babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 343, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

scottcraig: I've generally stuck to extension tubes primarily due to the cost of Cannon Macro lens. However given the performance and price of this lens I may just make an exception.

I have an older version of this lens (whoa...with an aperture ring even) and the optical performance is quite good. Any improvements could only make it better.

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/362-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-pentax-

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Is the optical formula the same as the older version with an aperture ring? I use that older lens with adapters on two mirrorless bodies and need the ring. Just wondering, as the new lens isn't available in Fuji X mount, although it is available for Sony E.

Image stabilization may change how some of the lens elements are placed and move, but that does not necessarily mean the optical formula would differ. I guess my question is rhetorical, in that I need the external aperture ring of the older model.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 14:48 UTC

Is the optical formula the same as the older version with an aperture ring? I use that older lens with adapters on two mirrorless bodies and need the ring. Just wondering, as the new lens isn't available in Fuji X mount, although it is available for Sony E.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 12:47 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

What a great idea! Even if the user is just pushing through morning dew.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 12:17 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

John Koch: Two of the most common dreams are to fly or be invisible. Drones furnish both rather inexpensively. Could there be anything more exhilarating than a bird's eye view of things? Exactly what are people afraid that drones' fish-eye or fuzzy cameras will "see"? Isn't everyone already on Google Earth or Street View?

Drones are probably less obtrusive than many other annoyances. Yes, there are exceptions, such as use above crowds, but don't they also apply to ground-level photographers who poke about? Very strange how some people extol use of guns over use of drones or cameras.

Doesn't all photography involve surveillance? Other excuses ("art") won't convince the general public. It's all six or half-dozen.

Many DPR readers appear to side with the 18th century mobs that destroyed the Montgolfier brothers' balloon.

Of course, phone cameras (not cameras at all, say the snobs) deserve utter exemption.

You can't (yet?) fly a phone over your neighbors fence.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Drones intrude on privacy, so I think this a good change. In no way does it impinge on use of drones for many aspects of photography......real estate, landscape, scientific investigation. If a drone appeared over my backyard, unauthorized by myself, I would tempted to shoot it down with a shotgun. Unfortunately that would result in criminal charges for damaging someone else's equipment. Why are there no criminal charges for invading my privacy?

@jonny1976 Good, I say. If, for example, I climbed the fence into your yard and started taking photos of your pretty wife in a bikini sunning at your poolside, would you say I had a right to do so just because I own a camera? I think not.

By the way, just about everyone owns a shotgun where I live.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:53 UTC

Drones intrude on privacy, so I think this a good change. In no way does it impinge on use of drones for many aspects of photography......real estate, landscape, scientific investigation. If a drone appeared over my backyard, unauthorized by myself, I would tempted to shoot it down with a shotgun. Unfortunately that would result in criminal charges for damaging someone else's equipment. Why are there no criminal charges for invading my privacy?

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 13:40 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Imagine a time bomb being tied to a drone by a terrorist.......it is dangerous......every country must have control on purchase and use of drones........

This is about privacy, not terrorism.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

babart: "...it's a bit darker..." Umm, WHAT'S a bit darker: the lens, the auto-focus (how could that be darker?), or the images the lens produces. And if the latter, what does that have to do with the focus? Sorry, not trying to be a pain, you just threw a big curve ball. NO, I don't teach English :).

OK

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

babart: "...it's a bit darker..." Umm, WHAT'S a bit darker: the lens, the auto-focus (how could that be darker?), or the images the lens produces. And if the latter, what does that have to do with the focus? Sorry, not trying to be a pain, you just threw a big curve ball. NO, I don't teach English :).

I suspected as much, but wouldn't "a bit slower" be more to the point than "a bit darker?" The sentence is referring to the lens itself, not the images it produces. Never mind.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 21:49 UTC

"...it's a bit darker..." Umm, WHAT'S a bit darker: the lens, the auto-focus (how could that be darker?), or the images the lens produces. And if the latter, what does that have to do with the focus? Sorry, not trying to be a pain, you just threw a big curve ball. NO, I don't teach English :).

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 13:02 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Canon has a similar lens - but it goes to 11!

The question here should be, "How many people are there really that absolutely need this type of quality." I think one reason these ultra lenses are so expensive is that few people buy them. Especially since there's a weather-sealed version of the same lens for half-price that gets very good reviews. If I were a pro that specialized in landscapes and traveled to isolated locations, I'd certainly want the weather-sealed model that's lighter in weight. Not trying to be a pain, just saying.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Man 12mm is nauseatingly wide.

In practice, the 14/2.8 is useful for tight interiors and wide exteriors where one can't get far back from the subject. A situation not so uncommon when photographing 18th and 19th century houses and barns in Maine. The rooms were often small for easier heating with fireplaces, the stairwells cramped into narrow halls, and the buildings were put close the streets (or cart tracks). When the roads were widened, paved, and strung with power lines and poles, it makes a tight squeeze to get the facade in one image from the sidewalk, from underneath the power lines. There is considerable distortion, but it is correctable ....I use PTLens, but I'm certain there are others. With interiors, however, it's often necessary to crop the left and right edges due to the widening of doors or windows. Occasionally a tweak in Photoshop's Warp is handy. This lens is also good for night sky images.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 12:39 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Not that I am in the market for such a lens, but I hope it is at as non-distorting as my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Mark I but really sharp to the edges on full frame. Otherwise, it is nothing to warrant such a name or price or the hefty size and weight. IMO lens sizes and weights, including this one, are getting to be lunatic, with many camera bodies not far behind even if they are beyond reproach on IQ.

@GlobalGuyUSA: You get what you can afford. Note the comment above from keepreal, who has the 12-24/4.5-5.6 lens, finds it's more than adequate, and wonders what justifies the price and weight and size on the f/4 model.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 12:30 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Not that I am in the market for such a lens, but I hope it is at as non-distorting as my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Mark I but really sharp to the edges on full frame. Otherwise, it is nothing to warrant such a name or price or the hefty size and weight. IMO lens sizes and weights, including this one, are getting to be lunatic, with many camera bodies not far behind even if they are beyond reproach on IQ.

I'm with you on the size and weight, but would also add price. Precisely how many photographers are going to buy two or three $1500 - $2000 lenses? I realize a manufacturer has to have pro gear, if for no other reason to look good in glossy magazine ads. But how many pros are there compared to rest of us? (Note my consternation at prices is something of sour grapes, as I'm retired and been priced out of the market for some time.)

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
On article Going wide: Irix 15mm F2.4 sample gallery (108 comments in total)

Interesting flare, to be sure. And interesting photos as well.....nice work!

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 12:22 UTC as 44th comment
On article Abandoned America: Photographing a forgotten history (77 comments in total)

Very interesting. I photograph older buildings, too, sometimes those which are abandoned. I do so for the same reason....to stimulate my photography and to capture some fragment of the history of the structure. Currently working on a history of a small town in Maine. Great images, and good to see them.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 15:48 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

@Daspletosaurus: it's true that modern zooms can be as sharp as primes....a very nice turn of events. One can buy a Sigma 85/1.4 for $1100 and use Sigma's adapter for Canon to Sony mount. One can also find a mint Zeiss Contax 85/1.4 for $1000 and use a $25 adapter. Or a not quite mint copy of that lens for $600. If the 1.4 is anything like my C/Y 85/2.8, it would be a killer lens, certainly up to providing great images on modern sensors. And when shooting portraits, manual focusing lenses are OK.

I see your point, but one is not restricted to Sony lenses. I don't have any Sony lenses, because frankly they are too expensive for my budget. Cheers, BAB

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

Portrait shooters use f/1.4 primes that cost a lot less than $2600, are a whole lot lighter, and a whole lot sharper.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

I'd certainly head in that direction. I love f/4 zooms....lighter for one thing and less expensive for another.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
Total: 343, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »