to replace my crappy 28-80 zoom and the 24 is actually wider than the 28 end (if it really is 28) than you would expect. I use the 24 quite a bit more than the 50. I'm mainly interested in landscapes but the 24 seems to me to be a very good length for taking indoor photos as it is wide enough to fit in what you want without being so wide you lose all detail and make rooms seem like caverns. Get the hood and you will have relatively few problems with flare. There is also very little distortion.

</p>

<p>

Here's some photo's of a <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/650326>bridge</a>, a <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/415725>landscape</a> and an <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/415726>indoor shot</a> taken with this lens.

</p>

<p>

At the end of the day though it really depends on what perspective you prefer - have a test of both of them before you decide.

</p>

I'll join the hordes in praising the 24mm. I haven't used a 20 so I can't comment too much on that except to say there are very few times I wished the 24 was wider. As others have said the difference between 24 and 28 - particularly a zoom - is more than you might expect. The 24mm 2.8 is a great lens and my favourite. I have also heard that it's better optically than the 20 - does anyone else know if that's the case? And don't forget the lens hood!