Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,828   Posts: 1,582,107   Online: 1047
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: SLR wides

  1. #11
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,682
    Images
    15
    A rectilinear lens will have been corrected for inherent optical distortion, but it will have perspective distortion when raised or lowered from level. darinwc is quite correct to state that brand-name wide-to ultra-wide primes are pretty darn good — much, much better than what was available in the 1980s and 1990s. But it's important to understand and differentiate the types of distortion. Not even Zeiss is immune from the silly twists and turns at the edges that come about from odd shooting angles.
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  2. #12
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,089
    Images
    159
    There are a few lenses to stay away from..
    The Nikon series E 28mm f2.8 is one of them.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,934
    I love my 24mm and also 17mm. The 17 does have some distortion but I like it.

    Jeff

  4. #14
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,020
    My go to wides are the 24mm and 28mm primes, the range is very nice and easy to use and nice and fast f2/f2.8. I also have had a lot of use out of a 19-35mm tokina, its a very nice range though not as fast F3.5-4.5. And recently I picked up a sigma 14mm f3.5, its ridiculously wide for a rectilinear.

    Much easier to use something that is very wide on a SLR than a rangefinder too.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    158
    Give Contax G a try before going SLR

  6. #16
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,089
    Images
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by John R. View Post
    Give Contax G a try before going SLR
    That is a good suggestion as well.
    I would also like to question what you like/dont like about the rangefinders. that may help narrow down your search for an SLR.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    192
    Good question.

    The truth is, I started shooting a few months ago; mostly with 35mm fixed-lens rangefinders and 120 folders.

    I like rangefinders because of the framing, quietness, focusing, compactness, and lack of a mirror. Just about everything but most of these things aren't really that big of a deal to me. I find that many SLR's are quiet and compact enough, the mirror kick isn't that big of a deal, and the split-image focusing screens work pretty well. The blackout can't be avoided, but I can probably get used to it. I'm not really trying to be stealthy so I can live with the "limitations". I've never owned one but I've only handled them at my photography store, so I think I can be OK with one.

    As for alternatives: I'm not so interested in the Canon's because the patches are dim, the Bessas I fear feel too cheap, and the Contax's and high-end point and shoots auto-focus is a turn-off . I figured that for less, i can get a pretty good SLR and an array of lenses.

    In an SLR: I don't care for auto-focus, auto-exposure is a plus but not a necessity, size might matter but it might not. I'd prefer something that is rugged, mechanical, not-so-expensive, and reliable. I don't plan on using it on a tripod so mirror-lockup isn't important if the mirror is well-damped. I'd much rather use a MF camera on a tripod.
    Last edited by puketronic; 12-01-2011 at 03:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    31
    Lens makers have known how to make good lenses in the OP's 28-35mm range for many years now, especially at the 35mm length. If you pick any of the "good name" 35s from about 1960 or newer (maybe even earlier), or a 28 from maybe 1980 or newer, you're probably going to get a fine lens.

    I think SLR wides made some real optical progress in the 1980s. 35mm isn't that wide.

    As you move toward a lens that was marketed more for cheap price, your chances of a less than fine lens increase.
    ---
    mike rosenlof
    louisville colorado usa

  9. #19
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    I use rangefinders and SLRs. Either works well with 28 and 35mm lenses.

    I use 28mm and 35mm Nikon wide-angle lenses. With these lenses, I have never had problems with barreling.

    I have used Olympus cameras and lenses but I have never used the Olympus OM. The Olympus is capable of producing images that are equal in quality to those produced by Nikon.

    I have also used M42 screw-mount wide-angle lenses made by Pentax, Fuji, and Vivitar. They also produce images of high quality.

    Bottom line: barrel distortion is not a “huge deal” with these lenses. I have, however, had problems with barrel distortion from some bargain-priced wide-angle zoom lenses.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6179456359/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lenses 62b labeled sml.jpg  

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    158
    Don't overlook that the Contax G2 has a easy to use manual focus dial on the face of the body. The G1 has a manual override but it is awkward in my opinion, I never use it on my G1. I might add that the G1 and G2 autofocus works extremely well and I think after some experience with it you may learn to like it a lot.

    If you are looking for a simple, reliable manual SLR like that in your description I would look at some nice older bodies along the lines of the F2, F3, RTS, F1, OM-T. All of those cameras are terrific and there are others as well.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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