Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,719   Posts: 1,670,026   Online: 1024
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    134
    Is it worth the extra money for the zoom lenses that are a stop greater, like a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5? And if so, is the 20 then going to be wide enough instead of the 17? So many little things seem to be adding up hah.

  2. #12
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I had 35mm, 28mm and 20mm lenses for my Minoltas. I got rid of the 35mm because it was too close to the normal lens.
    Steve
    A 35mm IS a normal lens...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    134
    Any more suggestions about the aperatures? Just checking before i buy something.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    A 35mm IS a normal lens...
    Not unless you are shooting APS-C digital.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by sage View Post
    Any more suggestions about the aperatures? Just checking before i buy something.
    i've got both the minolta af 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8 and i don't particularly prefer one over the other. You'd be better off working out what you are going to use the lens for and whether you are prepared to put in the extra effort necessary to effectively use the 20mm ie manual focussing, hyperfocussing and all that stuff.....grin

    wayne

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wayne naughton View Post
    i've got both the minolta af 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8 and i don't particularly prefer one over the other. You'd be better off working out what you are going to use the lens for and whether you are prepared to put in the extra effort necessary to effectively use the 20mm ie manual focussing, hyperfocussing and all that stuff.....grin

    wayne
    HPF (hyperfocus) application is not a usual requisite for ultra-wide angles of which 20mm is a member. Such optics already have very significant depth of field and depth of focus.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by sage View Post
    Is it worth the extra money for the zoom lenses that are a stop greater, like a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5? And if so, is the 20 then going to be wide enough instead of the 17? So many little things seem to be adding up hah.
    "A stop greater" is actually a stop slower in terms of Av (aperture).
    I think you are going to need a few years' experience of application with, for a start, 20mm, before going down to e.g. 17mm or below. The former is a fine optic and will teach you the need to be careful with spatial arrangement of subject matter (including perspective). The latter takes this a few steps further where composition and spatial arrangement need to be considered very carefully, especially in the small 35mm format. A lens with a variable aperture of (your e.g.) 17-35 f3.5-4.5 is likely to suffer significant optical flaws by design compared to a prime, unless you gun for the more expensive fixed-aperture optics that are usually highly corrected for chroma, astigmatism, curvature and distorion among (in no particular order). Should you be worried about this now? No. Just kit up with a 20mm f2.8, leave zooms until much later and take that optic on a journey of discovery. Finally, a 20mm f2.8 is my second-favourite optic to the PC 24mm prime.

  8. #18
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    Not unless you are shooting APS-C digital.
    Aaaarrrrrghh! Never!

    I just find using 50mm as a "normal" a little too uptight...
    35mm Sees the World the way I do.
    :-)
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    "A stop greater" is actually a stop slower in terms of Av (aperture).
    Not, if the stop greater is "a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5".


    (Why do you use the abbreviation for aperture priority when what you mean is just aperture?)

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Not, if the stop greater is "a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5".


    (Why do you use the abbreviation for aperture priority when what you mean is just aperture?)
    Av = aperture value.
    If I am demonstrating or teaching in the studio I am most often writing something at speed. Av is simply shorthand for aperture value. Likewise, Tv for shutter speed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin