ProfHankD

Gannon Burgett: Ok now. Perhaps I caught the page in the middle of the update? Then again, prices will no doubt change again soon enough anyway. ;-)

Ironically, the problem with yellowing is NOT a yellow tint -- your camera's white balance can pretty much take that out. The big problem is that the yellowing comes from a change in material ...

Yeah, nothing like judging quality of a lens on >=24MP bodies using three 0.4MP sample images. ;-) I can't even tell if the bokeh are decent, although it looks like maybe they have a bright ring...

Gannon Burgett: Still have the wrong pricing -- apparently it's only the Sony version at $109.99, the others at $139.99. I suspect they're trying to recover new tooling costs and pricing will...

The available now Amazon link above is to the Sony version for $109.99 ($10 more than B&H). However, Amazon has the Nikon Z and Canon RF versions for $139.99. They also look a bit odd, flaring...

I live in the outskirts of Lexington, KY, in a dark sky area with no streetlights and at a higher-than-the-surrounds altitude with few trees. I rarely get around to doing things with my telescope,...

Well, I managed to get a nice enough shot: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62200073

Honestly, it was pretty interesting to look at because the stars are really much more visible with the Moon...

Hmm.  Looks a lot like the shot I posted last night from Lexington, KY using a 500mm Kimunor f/8 on an A6500. Maybe mine is a tad sharper and lacks the hazy halo around the moon... the Kimunor is ...

I always liked HP5 for desperate lighting conditions, but I can't help thinking it's a bit needlessly retro here. I certainly get that a Nikonos V handles a lot differently from a big DSLR in a...

Nothing spectacular, but I did throw an old Kimunor 500mm f/8 on my Sony A6500 and take a few quick shots of the red Moon from our snow-covered 10F deck.  It (the Moon, not so much the photo) ...

That's right -- and my answer is basically not much perspective difference , but lots of extra cost and often lower IQ for the old 24mm than many old 28mm.

I've seen that review before... kind of borderline for me. My fear is that it isn't better than my Sigma 12-24mm in the overlapping range, which would be a bad thing given the lack of AF and that ...

Those A-mount AF lenses are still viable for manual focus use, and are great as fully AF with body aperture control on Sony E bodies using LA-EA4.  They also work fine fully manual using a cheap ...

I don't think so. As I described in an earlier post, 24mm on FF was where the lens was starting to get to be hard to build with comparable performance, but I certainly don't think of 24mm as being ...

Actually, it varies pretty dramatically with specific lenses. For example, a clean Minolta beercan used to be $100+, but now they're often $35. Same sort of thing for the old Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7, ...

Although this makes perfect sense, when you actually examine the huge body of lens measurements published, this intuitive claim is generally FALSE : most designed-for-crop lenses are not sharper ...

I've also noticed that old lenses do get cheaper around Christmas. I can see 3 reasons: (1) Modern lenses are on sale, so old lenses are a less good deal

In the old days, 24mm was a lot harder to make than 28mm, and was considered to be the start of ultrawides. It really isn't a huge difference. Back in the late 1970s, I tried a ton of different ...

That is certainly true... BUT there are many different types of fungus. Fungus that has proven it can happily grow in a lens, perhaps in part consuming materials used in lens construction ...

I'm not going to claim expertise here, although I've certainly used/built plenty of cheap motion control systems. I think it all comes down to: (1) Desired object travel (2) Desired ...