Jump to content

noone

Members
  • Content Count

    1,539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by noone

  1. I used to lust for a lens like this but now I realise I would use it 90% of the time at the short end and the long end and it isn't wide enough really for me and it is slightly too short for me too. 24-60/70 would be more appealing. I used to have the Sony FE kit lens and I actually did like that (I know most do not) and it was the right size for me for a lens like this and useful as a longer body cap when carrying other lens. Now, if i DO get a lens like that it will be either the Tamron for the extra 5mm at the long end at a tiny increase in weight or the new 28-60 Sony kit len
  2. Ahh, looking at their construction, the 15 is a simple 3 element 3 group lens with "all glass construction" while the 9mm has 5 elements in four groups and even has two aspherical elements so I would think the price difference is right there. Not to mention the 15 seems far more common.
  3. Interesting. I just looked up Olympus official site for lenses (Asia anyway) and the two body cap "lenses" are listed under the accessories page and not under any of the actual lens pages.
  4. I have the most fun shooting low light and concerts/gigs. Not much live music for me these days but one of my favourite (and most fun) shooting situations is night time illuminations and for me, that means Enlighten in Canberra. Any Australians planning on going? I hope to get there in a couple of weeks (Covid, hotels and transport depending). From 2018 (this is old parliament house).
  5. Oops, not "click stops" but focus settings.
  6. Yes, there is no vignetting with M43 (as it was intended). It is a much better "lens" than it should be though I would not want to use it for anything but fun! Have you noticed it actually has THREE settings yet? When you open the lever to infinity, there is another setting "click stop" just next to that and then at the other end for 0.3m/0.98ft
  7. Yeah, I used the 15 FF (which has very heavy vignetting) and FF with 2x clearzoom (with no heavy blackening vignetting). In APSC mode it has heavy vignetting still but only in the extreme corners (which is gone with 1.2x clearzoom). I would not say the RX100 cameras are really great in low light overall but they are for their sensor size (at least the versions 111,IV,.V and Va with their faster lenses.) Put it this way, I think I would take my RX100iv (just) over a M43 camera with a 2.8 or slower lens at 24mm equivalent but at 70mm equivalent the m43 camera would be better
  8. I am on my second Oly m43 15mm body cap lens. I sold the first when i sold my GX7. I got another really cheap just to play around with again on my FF Sony A7s. The (very thin tiny and sharpish edged) metal adapter is almost as big as the lens. Not for serious use and not used often but again fun. Using it FF, FF with 2x clearzoom (both "focued" at 0.3m) and photos of it with adapter mounted, on the lens.
  9. I try and not buy anything that I do not think will not be fun! Just using for amateur use so I have zero reason to buy something photo/video otherwise. To that end, since i love shooting in low light, my old A7s is still the most fun for me and same with my all time favourite lens, the Canon 17 tilt shift. Honourable mention to the little Sony Rx100iv as it has a really nice lens and so many features well it is a fun camera to use with ok results.
  10. Reading a review of the new Leica M10-R I thought maybe i could get a cheap old Leica digital M. Thinking an M8 is now over 15 years old, surely they MIGHT be affordable....Nope, a body only M8 costs as much as a Nikon D780 DSLR or Olympus EM1-X M43 flagship. Looks like I will be using my Sony A7s for a few years more.
  11. I actually would not mind using an original A7 to shoot greyhounds racing! I USED to shoot greyhounds with a Pentax DSLR with several photos published in a national (Australian) greyhound racing paper (at the time one of the largest circulation greyhound racing papers in the world). Even the first A7 had better AF than the old Pentax DSLRs I used. I never did use the A7 for that though but it would be ok for me. Yes of course there are better cameras for that (lots of them). In good light, the first A7 takes quite nice photos with still competitive DR (still bett
  12. One reason I look for as cheap a MF camera as i can from time to time is that I see Canon EF tilt shift lenses being used on MF cameras and they work quite well. It would mean my favourite 17mm TS gets a wider view which would be very useful sometimes without having to stitch.
  13. A couple of things. MF maybe not so much for video though getting there. Not all medium format cameras have the same size sensor and ones that truly match MF film cameras (which ALSO had variants) are larger in area than most of the recent MF cameras. In good light at base ISO and with the best available lens, any of the MF digital cameras WILL produce a better picture when compared to the same with FF generally. That said, you can NOT currently use MF for many things you can with FF in many cases just because the lenses are not there. The FF lenses still work out more
  14. The right choice for you I think. I might have to see if I can find one myself soonish. That said there is nothing wrong with a 12mp camera for stills unless you are shooting for very large prints or framing very loosely. The original A7s is a wonderful photo camera and especially for low light stills and HD video but it is OTHER things that make it a less sensible choice for many people....CDAF only, forget about AFC unless the movement is slow and not far, adapted Canon lenses AF very slowly, primitive eye AF ETC. If you mainly use manual focus lenses though many o
  15. While I think some of the FD L lenses are at ridiculous prices (24 1.4 especially) I till think it I a lovely lens and I wish I had kept my 50 1.2 L and that my 85 1.2 L did not have the dissolving bearing issue. The 85 L can be had for (sort of) reasonable prices (be careful about the bearing problem). I think most older lenses now should be looked at individually because you do not know how hard their "lives" have been or if they were even good copies to begin with. Shot from my FD 24 1.4 L at 1.4 on my old A7s.
  16. Just looked for prices on K35s on Ebay (Australia and USA) and there are very few. A couple of zooms for over 30,000 Australian. Some HOUSINGS for over $1500 ETC. Even some of the old FD L lenses are still going for ridiculous prices (I posted earlier that Ebay collectively "thinks" my battered old FD 24 1.4 L is worth more than any other lens I have (including my 17 TSE that i could never afford to replace).
  17. Yeah, that those two APSC lenses exist says to me it SHOULD be possible since many APSC lenses do cover FF at least in part. The flip side would be that they ARE only equivalent to 24mm on FF and therefore not really ultra wide angle and i suspect it is making it from ultra wide to telephoto that might be the issue (ease to build for the price they would charge and the market need). Maybe the different elements needed and the corrections required would just make it a headache and maybe not compatible? Same thing with small sensor super zoom cameras, the lenses start at very sm
  18. No, first time trying. It is simply that most of the lenses are manual focus and people just do not have the patience they used to. Imagine how todays instagram/phone people would go back when they used to bolt you in place while they took long exposures with large format gear and sheet film !
  19. I have just sent the young model a PM and am really hopeful of shooting her with the Tokina 60-120 2.8 and my old 300 2.8 and Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 in one session. MAYBE the old Canon FD 85 1.2 L but not sure since the focus throw is very loose and I am not sure what she charges yet (or if she will want to). This old Tokina was made as a portrait lens which was probably a bit unusual for a zoom at the time all those years ago (adverts from then say portraits and also sports but it is a bit short for most sports). I posted about it in the lens forum but ha
  20. This site has not been updated for years but it is still useful regards Nikon lenses. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
  21. I love the old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 I got last year for cheap on Ebay. The only thing about is the minimum focus distance but that is solved with a helicoid adapter. It looks and feels as if it was a day old (probably been sitting in its case for the last thirty years or so). Zoom function (push pull) is a little stiff to get moving but easy after that though since i pretty much use it at 120 nothing really. I just need portrait victims to use it still as it is a bit slow for me to use and peoples attention span has greatly reduced over the years. A lovely young mod
  22. I think it would cost too much to make and buy and be too complex for an ultra wide- short telephoto and maybe not a huge market for such (yet). Mind you, the Fuji and Sony lenses should not need to be THAT much bigger or more expensive if they made them FF. My ultra wide angle needs are met by my all time favourite lens (Canon 17mm tilt shift). I could never afford to replace it if I lost it or broke it. My trinity is a bit more flexible (Canon 17 TS, Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and third varies with situation for now though if i ever get one would be something like a Sigma
  23. Kye, Great question. Ok I took that as a challenge to see if there ARE any and the two that DO fit that (16mm start and longer than 35mm and constant f4) are the Fuji I noted above and also the Sony Zeiss 16-70 f4 again though it is an APSC lens. You can USE it on a FF camera but i would think there would be black borders at some (if not all) of the range.... Plenty that get close but all APSC. Now SOME of those Canon APSC lens MIGHT work on FF cameras adapted (I know the cheap and cheerful Canon 18-55 APSC IS ii kit lens i have covers FF from 24mm and up pretty well. I would l
  24. FF, APSC or M43 or other? There are KIT lenses close to that (Sony APSC 16-50 3.5-5.6) Fuji makes a 16-80 f4 APSC lens that seems very nice from reviews.
  25. My old battered Tamron 300 2.8 has put me off any other long lens....I guess IF i ever had the money again, I would buy something like a 400 2.8 AF lens (while I can still carry and hold it) and I still lust for a 200 f2. I just do not use any of my other longer lenses now.
×
×
  • Create New...