Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    for what it is worth :

    Konica-Minolta AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D) (SONY/Minolta AF) (°77mm-filter) (MFD=1.0-ft)
    Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (SONY/Minolta AF) (°72mm-filter) (MFD=8.2-ft)
    TAmROn AF18~250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro "All-in-one" zoom (SONY) (°62mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)

    Ouch - I was planning to pay for the 18-250 by handing over the Tamron 17-35. It's a hard decision, I'd miss the bright and (ever-so-) slightly wider images. Ah, if the rest of live were only this easy..
    JimR - gear list changes daily
    http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The TAMRON SP AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 XR Di LD is a great lens, sharp and bright ... but, as far as usability goes ... the 18-250 does deliver a lot. If you do not have any long glass ... it is a pretty good solution for the "limited" budget.




    You can call it "the better than you can get from the P&S Camera equivicator!"

    If you do grow out of it, it would be a great lens for another new photographer ... or to just have on hand for the vacation or a trip to the park with the kids.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-27-2008 at 12:27 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr« & Sdi

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I was doing some lens checks (the battery test) and found out that my Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 and Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 are "back-focusing." Yeah, that means the rear battery was in better focus than the center one was. Now, I have to get it aligned (adjusted). I have a local connection, but this will be the first Minolta alignment.

    I'll let you know. LOL Almost there.
    I checked with Precision Camera, CT and their online quote was $132 per lens, for the focus correction, because they are out-of-warranty. That's a little grim ... and I will check with United Camera and Binocular repair, here in Bensenville, and see what they want. Normally it is around $75 a lens, based on my initial 50mm f/1.4 repair, about a year ago.

    Guess we shall see.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr« & Sdi

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Wow take a few days off, get busy and neglect the forums for a few more days, come back in and have tons of reading to do, and all kinds of things to try!! And I was wondering what to do to amuse myself over the long weekend, catch up on my learning here, and get my batteries out. And now Don has me thinking about a CZ 135mm LOL It never ends. Nice shot of the 50mm triplets Don......something strangely familer about that 1.7........
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Talking Back in the saddle, again ...

    Quote Originally Posted by seanhoxx View Post
    Wow take a few days off, get busy and neglect the forums for a few more days, come back in and have tons of reading to do, and all kinds of things to try!! And I was wondering what to do to amuse myself over the long weekend, catch up on my learning here, and get my batteries out. And now Don has me thinking about a CZ 135mm LOL It never ends. Nice shot of the 50mm triplets Don......something strangely familer about that 1.7........
    Well ... welcome back, Sean ... been wondering where you wandered off to. Hope you got pictures. LOL

    We've had a trio of marginally warm days (45-degrees) for the Thanksgiving Day holiday ... which is a far cry from last year, which almost prohibited putting up the Christmas lights.

    I suppose painting with light should be suggested with these additions to the houses. It has been two years since my last effects, in that regard. Tricky, tricky shooting ... to avoid overexposure (both from nature and the lights). Then again, some "overexposure" makes for some interesting night shots.

    Name:  30-sec-tree-presents.jpg
Views: 71
Size:  224.9 KB
    (Click on image for some audio entertainment, too )

    30-second exposure ... in Chicago, it wipes out a usually "black" sky ... and turns it ... a dirty orange. LOL
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-28-2008 at 08:46 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr« & Sdi

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    i got myself a Beercan on Monday and i have yet to use it :-(
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr«
    FLUIDR

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    One of the reasons I developed this thread was to allow a rather simple rating system based on results I have experienced with each of my nearly 30 lenses. While the true cream of the crop do reside near the top, the trailing ones really should be left to film shooting and not mounted on digital cameras.

    Just a warning for those who may be considering trying to make use of old stuff. Yes they will mount .. no, they will not lend themselves to bettering your photography. Shoot sharp!
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr« & Sdi

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    If you are saying that I can't take a sharp image with my "old stuff", you're wrong.
    If you are saying that all modern lenses will take a sharper image than my "old stuff", you're wrong.
    If you are saying that there are some modern lenses that will take a sharper image than my "old stuff", you're right.

    Would I like a really expensive Zeiss Optic, absolutely.
    Can I afford one, not yet but soooon.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Red face The wrong song ...

    What I am saying is you get what you get with what you have. Don't expect terrific results out of an old film lens on a digital. I just doing this for fun and have no agenda. That's your job.

    I can shoot some outstanding images with the older primes ... I can also do it with the newer ones, too. The thing of it is ... I can almost guarantee terrific results out of the newer ones. I cannot say that with the older glass.

    Obviously, there is a cut off ... because __________________________ <- (you can throw any one of the camera and lens manufacturers in this BLANK) have designed lenses that are, front the very start, poor optics. Why they insist on selling this CRAP to unsuspecting customers is, to me, almost criminal in nature. Wouldn't it be great to open a lens box and get impressive results out of it, honestly, straight from the box ... but, can we expect that? Certainly not and I have about a dozen lenses to prove my point. Even from what you would reasonably expect to be a properly working example .... nope, back they go for "adjustment." "Front focus"; "Back focus" ... heck I had one that the aperture flat out did not work ... and it was a "factory sealed" $2000 lens!

    So equivicate as you wish ... you need to study the glass you use and test its performance on your camera ... or you are just shooting from a hole ... and an unknown performance level. This is YOUR obligation, as the photographer. Calibrate and tune your equipment, so when you do take that ONE OF A KIND SHOT ... you get the best you can with what you have.

    And that's all I have to say about that. Yeah, right.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-29-2008 at 04:26 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr« & Sdi

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    So, I went to the sonystyle store last night. They had the A900 and the Sony 50mm F1.4 and CZ 16-80mm, nothing else I really wanted to try. Sadly, the A900 was mounted with the 16-80mm, I have no idea what the hell they are thinking.......

    The a900 has an awesome feel to it. It's quite big and the 5fps continuous burst is in short, amazing.

    The 16-80mm didn't impress me. Except that it had 50mm-80mm covered, as expected. IQ wise, nothing to rave about.

    The 50mm F/1.4 was very nice however. I'm still not sure how well it compares with the 85mm Zeiss, but judging from photozone's tests, it should stack up pretty nicely.

    And regarding the 70-300 G SSM, I'm not sure that I really need something like that since the 70-200mm IQ is just as good, if not better assuming it's about like Sony's 70-200mm.....
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •