-
Presumably a re-housed Tamron 17-28? If so that is a great bit of kit. (despite the lack of AF switch on that either)
-
Pretty sure my eyesight isn't good enough to warrant 6K at 32" across.
-
Is this to stop Getty Images or similar owning them all, planting watermarks on them and charging us to see them?
-
Should we just copy and paste our replies to to people saying "why would you buy a cheap lens for an expensive camera?"
-
Just add a cheap Emount to m43 adapter, where (despite what he says) it will remain a 35mm f0.95 lens.
-
What is the "best" 35mm F0.95 for APSC?
-
Because the more you spend the better photos you take? This is for APS-C cameras, seems like a useful too to me.
-
Are these more "mass produced" than Canon/Nikon/Sony lenses?
-
Thanks Don, not trying to devalue your expertise at all, I was coming at it from different, more coal-face approach as someone who used to use m43 sensors professionally for years. I doff my hat to...
-
Did you use the RAW files, and steer well away from the default detail/NR settings which are terrible through Adobe. With proper settings they look fine to me.
-
Maybe Reportage does not need more pixels?
-
Nice pairing this with the 35-150 for events/weddings perhaps.
-
@Roland Karlsson - can I take issue with your comment that f1.0 lenses are or were commonplace in filmmaking, especially in 1973?
-
@Techtalk2 All my cameras use Arca-Swiss plates or cages with mounts, and they are all side-side mount. When I do accurate panos I add a calibrated slider with fixed 90 degree clamp. This I use...
-
@TechTalk2 - you have made clear your respect for the brand etc, and I have no doubt that this new head is a well-made and useful part of a kit, but the fact that you would need to add various bits...
-
It won't give you perfect panoramas unless you are able to move the camera to a point where it rotates around the nodal point of the lens, which is variable with the lens, so you really need a...
-
I have excellent 17-28 but I still want this.
-
So you would like a 28-200 2.8 that is smaller and lighter than a 70-200 2.8?
-
Rather lovely look. I am interested in light loss?
-
Bridge is not really free, as you need adobe software subscription for another of their products to use it.
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.
|
Total messages |
881 |
Threads started |
171 |
Last post |
Apr 30, 2021 |
Total reviews |
1 |
Last review |
Mar 17, 2004 |
Entries |
13 |
Votes cast |
241 |
Last entry |
Nov 12, 2011 |
Photos uploaded |
6 |
Last upload |
Nov 12, 2011 |
|