jim r

Each lens comes with a depth of field chart that you can study, but as others have said you need to shoot. And then shoot a bunch more and learn what you like and don't like with each lens.

errr once every four years<div></div>

Vote no problem, not like anyone asks me more often, regrettably, than four times a year!

 

Beau's first one, followed by the second, and then Kent's headlights.

 

Kind Regards - Jim

I use the orginal AF neck strap looped around my wrist, and it works very well. The Artisan and Artists wrist strap looks nice, see/buy one here -> http://www.photovillage.com/

I had a Tokina 28-80 in Canon mount and recently purchased the Tamron 28-75. Based on only a few rolls through the Tamron, it appears these lenses have similar optical performance, a slight edge to the Tamron. The Tokina has a better build quality and the Tamron has a closer minimum focus distance, and is much lighter.

Assuming the 35mm manual camera is an SLR, and the "WA effect" you describe is frame edge curvature and subject distortion, a rangefinder may provide less WA effect. In my experience this is the case in using a Canon SLR 24mm lens and Voightlander's 25mm on a Hexar RF. Clearly wider lens (e.g., 21mm, 18mm,16mm etc...) all increase the WA effect. Keeping the camera level on all planes also minimizes the WA effect. Although I've never used MF or LF cameras it is my understanding that the design of MF/LF lenses reduces WA effect.

check please!

gee Arthur, first you suggest a man has a "period," and then you claim one shouldn't be "uncoth" don't you think before you type?

*&^*&^<div></div>

m. -

 

I play around a little with underwater, and if you really start to get into it find yourself an old Nikonos II. They're great for available light (i.e., shallow water)and they can be had on the bay for ~$100. Fully manual, all metal built like an M2 and if they flood all you loose is the film - unlike a V. The 35 is a great lens that does both under and over water, as is the 28 which has a sweet focus spot for land use around ~10ft, but THE lens is the 15mm.

 

Happy Bubbles...<div></div>

yep, I have one of those pesky ol' meters too! Good thing we know who's oil is under their sand!

gee I guess my Canon 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50 f1.4, 85mmf1.8, and 135f2.0 are a perfectly matched set. I just mounted each lens onto an EOS 3 mounted on a tripod set in AV at f4.0 and got the same shutter speed under constant indoor light conditions aimed at a grey card.

 

Happy quacks....<div></div>

I'm not sure I totally understand your questions, but negating miniscule differences in glass quality, lens of different focal lenths, set at the same aperture, should provide the same shutter speed.

 

It should also be noted that on most if not all newer, electronic SLRs, the viewfinder will be brighter, regardless of aperture setting, with a faster lens attached, i.e., a f1.4 lens will have a brighter viewfinder than a f2.8 lens (in fact in this example it will be 2-stops brighter.) Viewfinder brightness will decrease if you depress a depth-of-field preview button (camera model dependant) when your f-stop is set to a smaller aperture than wide open.

atari dude,

 

Look at near top center of the photo.net home page and check under ->Community ->Recommendations ->Processing Laboratories.

 

I've received great service and quality prints from A&I in Hollywood. Try -> www.aandi.com.

 

Happy Trails...

I PERSONALLY THINK PHOTO.NET HAS GONE TOO FAR WHEN YOU CLICK ON A FORUM POSTING AND HAVE TO VIEW AN AD FOR A GADGET AND THEN HAVE TO CLICK AGAIN TO GET TO THE CONTENT.

 

end of rant.

Indeed, no offense intended.

Peter strikes me as a voyeur and possibly a romantic, getting closer and/or tighter cropping would emphasize/isolate a romantic moment. The engagement of the vet with Winogrand (at a time of public angst in the US) would also be more emphasized if he was closer and/or the crop was tighter. So to "get closer"...or not? It depends and you (photographer) should decide.

Lakya -

 

Low light image problems - get faster (2.8 or larger f stop) lenses.

 

Not capturing the moment - due to shutter lag, one of the main advantages of an SLR digital.

 

I'd get the 350d and some fast glass, say a 50 1.8 and a 28 1.8.

 

Happy Trails - Jim

Nathan,

 

I can't compare the two 85's as I've only used the 1.8, and as Brian indicated the look of the 1.2 is very special. I have the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and like the OOF area of both. I also have a Tamron 90 2.8 that I use for macro, and an 85 and 90 is redundant for portraiture and candids. However I prefer the 85 as it is a bit faster and more compact.

 

Happy Trails...

I had one of these lenses, it was very good, had an excellent build quality, and focussed quickly. It's a heavy beast and I sold it and used the $$$ to purchase primes.

John,

 

A tube (extension) gives increased image size (magnification) on film for any focal length lens used. Note when using a tube the range of focus becomes very limited.

 

As another poster said, a macro has the extension built in. In addition a macro lens is optimized in other ways (flatter field of focus) for close-up work and CAN be used for making other images.

 

The short-tele macros - 90, 100, 105, make excellent portrait lens in addition to macro.

 

Happy Trails...

regarding large Polaroids Timothy Greenfield-Sanders says...

 

http://www.modellaunch.com/biz/article.php?id=1000053&pg=5

I agree with Weldon and have also had luck darkening blue skies with a medium yellow.

In addition to the excellent answers, you may want to try a rangefinder someday. Great for low light, non-flash work with no mirror slap! Focusing can be tougher.

Get a 24mm f2.8.