"Gravitations"
Lewis Lang
troll filters out most of us by unnatural selection ;-)) :-)
Getting back (somewhat) on course...
Looking at a thread ("Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema" (sic))on here and reflecting
on my own lens usage, I find it odd? perhaps (maybe not the right
expression/term) that I have "gravitated" to certain focal lengths that seem to
be a constant over the years...
My "gravity" focal lengths:
16mm fisheye (I hate barrel distortion except when its in a fisheye, then I
like lots of it, allows me to, besides the bending of lines, include seemingly
multiple perspectives (used vertically, and used at standard head height (about
5-6 feet) and tilted up and put a person's head at bottom of the frame as you
tilt the camera up you can see both the person's head normally/looking straight
on, and, a skyscraper arcing upward so that by the time the eye reaches the top
of the building at the top of the frame we/the viewers perspective is under it
looking up, probably due mostly to the incredibly wide filed of coverage (180
degrees).
24mm (seems drmatic yet natural to me. 28mm can seem a bit claustrophobic at
times... air. air... give me air/knock out that back wall, gasp gasp! and the e
20mm can be a bit of overkill for my compositions).
50mm (world cheapest, sharpest shortest "telephoto" - I like the
context/environment this includes while still separating the subject from the
background due to selective focus/shallow depth of field effects. Also, it
allows for contact w/ the subject at "human" distances, not too close or too
far for the framings I usually do).
135mm (mainly one use only, tight head shots w/ minor fashionesque flattening
of features from a distance, usually 4 1/2 - 5 feet. I find it too long (or
short, possibly) for most other uses but for its specific use it does it
excellently and I like it even more than my other semi-favorite, the 105mm for
tight headshots because I find the longer distance I can be away from the
subject w/ the 135 vs/ the 105 and retain the same tight cropping to be more
flattering/flattening on facial features/perspective.
Other gravity lenses:
Any zooms that would incorporate the above focal lengths (ie. my currently
owned 24-50 and 70-210mm Maxxum zooms), though I find that the best 50mm is a
fixed focal ength for all the reasons I mentioned above for that focal length.
My "anti-gravity" lenses (lens that I previously owned but don't anymore and/or
lens focal lengths I refuse to own for various reasons:
35mm (never jived/got along w/ this focal length too much (though I'm aware
that others are in love with it and have seen it put to excellent use by Mary
Ellen Marks? and other PJs), always seemed like a claustrophobic 28mm to me and
a 28mm is already claustrophobic enough for me ;-)), and always seemed a bit
too short for that faux telephoto effect I love w/ the 50mm at/near wide open.
Having said that, for some reason, cost?, I always gravitated (there's that
word again!) to this fl when I was into Leica M (f/2 Summicron version and
f/1.4 Summilux version, both pre-asph, hey! what's an asph? ;-)) or Leica R
(f/2.8 Elmarit version) , probably because I was less concerned about
bokeh/selective focus effects w/ it since it had less of it than the 50mm which
I consider to be a bokeh lens just made for the SLR (HCB excepted of course
;-)) where you could actually _see_ what was outof focus and by how much when
you took the picture (and/or by using the depth of field preview button) and
also because I thought of it as more "environmental" than the 50, sort of a
poor man's wide angle and normal combined (though even Leica used prices made
this a rather rich expense when I bought them either new or used).
28mm (better/more coverage than the 35mm and doesn't take a genius to fill the
frame w/ it like some other more super wide fl lenses might. I still own my
Contax Zeiss MM manual focus lens, but mainly for its quality, not because I'm
in love w/ the focal length. In the Contax MF range there was simply too big a
jump in price for that extra 3mm (or probably 2mm in real life measuremnts) for
the 25 year old version of me to be able to afford going for the 25mm - though
I soon corrected this in spades when I got the Nikon 25-50mm several years
later -- and my 24-50 Maxxum several more years after that).
Lens focal lengths I'm neither for nor against visually:
17mm (same comments as for 20mm lens below, but I'll have to add, that for some
shots/subjects (the outdoors, architecture, etc.) its quite addictive. I've
used the Tamron fixed mf version as well as the new 17-35 Tamron zoom (at a
photo show).
20mm (great when I need its wide angle of view, but I rarely do, preferring to
go straight form a 24mm to a 16mm fisheye (my former "normal" lens ;-)). I used
this focal length when I owned a 20-35/3.5 FD Canon L lens but I really only
used it on one indoor still life set-up at its widest fl (surreal shot - don't
ask!). "Normally" 24mm is just perfectly wid eenough for me.
85mm (great for a tight spaced small studio and 3/4ish/waist/chests shots of a
model indoors but not really my cup of tea (or coffe malted) for tighter head
shots. My feelings, some people are in love w/ this focal length and if I had a
Nikon 85/1.4 AFD or a Leica R 80mm/1.4 Summilux I might become more enamored of
this focal length for both its shallow depth of field, smooth bokeh and high
optical quality when used wide open (not to mention the bright viewfinder
image)).
90mm (same comments as above, but due to even the slightly longer fl I'd be
more inclined to use it like a 105 for semi-tight head shots -- probably the
best lens to get when you can't decide between the 85mm and 100/105mm focal
lengths.
Well these are my preferences, which haven't really changed much in about 15 or
more years (at least). That isn't to say that tommorow I might become a
400m/2.8 man (heaven and wallet forbid) but it seems unlikely. But you never
know... peanut butter used to make me gag and now I love the stuff (too much).
So tastes do change, but some things remain a constant... at least for me.
Hope you enjoyed my "mouthing off", w/ or sans peanut butter, feel free to had
your own comments/pleasures/"gravitations" towards specific fls and why, if you
so choose. I'd be happy to lend an ear (though you'll probably have to pry my
16mm from my cold dead you know what ;-)).
P.S. - Sorry for being on topic and talking about photo equipment in a photo
equipment newsgroup, my next post will be a troll, promise...
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Alan Browne
> Hope you enjoyed my "mouthing off", w/ or sans peanut butter, feel free to had
> your own comments/pleasures/"gravitations" towards specific fls and why, if you
> so choose. I'd be happy to lend an ear (though you'll probably have to pry my
> 16mm from my cold dead you know what ;-)).
Hi Lewis,
Enjoyed your post very much. Personally, I don't 'see' wide angle very
well and don't often shoot below 28mm (bottom end of my 28-70).
I have a 20mm, that occasionally gets onto the camera, and I do okay
with it, just nothing dramatic.
But your post is saved as inspiration (and in some cases persperation
will result)...
Cheers,
Alan.
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Lewis Lang
>From: Alan Browne alan....@FreeLunchvideotron.ca
>Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004 12:04 PM
>Message-id: <r3o0c.15887$QM4.1...@weber.videotron.net>
Thanks Alan :-)
"Popcorn and soda is available in the lobby during intermission" (don't try to
make much sense out of my quoye here, just a semi-non sequitor at 24mm ;-)).
Michael Scarpitti
>
My choices:
21
28
50
90
180
250
560
Lewis Lang
>From: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
>Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 12:26 AM
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.04022...@posting.google.com>
Hi Mike:
Do you ever use that 560 much (if you own it)? For what type of subjects? If
you own allthose lenses above, you may not have just a lens collection but a
Leica retirement account (when/if you ever decide to sell it) ;-)
Gordon Moat
Lewis Lang wrote:
> Hello ng (or what's left of it after the troll is filtered out or after the
> troll filters out most of us by unnatural selection ;-)) :-)
>
> Getting back (somewhat) on course...
>
> Looking at a thread ("Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema" (sic))on here and reflecting
> on my own lens usage, I find it odd? perhaps (maybe not the right
> expression/term) that I have "gravitated" to certain focal lengths that seem to
> be a constant over the years...
>
> My "gravity" focal lengths:
>
>. . . . .
>
> 24mm (seems drmatic yet natural to me. 28mm can seem a bit claustrophobic at
> times... air. air... give me air/knock out that back wall, gasp gasp! and the e
> 20mm can be a bit of overkill for my compositions).
When I have rented or borrowed a wide zoom, it seems that I often
gravitate to about 24 mm. Perhaps a good fixed lens 24 mm is in my
future. The 28 mm gets less use than in the past.
>
> 50mm (world cheapest, sharpest shortest "telephoto" - I like the
> context/environment this includes while still separating the subject from the
> background due to selective focus/shallow depth of field effects. Also, it
> allows for contact w/ the subject at "human" distances, not too close or too
> far for the framings I usually do).
>
I still find myself using these quite a bit. Really compact, and very
easy to manually focus under most lighting conditions.
> 135mm (mainly one use only, tight head shots w/ minor fashionesque flattening
> of features from a distance, usually 4 1/2 - 5 feet. I find it too long (or
> short, possibly) for most other uses but for its specific use it does it
> excellently and I like it even more than my other semi-favorite, the 105mm for
> tight headshots because I find the longer distance I can be away from the
> subject w/ the 135 vs/ the 105 and retain the same tight cropping to be more
> flattering/flattening on facial features/perspective.
I gave up on 135 mm after too many disappointing lenses, and even more
so after using a 105 mm. However, I am recently considering revisiting
135 mm, though not sure if I will stick to it. I prefer the 180 mm f2.8
for tight head shots, especially when used with a short extension tube.
>
> Other gravity lenses:
>
> Any zooms that would incorporate the above focal lengths (ie. my currently
> owned 24-50 and 70-210mm Maxxum zooms), though I find that the best 50mm is a
> fixed focal ength for all the reasons I mentioned above for that focal length.
I guess I am just too anti-zoom. Despite using what are often deemed
great zoom lenses, I remain unimpressed. When the image quality has been
good, then I often find the lens too bulky (80-200 mm f2.8 being the
best example of that).
>
> My "anti-gravity" lenses (lens that I previously owned but don't anymore and/or
> lens focal lengths I refuse to own for various reasons:
>
> 35mm (never jived/got along w/ this focal length too much (though I'm aware
> that others are in love with it and have seen it put to excellent use by Mary
> Ellen Marks? and other PJs), always seemed like a claustrophobic 28mm to me and
> a 28mm is already claustrophobic enough for me ;-)), and always seemed a bit
> too short for that faux telephoto effect I love w/ the 50mm at/near wide open.
Though you definitely seem to like that ultra wide, and ultra close
aspect in your images. I have found one 35 mm that I use often, but it
is a shift lens, so probably not really normal for 35 mm.
> Having said that, for some reason, cost?, I always gravitated (there's that
> word again!) to this fl when I was into Leica M (f/2 Summicron version and
> f/1.4 Summilux version, both pre-asph, hey! what's an asph? ;-)) or Leica R
> (f/2.8 Elmarit version) , probably because I was less concerned about
> bokeh/selective focus effects w/ it since it had less of it than the 50mm which
> I consider to be a bokeh lens just made for the SLR (HCB excepted of course
> ;-)) where you could actually _see_ what was outof focus and by how much when
> you took the picture (and/or by using the depth of field preview button) and
> also because I thought of it as more "environmental" than the 50, sort of a
> poor man's wide angle and normal combined (though even Leica used prices made
> this a rather rich expense when I bought them either new or used).
Perhaps the new Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2? I have not seen any image
samples yet, nor the lens in person.
>. . . . .
>
> 20mm (great when I need its wide angle of view, but I rarely do, preferring to
> go straight form a 24mm to a 16mm fisheye (my former "normal" lens ;-)). I used
> this focal length when I owned a 20-35/3.5 FD Canon L lens but I really only
> used it on one indoor still life set-up at its widest fl (surreal shot - don't
> ask!). "Normally" 24mm is just perfectly wid eenough for me.
>
I find that some of the 21 mm choices are intriguing. Most of those are
rangefinder lenses, and a few are reasonably priced. Still, I wonder how
much I would ever use one.
> 85mm (great for a tight spaced small studio and 3/4ish/waist/chests shots of a
> model indoors but not really my cup of tea (or coffe malted) for tighter head
> shots. My feelings, some people are in love w/ this focal length and if I had a
> Nikon 85/1.4 AFD or a Leica R 80mm/1.4 Summilux I might become more enamored of
> this focal length for both its shallow depth of field, smooth bokeh and high
> optical quality when used wide open (not to mention the bright viewfinder
> image)).
>
I really like the ergonomics of these, yet I have yet to ever buy one.
It seems like something between 50 mm and 105 mm would be nice, but I
rarely ever seem to miss not having it.
> 90mm (same comments as above, but due to even the slightly longer fl I'd be
> more inclined to use it like a 105 for semi-tight head shots -- probably the
> best lens to get when you can't decide between the 85mm and 100/105mm focal
> lengths.
Agreed, though the Leica M mount 90 mm f2.8 has several nice examples.
These are reasonable in cost, though obviously more than a Nikon 105 mm
f2.5.
>
> Well these are my preferences, which haven't really changed much in about 15 or
> more years (at least). That isn't to say that tommorow I might become a
> 400m/2.8 man (heaven and wallet forbid) but it seems unlikely. But you never
> know... peanut butter used to make me gag and now I love the stuff (too much).
> So tastes do change, but some things remain a constant... at least for me.
>
Well, you have many more years at this than I do, but it does seem that
frequent photography might lead some to only a few focal lengths that
are used often. My current longest lens is a 180 mm f2.8, yet I do not
use it as often as my other lenses.
> Hope you enjoyed my "mouthing off", w/ or sans peanut butter, feel free to had
> your own comments/pleasures/"gravitations" towards specific fls and why, if you
> so choose. I'd be happy to lend an ear (though you'll probably have to pry my
> 16mm from my cold dead you know what ;-)).
The Voigtländer 15 mm does seem to interest me as well. If I could come
up with a good use for it, I might actually buy one eventually. Same
thing with their 21 mm.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: "Gravitations"
>From: Gordon Moat mo...@attglobal.net
>Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 4:25 PM
>Message-id: <40439C35...@attglobal.net>
>
>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>> Hello ng (or what's left of it after the troll is filtered out or after
>the
>> troll filters out most of us by unnatural selection ;-)) :-)
>>
>> Getting back (somewhat) on course...
>>
>> Looking at a thread ("Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema" (sic))on here and
reflecting
>> on my own lens usage, I find it odd? perhaps (maybe not the right
>> expression/term) that I have "gravitated" to certain focal lengths that
>seem to
>> be a constant over the years...
>>
>> My "gravity" focal lengths:
>>
>>. . . . .
>>
>> 24mm (seems drmatic yet natural to me. 28mm can seem a bit claustrophobic
>at
>> times... air. air... give me air/knock out that back wall, gasp gasp!
>and the e
>> 20mm can be a bit of overkill for my compositions).
>
>When I have rented or borrowed a wide zoom, it seems that I often
>gravitate to about 24 mm. Perhaps a good fixed lens 24 mm is in my
>future. The 28 mm gets less use than in the past.
>
To me, just as the 28mm is a wide 35mm, the 24 is a wide 24mm - similar uses
but just more useful, and still very _usable_ for close shots of people (though
I wouldn't want to get as close w/ it as a 35mmm or even a 28mm. Having said
this, the 24mm also has its own particular "flavor" in fl in that it takes in
just the amount of space I usually want/need and can be used "dramatically" in
that regard yet still not seem out of the range of normallesque - in other
words its use doesn't overly shout "lensy" as does a fisheye or a 20mm or
greater fl lens. I also findthat going form it to the 50mm is the perfect jump
in f/ mm when I want to get closer or have more of a shallow dof environmental
telephoto effect and I rarely need anything inbetween. But that's just me ;-).
>>
>> 50mm (world cheapest, sharpest shortest "telephoto" - I like the
>> context/environment this includes while still separating the subject from
>the
>> background due to selective focus/shallow depth of field effects. Also,
>it
>> allows for contact w/ the subject at "human" distances, not too close
>or too
>> far for the framings I usually do).
>>
>
>I still find myself using these quite a bit. Really compact, and very
>easy to manually focus under most lighting conditions.
>
That says it in a nut shell (plus their price used is near free ;-) and the
sharpness and selective dof/focus effects are just _soooo_ good). Its a handy
focal length that has its greatest distinction in its non-distinctiveness. W/ a
50mm one is forced to make the composition (by arranging yourself and/or the
subject) rather than rely on the de/magnification to make a shot "interesting".
It helps you "focus" on the elements of graphic desing/composition, more so for
me than any other lens (though I am always "composing" regardless of lens/fl).
W/ a 50mm the shot (graphic design) elements _must work_ (more so than other
fls) and you must make them work because you don't have the same selectiveness
of the telephoto or the expansiveness of the wide angle to provide at least
part of your visual excitement. It is a "content" lens - as contentitself must
be interesting/come first, then it forces you into thinking into graphic
design/composition and its angle of view is probably its least (visually)
compelling aspect (other than the fact that it forces you into human
distances/contact w/ your subject usually).
>> 135mm (mainly one use only, tight head shots w/ minor fashionesque
flattening
>> of features from a distance, usually 4 1/2 - 5 feet. I find it too long
>(or
>> short, possibly) for most other uses but for its specific use it does
>it
>> excellently and I like it even more than my other semi-favorite, the 105mm
>for
>> tight headshots because I find the longer distance I can be away from
>the
>> subject w/ the 135 vs/ the 105 and retain the same tight cropping to be
>more
>> flattering/flattening on facial features/perspective.
>
>I gave up on 135 mm after too many disappointing lenses, and even more
>so after using a 105 mm. However, I am recently considering revisiting
>135 mm, though not sure if I will stick to it. I prefer the 180 mm f2.8
>
To each their own, but I still find the 135mm a more or less one purpose lens
as the premo lens for tight headshots - other things it does less well, and a
zoom definitely (optics and size and price aside) in the telephoto range is
certainly more flexible - so are the 85/90 fl as a substitute for a zoom,
especially if one has a 1.4x and/or 2x to extend the range of the 90mm.
Sometimes you may be pushing it w/ a 105mm as the space outdoors or inside may
prohibit you backing up too much. But it depends on both your subject, shooting
restrictions/shooting area and style of shooting.
>for tight head shots, especially when used with a short extension tube.
>
>>
>> Other gravity lenses:
>>
>> Any zooms that would incorporate the above focal lengths (ie. my currently
>> owned 24-50 and 70-210mm Maxxum zooms), though I find that the best 50mm
>is a
>> fixed focal ength for all the reasons I mentioned above for that focal
>length.
>
>I guess I am just too anti-zoom. Despite using what are often deemed
>great zoom lenses, I remain unimpressed. When the image quality has been
>
>good, then I often find the lens too bulky (80-200 mm f2.8 being the
>best example of that).
>
I agree. Though I would love a 24-70/2.8 Canon L lens as compact and cheap as
my excellent 24-50 Maxxum zoom ;-). A great "compromise" (but no compromise
optically, though) woul be a 75-150/3.5 Series E zoom which is compact,
lightweight and bright and has superb optical quality though of course its not
AF.
>>
>> My "anti-gravity" lenses (lens that I previously owned but don't anymore
>and/or
>> lens focal lengths I refuse to own for various reasons:
>>
>> 35mm (never jived/got along w/ this focal length too much (though I'm
>aware
>> that others are in love with it and have seen it put to excellent use
>by Mary
>> Ellen Marks? and other PJs), always seemed like a claustrophobic 28mm
>to me and
>> a 28mm is already claustrophobic enough for me ;-)), and always seemed
>a bit
>> too short for that faux telephoto effect I love w/ the 50mm at/near wide
>open.
>
>Though you definitely seem to like that ultra wide, and ultra close
>aspect in your images.
:-).
Funny thing though, most of my better more recent 21st century images were shot
either w/ a fixed 50mm or at the 50mm end of my 24-50 zoom (though I still use
the 24mm end of the zoom alot though ;-)).
I have found one 35 mm that I use often, but it
>is a shift lens, so probably not really normal for 35 mm.
>
Hey, if you use it as a normal lens (in shift mode or not) then its _your
normal_. The 16mm fisheye is still my wide norman, the 24mm my "normal normal"
and the 50mm my"favorite shallow dof great bokeh telephoto normal" lens ;-).
>> Having said that, for some reason, cost?, I always gravitated (there's
>that
>> word again!) to this fl when I was into Leica M (f/2 Summicron version
>and
>> f/1.4 Summilux version, both pre-asph, hey! what's an asph? ;-)) or Leica
>R
>> (f/2.8 Elmarit version) , probably because I was less concerned about
>> bokeh/selective focus effects w/ it since it had less of it than the 50mm
>which
>> I consider to be a bokeh lens just made for the SLR (HCB excepted of course
>> ;-)) where you could actually _see_ what was outof focus and by how much
>when
>> you took the picture (and/or by using the depth of field preview button)
>and
>> also because I thought of it as more "environmental" than the 50, sort
>of a
>> poor man's wide angle and normal combined (though even Leica used prices
>made
>> this a rather rich expense when I bought them either new or used).
>
>Perhaps the new Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2? I have not seen any image
>samples yet, nor the lens in person.
>
Sure just as soon as someone starts buying my fine art images and I become
Elmer J. Fudd, "millionaire who owns a mansion und a yacht" ;-) (old Bugs Bunny
cartoon).
>>. . . . .
>>
>> 20mm (great when I need its wide angle of view, but I rarely do, preferring
>to
>> go straight form a 24mm to a 16mm fisheye (my former "normal" lens ;-)).
>I used
>> this focal length when I owned a 20-35/3.5 FD Canon L lens but I really
>only
>> used it on one indoor still life set-up at its widest fl (surreal shot
>- don't
>> ask!). "Normally" 24mm is just perfectly wid eenough for me.
>>
>
>I find that some of the 21 mm choices are intriguing. Most of those are
>
>rangefinder lenses, and a few are reasonably priced. Still, I wonder how
>
>much I would ever use one.
>
I find the 17mm focal length intriguing but not for me till I get more income
to spend. I do fine w/ what I have fortunately :-). The 18 and 20mm are also
intriguing lens fls, but "we shall see…" whether I ever purchase them ;-)
>> 85mm (great for a tight spaced small studio and 3/4ish/waist/chests shots
>of a
>> model indoors but not really my cup of tea (or coffe malted) for tighter
>head
>> shots. My feelings, some people are in love w/ this focal length and if
>I had a
>> Nikon 85/1.4 AFD or a Leica R 80mm/1.4 Summilux I might become more enamored
>of
>> this focal length for both its shallow depth of field, smooth bokeh and
>high
>> optical quality when used wide open (not to mention the bright viewfinder
>> image)).
>>
>
>I really like the ergonomics of these, yet I have yet to ever buy one.
>It seems like something between 50 mm and 105 mm would be nice, but I
>rarely ever seem to miss not having it.
>
Same way I feel about the 24 to 50mm jump.
>> 90mm (same comments as above, but due to even the slightly longer fl I'd
>be
>> more inclined to use it like a 105 for semi-tight head shots -- probably
>the
>> best lens to get when you can't decide between the 85mm and 100/105mm
>focal
>> lengths.
>
>Agreed, though the Leica M mount 90 mm f2.8 has several nice examples.
>These are reasonable in cost, though obviously more than a Nikon 105 mm
>
>f2.5.
>
I owned the 90/2.8 Elmarit R (based on the M design), a superlative lens (but
so are practically all of Leica's lenses ;-)). The 105 Nikon is wonderful for
its bokeh and has excellent to superb sharpness but I believe the 90 Leica's
are even sharper, still I'd _love_ to own a Nikon 105 again, though I really
don't want to build up a full Nikon MF system in addition to my Contax MF lens
systems and my Minolta AF system, too much is too much already! :-). I want to
simplify and compact my systems not expand them. Perhaps a Nikon to Maxxum
mount adapter is in my future somewheres...
Self-portraits at arm's length w/o a tripod? ;-)
Martin Francis
news:20040229022752...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> Hello ng (or what's left of it after the troll is filtered out or after
the
> troll filters out most of us by unnatural selection ;-)) :-)
>
> Getting back (somewhat) on course...
>
> Looking at a thread ("Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema" (sic))on here and
reflecting
> on my own lens usage, I find it odd? perhaps (maybe not the right
> expression/term) that I have "gravitated" to certain focal lengths that
seem to
> be a constant over the years...
Me too. Fifty, fifty, fifty. When I owned standard zooms, they spent a lot
of time around the 50mm mark. My digital often finds itself somewhere near
the 50mm equiv. mark. I have owned four different 50mm lenses, three of
which count amongst my top five 35mm SLR lenses i've owned. I went to Paris
and had a whale of a time with just a fifty. My current Bronica gear has
only a 75mm (slightly wider than fifty equiv., but WTH). Right now my Contax
has but one lens, and will probably see no more lenses either.
Guess what the focal length is!
--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Martin Francis" removethisbefore...@btinternet.com
>
>Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 8:08 PM
>Message-id: <c20j91$2kh$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20040229022752...@mb-m21.aol.com...
>> Hello ng (or what's left of it after the troll is filtered out or after
>the
>> troll filters out most of us by unnatural selection ;-)) :-)
>>
>> Getting back (somewhat) on course...
>>
>> Looking at a thread ("Re: Nikon Wide Angle Dilema" (sic))on here and
>reflecting
>> on my own lens usage, I find it odd? perhaps (maybe not the right
>> expression/term) that I have "gravitated" to certain focal lengths that
>seem to
>> be a constant over the years...
>
>Me too. Fifty, fifty, fifty. When I owned standard zooms, they spent a lot
>of time around the 50mm mark. My digital often finds itself somewhere near
>the 50mm equiv. mark. I have owned four different 50mm lenses, three of
>which count amongst my top five 35mm SLR lenses i've owned. I went to Paris
>and had a whale of a time with just a fifty. My current Bronica gear has
>only a 75mm (slightly wider than fifty equiv., but WTH). Right now my Contax
>has but one lens, and will probably see no more lenses either.
>
>Guess what the focal length is!
.........hmmmmmmmm 15mm + 35mm............=50mm!!!!
:-)
TP
wrote:
>Me too. Fifty, fifty, fifty. When I owned standard zooms, they spent a lot
>of time around the 50mm mark. My digital often finds itself somewhere near
>the 50mm equiv. mark. I have owned four different 50mm lenses, three of
>which count amongst my top five 35mm SLR lenses i've owned. I went to Paris
>and had a whale of a time with just a fifty. My current Bronica gear has
>only a 75mm (slightly wider than fifty equiv., but WTH). Right now my Contax
>has but one lens, and will probably see no more lenses either.
>
>Guess what the focal length is!
My experience is that I tend to use a 20-35mm zoom at 35mm, a 35-70mm
zoom at 35mm and my "standard" fixed focal length lens is a 35mm.
Rico Tudor
is my personal lens-a-log:
Fisheye. Gets a 15mm denomination from Canon, 16mm from Carl Zeiss.
If it's good enough for the Mar Rover, it's good enough for me.
This is my favorite lens after the bog-standard 50. My typical
shooting scenario is social settings like parties, and often indoors.
I let the straight lines go to the dogs, preserve those precious faces,
and get total angular coverage without ever breaking a sweat. I also
use this lens on a DSLR where even the 1.6x sensor crop is no problem.
These lenses give wider coverage, better illumination and weigh less
than the rectilinear competition.
21mm. I use the CZ Distagon (best retrofocus UWA ever made). To my
taste, a FL for special effects, not walkaround.
28mm. A fine FL for travel. I don't like it for groups of people
(too much linear distortion), but that doesn't seem to stop the PJ
crowd... anything for fashion, I guess.
35mm. Not currently in my stable, although I recently purchased an M4
to explore the possibilities. Still mulling lens options: 8-element
cron is, umm, expensive; lux ASPH is expensive, big and heavy; cron ASPH
has ugly bokeh and price-tag; Summarons come with cleaning marks, fog,
and complementary goggles; Konica scarce like hen's teeth. The new C/V
pancake looks really promising (M mount, no less).
50mm. Favorite FL for many reasons: speed, weight, cost, image quality,
perspective. Yes, I know FL doesn't determine perspective: call it
poetic license.
100mm. Need it for portraits, that's all.
135mm. I'm intrigued by this FL for exactly one reason: Minolta STF.
Lordy, another SLR system. What cheap-ass Maxxum body do people
recommend?
200mm. The f/4 I bought last summer is still waiting for "first light".
So much for my tele-tendencies.
Zooms? I spit on your zooms! :-)
--------
Lewis Lang
>From: TP t...@nospam.net
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 3:59 AM
>Message-id: <pif840ded6f0le2rt...@4ax.com>
Yes, Tony, but what do you use your "standard" fixed focal length 35mm lens at?
;-) Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) :-).
Lewis Lang
>From: ri...@nospam.nwu.edu (Rico Tudor)
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 4:46 AM
>Message-id: <1048ifb...@news.supernews.com>
>
>Nice write-up, LL.
Hi/Thanks Rico :-).
While I can't pretend to be as entertaining, here
>is my personal lens-a-log:
>
You've seem to have done alright below, though I have worries for your bank
balance if you own even half the equipment mentioned below ;-).
>Fisheye. Gets a 15mm denomination from Canon, 16mm from Carl Zeiss.
>If it's good enough for the Mar Rover, it's good enough for me.
Didn't know that the Mars Rover had one for tv transmission. Forget about life
or water on Mars, I'd settle for cheaper photo gear prices, sort of like eBay
but w/ less s/n ratio ;-).
>This is my favorite lens after the bog-standard 50. My typical
>shooting scenario is social settings like parties, and often indoors.
>I let the straight lines go to the dogs, preserve those precious faces,
You must like to keep 'em (faces) in the center, like I do, to avoid the "oval
syndrome". Works a treat on some landscapes too, especially those w/o strong
verticals like trees/bushes that would give away the fact that your using a
fisheye.
>and get total angular coverage without ever breaking a sweat. I also
>use this lens on a DSLR where even the 1.6x sensor crop is no problem.
>These lenses give wider coverage, better illumination and weigh less
>than the rectilinear competition.
>
Don't you still get curvilinear (barrel) distortion - at least towards the
edges/corners of the frame, even w/ the 1.6x crop factor considered. Probably a
lot more distortion here than even a 28mm rectilinear on your film camera, no?
>21mm. I use the CZ Distagon (best retrofocus UWA ever made). To my
>taste, a FL for special effects, not walkaround.
>
Ever tried the Leica M 21mm Elmarit or Super Angulon or the Leica R 19mm -
they're probably nothing to sneeze at either? ;-).
>28mm. A fine FL for travel. I don't like it for groups of people
>(too much linear distortion),
Not really aproblem for me, you must really frame the faces out to the edges
though, eh? Hey, who changed my sentence structure/accent to Canadian?!!! :-)
but that doesn't seem to stop the PJ
>crowd... anything for fashion, I guess.
>
The PJ crowd is probably more into 16/17/20-35 lenses - the 28mm (aside from
Alan David Harvey (right name/sp?) and a few others like Sebastio Selgado) is
too pedestrian for most of the PJ crowd
>35mm. Not currently in my stable, although I recently purchased an M4
>to explore the possibilities. Still mulling lens options: 8-element
>cron is, umm, expensive;
Both the pre-asphs lux and cron (last generation) are superb when stopped down
and the cron has bokeh to die for. Shame that K25 is gone, though as this lens
and that film were a match made in photo heaven :-(.
lux ASPH is expensive, big and heavy; cron ASPH
>has ugly bokeh and price-tag;
I've heard the lux ASPH's (if I remember right) bokeh is also less than stellar
when compared to their former illustrious pre-asph predecessors. I'd go for the
last pre-asph generation (lux or cron) for both th bokeh and the lower price
tag. Anybody seen any Fujichrome 50? - that would work a treat too :-).
Summarons come with cleaning marks, fog,
>and complementary goggles; Konica scarce like hen's teeth. The new C/V
>pancake looks really promising (M mount, no less).
>
Forget if it was the pancake or normal version of the C/V 35mm f/2.5 lens that
has such wonderful bokeh (seeen only on the web by me).
>50mm. Favorite FL for many reasons: speed, weight, cost, image quality,
>perspective. Yes, I know FL doesn't determine perspective: call it
>poetic license.
>
Just so long as you've put this years' renewal stickers on your liscence
plates... ;-).
>100mm. Need it for portraits, that's all.
>
>135mm. I'm intrigued by this FL for exactly one reason: Minolta STF.
>Lordy, another SLR system. What cheap-ass Maxxum body do people
>recommend?
>
Not cheap assed, but a Minolta 600si or 800si (used) would do you quite well
(they include depth of field preview). For a new body I would reccommend the
Maxxum 5, that's as cheap assed ($175 at B&H?) and new as you'd ever get - get
two and send one to me, won't you ;-) :-).
>200mm. The f/4 I bought last summer is still waiting for "first light".
>So much for my tele-tendencies.
>
>Zooms? I spit on your zooms! :-)
Not if you owned them :-). Sharp, compact (at least the 24-50 Maxxum)
inexpensive (used) and a constant f/4 aperture. And my my 70-210 f/4 is sharp,
nice color, pure metal barrel and at least mine gets use occaisionally :-P :-)
TP
>
>Yes, Tony, but what do you use your "standard" fixed focal length 35mm lens at?
Er, um, hmm, 50mm?
>;-) Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) :-).
No need to apologise!
;-)
Michael Scarpitti
> >Subject: Re: "Gravitations"
> >From: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
> >Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 12:26 AM
> >Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.04022...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message
> news:<20040229022752...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> >>
> >
> >My choices:
> >
> >21
> >28
> >50
> >90
> >180
> >250
> >560
>
> Hi Mike:
>
> Do you ever use that 560 much (if you own it)? For what type of subjects? If
> you own allthose lenses above, you may not have just a lens collection but a
> Leica retirement account (when/if you ever decide to sell it) ;-)
Remember the Rhino shots? Those were made with the 560...
I don't own a 21 and 250 right now (I have in the past), but soon...
Alan Browne
> Zooms? I spit on your zooms! :-)
You can't afford my zooms. Don't spit on them.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.04030...@posting.google.com>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message
news:<20040301011740...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: "Gravitations"
>> >From: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
>> >Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 12:26 AM
>> >Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.04022...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message
>> news:<20040229022752...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>> >>
>> >
>> >My choices:
>> >
>> >21
>> >28
>> >50
>> >90
>> >180
>> >250
>> >560
>>
>> Hi Mike:
>>
>> Do you ever use that 560 much (if you own it)? For what type of subjects?
>If
>> you own allthose lenses above, you may not have just a lens collection
>but a
>> Leica retirement account (when/if you ever decide to sell it) ;-)
>
>Remember the Rhino shots? Those were made with the 560...
SNIP
Could you post me the link, Mike? Thanks! :-)
Gordon Moat
Lewis Lang wrote:
> Hi Gordon, nice to see your pixels again! :-):
>
Guten Tag Lewis,
I am still borrowing a computer, since mine is not yet repaired. :-(
Somehow I figured out how to get the newsgroups working, but I cannot
send out e-mail. Definitely makes work tough.
>
>. . . . . .
>
>
> To me, just as the 28mm is a wide 35mm, the 24 is a wide 24mm
I think you meant "28mm"?
Sounds like the natural viewpoint, or more normal relationship of
foreground to background. This is especially true up close.
> W/ a 50mm the shot (graphic design) elements _must work_ (more so than other
> fls) and you must make them work because you don't have the same selectiveness
> of the telephoto or the expansiveness of the wide angle to provide at least
> part of your visual excitement. It is a "content" lens - as contentitself must
> be interesting/come first, then it forces you into thinking into graphic
> design/composition and its angle of view is probably its least (visually)
> compelling aspect (other than the fact that it forces you into human
> distances/contact w/ your subject usually).
Sometimes that close range works well. With some people, a little more
distance helps, then long focus or telephoto lenses are a better choice.
>
> . . . . . . . .
>>
>>I gave up on 135 mm after too many disappointing lenses, and even more
>>so after using a 105 mm. However, I am recently considering revisiting
>>135 mm, though not sure if I will stick to it. I prefer the 180 mm f2.8
>>
>
>
> To each their own, but I still find the 135mm a more or less one purpose lens
> as the premo lens for tight headshots - other things it does less well, and a
> zoom definitely (optics and size and price aside) in the telephoto range is
> certainly more flexible - so are the 85/90 fl as a substitute for a zoom,
> especially if one has a 1.4x and/or 2x to extend the range of the 90mm.
> Sometimes you may be pushing it w/ a 105mm as the space outdoors or inside may
> prohibit you backing up too much. But it depends on both your subject, shooting
> restrictions/shooting area and style of shooting.
>
Okay, I can follow that, but the short extension tube is one solution to
the short distance, or lack of room.
>
>>. . . . . .
>>
>>I guess I am just too anti-zoom. Despite using what are often deemed
>>great zoom lenses, I remain unimpressed. When the image quality has been
>>
>>good, then I often find the lens too bulky (80-200 mm f2.8 being the
>>best example of that).
>>
>
>
> I agree. Though I would love a 24-70/2.8 Canon L lens as compact and cheap as
> my excellent 24-50 Maxxum zoom ;-). A great "compromise" (but no compromise
> optically, though) woul be a 75-150/3.5 Series E zoom which is compact,
> lightweight and bright and has superb optical quality though of course its not
> AF.
>
f2.8 is not bad, but f3.5 seems too small. With my low light, and short
DOF preferences in my imagery, these can be too far off. That is nice
with fixed lens, and large apertures. Obviously, my medium format gear
does not work as well under low light, since really large aperture
lenses are prohibitively expensive, and DOF and focus accuracy can
become really difficult (especially on 6x9).
> . . . . . .
>>
>>Though you definitely seem to like that ultra wide, and ultra close
>>aspect in your images.
>
>
> :-).
>
> Funny thing though, most of my better more recent 21st century images were shot
> either w/ a fixed 50mm or at the 50mm end of my 24-50 zoom (though I still use
> the 24mm end of the zoom alot though ;-)).
>
> I have found one 35 mm that I use often, but it
>
>>is a shift lens, so probably not really normal for 35 mm.
>>
>
>
> Hey, if you use it as a normal lens (in shift mode or not) then its _your
> normal_. The 16mm fisheye is still my wide norman, the 24mm my "normal normal"
> and the 50mm my"favorite shallow dof great bokeh telephoto normal" lens ;-).
Might be right about that . . . a simple walk around set-up for me would
be one SLR, one of the 50 mm lenses I own, and the 35 mm shift. The only
other one that makes the walk around on occasion is the 105 mm.
>
>
>> . . . . . .
>>
>>Perhaps the new Voigtländer 35 mm f1.2? I have not seen any image
>>samples yet, nor the lens in person.
>>
>
>
> Sure just as soon as someone starts buying my fine art images and I become
> Elmer J. Fudd, "millionaire who owns a mansion und a yacht" ;-) (old Bugs Bunny
> cartoon).
>
Okay, $900 is not cheap, but for what the lens is capable of doing, and
considering the cost of any Leica M 35 mm lens, it is a relative
bargain. Anyway, I know what you mean, but remember that last year was
very tough, especially for art works. Hang in there, and you may find
that this year is better.
>
>>>. . . . .
>>>
>>
>>I find that some of the 21 mm choices are intriguing. Most of those are
>>
>>rangefinder lenses, and a few are reasonably priced. Still, I wonder how
>>
>>much I would ever use one.
>>
>
>
> I find the 17mm focal length intriguing but not for me till I get more income
> to spend. I do fine w/ what I have fortunately :-). The 18 and 20mm are also
> intriguing lens fls, but "we shall see…" whether I ever purchase them ;-)
>
>
>>>85mm . . . . .
>>>
>>
>>I really like the ergonomics of these, yet I have yet to ever buy one.
>>It seems like something between 50 mm and 105 mm would be nice, but I
>>rarely ever seem to miss not having it.
>>
>
>
> Same way I feel about the 24 to 50mm jump.
>
>
>>>90mm (same comments as above, but due to even the slightly longer fl I'd
>>
>>be
>>
>>>more inclined to use it like a 105 for semi-tight head shots -- probably
>>
>>the
>>
>>>best lens to get when you can't decide between the 85mm and 100/105mm
>>
>>focal
>>
>>>lengths.
>>
>>Agreed, though the Leica M mount 90 mm f2.8 has several nice examples.
>>These are reasonable in cost, though obviously more than a Nikon 105 mm
>>
>>f2.5.
>>
>
>
> I owned the 90/2.8 Elmarit R (based on the M design), a superlative lens (but
> so are practically all of Leica's lenses ;-)). The 105 Nikon is wonderful for
> its bokeh and has excellent to superb sharpness but I believe the 90 Leica's
> are even sharper,
I seem to recall that edge resolution did not fall off as much as with
the AIS 105 mm f2.5. However, since I tend to shoot wide open, it is
tougher to see the difference, unless the subject is closer to the edge
of the frame. I rarely use the 105 mm stopped down more than f4.0,
unless I am trying to push the shutter speed slower for panning.
still I'd _love_ to own a Nikon 105 again, though I really
> don't want to build up a full Nikon MF system in addition to my Contax MF lens
> systems and my Minolta AF system, too much is too much already! :-). I want to
> simplify and compact my systems not expand them. Perhaps a Nikon to Maxxum
> mount adapter is in my future somewheres...
>
>
>>>. . . . . . .
>>
>>
>>>16mm . . . .
>>
>>The Voigtländer 15 mm does seem to interest me as well. If I could come
>>
>>up with a good use for it, I might actually buy one eventually. Same
>>thing with their 21 mm.
>>
>
>
> Self-portraits at arm's length w/o a tripod? ;-)
Absolutely! I have been looking for that new Konica disposable camera,
with the 17 mm lens. It should be a fun experiment camera. So far, no
local places have it yet.
Lewis Lang
VARIOUS SNIPS
>I am still borrowing a computer, since mine is not yet repaired. :-(
>Somehow I figured out how to get the newsgroups working, but I cannot
>send out e-mail. Definitely makes work tough.
Strange... perhaps you can borrow another computer just for emailing and/or
find som wiz to fix the problem on the one your using...
>> To me, just as the 28mm is a wide 35mm, the 24 is a wide 24mm
>
>I think you meant "28mm"?
D'oh! My bad :-)
>as the space outdoors or inside may
>> prohibit you backing up too much. But it depends on both your subject,
>shooting
>> restrictions/shooting area and style of shooting.
>>
>
>Okay, I can follow that, but the short extension tube is one solution to
>
>the short distance, or lack of room.
Not really, Gordon. I have the oppositee problem. I don't need to get closer to
my subject indoors, usually need to get further way w/ a telephoto for the
right perspective w/ close cropping for people, otherwise I could just stick a
50mm up their noses ;-) (not hat I don't do this outside anyways ;-)).
>Might be right about that . . . a simple walk around set-up for me would
>
>be one SLR, one of the 50 mm lenses I own, and the 35 mm shift. The only
>
>other one that makes the walk around on occasion is the 105 mm.
Even just a 50 on my Nikon Em is often enough for just walking around, though
I'd love to have a 24 (my other walk around is the 600si w/ 24-50 zoom but it
aint as light or as bright as the EM/50/1.8 Series E.
>Okay, $900 is not cheap, but for what the lens is capable of doing, and
>
>considering the cost of any Leica M 35 mm lens, it is a relative
>bargain.
Yes, but so is a Rolls Royce for $10,000, but bargains are relative, if you
can't afford even a fraction of the bargain, then it "ain't such a bargain no
more" ;-).
Anyway, I know what you mean, but remember that last year was
>very tough, especially for art works. Hang in there, and you may find
>that this year is better.
At this point, forget about my art selling, I'd make more money hanging myself
on a wall (w/ wire and nail, not a noose - I wouldn't give my critics the
satisfaction, LOL ;-) :-)).
Rico Tudor
>...
>You can't afford my zooms. Don't spit on them.
I must confess to owning the CZ VS 28-85/3.3-4, but only because it
was part of a package from eBay. Like LL, I have a strong aversion to
nonlinear distortion, and even this premium zoom reaches 3.5% at the
wide end. Plus the size and weight is, in a word, grim.
Tell us about your zooms. :-)
--------
Rico Tudor
>...
>You've seem to have done alright below, though I have worries for your bank
>balance if you own even half the equipment mentioned below ;-).
>Didn't know that the Mars Rover had one for tv transmission. Forget about life
>or water on Mars, I'd settle for cheaper photo gear prices, sort of like eBay
>but w/ less s/n ratio ;-).
I started a Contax C/Y kit a year ago after noticing the low prices of
used analog gear, with most items coming from KEH and eBay. The FDistagon
was $900 (KEH). Thank you, digital!
>Don't you still get curvilinear (barrel) distortion - at least towards the
>edges/corners of the frame, even w/ the 1.6x crop factor considered. Probably a
>lot more distortion here than even a 28mm rectilinear on your film camera, no?
Distortion of a cropped FF fisheye is still significant, yes.
For architecture, software can remap the image to rectilinear form.
>I've heard the lux ASPH's (if I remember right) bokeh is also less than stellar
>when compared to their former illustrious pre-asph predecessors. I'd go for the
>last pre-asph generation (lux or cron) for both th bokeh and the lower price
>...
>Forget if it was the pancake or normal version of the C/V 35mm f/2.5 lens that
>has such wonderful bokeh (seeen only on the web by me).
I'm pretty much decided on a pairing of the 35/1.4 ASPH and the new
C/V 35mm pancake (when it ships). I understand the old pancake and the
"classic" are the same optics in different-quality mounts.
>Not cheap assed, but a Minolta 600si or 800si (used) would do you quite well
>(they include depth of field preview). For a new body I would reccommend the
>Maxxum 5, that's as cheap assed ($175 at B&H?) and new as you'd ever get - get
>two and send one to me, won't you ;-) :-).
Maxxum 5, roger.
--------
Lewis Lang
SNIPS
>I started a Contax C/Y kit a year ago after noticing the low prices of
>used analog gear, with most items coming from KEH and eBay. The FDistagon
>was $900 (KEH). Thank you, digital!
Yes, indeed. Also, can't wait till somthing replaces digital so I can get that
12 MP *ist II Digital for $300 ;-).
>Distortion of a cropped FF fisheye is still significant, yes.
>For architecture, software can remap the image to rectilinear form.
Somehow I probably thought in the back of my mind this would be a possibility.
:-)
>I'm pretty much decided on a pairing of the 35/1.4 ASPH and the new
>C/V 35mm pancake (when it ships). I understand the old pancake and the
>"classic" are the same optics in different-quality mounts.
What I don't get is why they are bringing out a new version of the C/V lens,
what's different/improved about it?
>For a new body I would reccommend the
>>Maxxum 5, that's as cheap assed ($175 at B&H?) and new as you'd ever get
>- get
>>two and send one to me, won't you ;-) :-).
>
>Maxxum 5, roger.
Roger?! I'm Lewis! ;-) :-)
Gordon Moat
Lewis Lang wrote:
> Hi Gordon:
>
> VARIOUS SNIPS
>
>
>>I am still borrowing a computer, since mine is not yet repaired. :-(
>>Somehow I figured out how to get the newsgroups working, but I cannot
>>send out e-mail. Definitely makes work tough.
>
>
> Strange... perhaps you can borrow another computer just for emailing and/or
> find som wiz to fix the problem on the one your using...
>
The big issue is that my housemate has default settings on this computer
for her e-mail, and short of altering those, I have not found a solution
to getting either of my e-mail addresses to work. I spent 30 minutes
with tech support trying different settings, and did no better than
receiving e-mail, but still unable to send out any. I wish I could load
some different software in this, but it is not my computer.
>
>>>To me, just as the 28mm is a wide 35mm, the 24 is a wide 24mm
>>
>>I think you meant "28mm"?
>
>
> D'oh! My bad :-)
>
>
>>as the space outdoors or inside may
>>
>>>prohibit you backing up too much. But it depends on both your subject,
>>
>>shooting
>>
>>>restrictions/shooting area and style of shooting.
>>>
>>
>>Okay, I can follow that, but the short extension tube is one solution to
>>
>>the short distance, or lack of room.
>
>
> Not really, Gordon. I have the oppositee problem. I don't need to get closer to
> my subject indoors, usually need to get further way w/ a telephoto for the
> right perspective w/ close cropping for people, otherwise I could just stick a
> 50mm up their noses ;-) (not hat I don't do this outside anyways ;-)).
Okay, that makes more sense.
>
>
>>Might be right about that . . . a simple walk around set-up for me would
>>
>>be one SLR, one of the 50 mm lenses I own, and the 35 mm shift. The only
>>
>>other one that makes the walk around on occasion is the 105 mm.
>
>
> Even just a 50 on my Nikon Em is often enough for just walking around, though
> I'd love to have a 24 (my other walk around is the 600si w/ 24-50 zoom but it
> aint as light or as bright as the EM/50/1.8 Series E.
I have been checking EBAY for Nikon 24 mm AI and AIS choices. These are
all with Close Range Correction, so really good designs. The prices are
fairly tempting, though I might get rid of my 28 mm upon getting a 24 mm.
>
>
>>Okay, $900 is not cheap, but for what the lens is capable of doing, and
>>
>>considering the cost of any Leica M 35 mm lens, it is a relative
>>bargain.
>
>
> Yes, but so is a Rolls Royce for $10,000, but bargains are relative, if you
> can't afford even a fraction of the bargain, then it "ain't such a bargain no
> more" ;-).
The problem with a Rolls is that everyone expects you to pick up the
tab. ;-) I wonder if having a Leica M means everyone expects you to buy
the film . . . . .
>
> Anyway, I know what you mean, but remember that last year was
>
>>very tough, especially for art works. Hang in there, and you may find
>>that this year is better.
>
>
> At this point, forget about my art selling, I'd make more money hanging myself
> on a wall (w/ wire and nail, not a noose - I wouldn't give my critics the
> satisfaction, LOL ;-) :-)).
>
Yeah, it seems that way sometimes. The art scene appears to be picking
up locally, at least with a few more opportunities. However, I am not
yet convinced that more sales are happening. One idea I am working on
currently is renting my art for parties and events.
Gordon Moat
Lewis Lang wrote:
> . . . . . .
>>I'm pretty much decided on a pairing of the 35/1.4 ASPH and the new
>>C/V 35mm pancake (when it ships). I understand the old pancake and the
>>"classic" are the same optics in different-quality mounts.
>
>
> What I don't get is why they are bringing out a new version of the C/V lens,
> what's different/improved about it?
It appears that it is an M bayonet mount, rather than the older screw
mount. Perhaps they are moving more in that direction with their lenses.
<http://www.cosina.co.jp/35p2/index.html> I cannot read Japanese, so
tough to tell what other differences are there.
There is a little bit more on the bottom of this page:
<http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtpma2004.htm>
Lewis Lang
>
>for her e-mail, and short of altering those, I have not found a solution
>
>to getting either of my e-mail addresses to work. I spent 30 minutes
>with tech support trying different settings, and did no better than
>receiving e-mail, but still unable to send out any. I wish I could load
>
>some different software in this, but it is not my computer.
>
Some possibilities... Get a Yahoo! or some other outside free email account,
ask the housemate if she would allow you to segment the drive so you could put
your email software/preferences on it, would she allow you/someone else to
alter the default settings on the computer so you could start sendung email?,
perhaps she has some virus or email filtering/other preferences that prevent
you from sending out email?
>I have been checking EBAY for Nikon 24 mm AI and AIS choices. These are
>
>all with Close Range Correction, so really good designs.
Excellently sharp lens, I shot "WHO'S ON FIRST?" with that lens on T-Max 100,
definitely akeeper.
The prices are
>
>fairly tempting, though I might get rid of my 28 mm upon getting a 24 mm.
>
Or you could use it on another body as emergency backup so you don't lose
agreat shot whilst changing film... or, you can sell it on eBay/etc. and buy
some more film ;-).
>>
>>
>>>Okay, $900 is not cheap, but for what the lens is capable of doing, and
>>>
>>>considering the cost of any Leica M 35 mm lens, it is a relative
>>>bargain.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but so is a Rolls Royce for $10,000, but bargains are relative, if
>you
>> can't afford even a fraction of the bargain, then it "ain't such a bargain
>no
>> more" ;-).
>
>The problem with a Rolls is that everyone expects you to pick up the
>tab. ;-)
I'd rather pick up a 7Up® or a Leomon Shanty ;-).
I wonder if having a Leica M means everyone expects you to buy
>
>the film . . . . .
>
Nah, Leicas are jewelry for some people so it doesn't matter whether film or
air is inside it so long as it looks cool ;-) (you can say that about other top
cameras some people tend to wear as jewelry too, though).
>>
>> Anyway, I know what you mean, but remember that last year was
>>
>>>very tough, especially for art works. Hang in there, and you may find
>
>>>that this year is better.
>>
>>
>> At this point, forget about my art selling, I'd make more money hanging
>myself
>> on a wall (w/ wire and nail, not a noose - I wouldn't give my critics
>the
>> satisfaction, LOL ;-) :-)).
>>
>
>Yeah, it seems that way sometimes.
Sometimes?, LOL :-)
The art scene appears to be picking
>up locally, at least with a few more opportunities. However, I am not
>yet convinced that more sales are happening. One idea I am working on
>currently is renting my art for parties and events.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>
They can say that they took it w/ their (empty) Leica Ms whilst riding around
in Rolls Royces w/ a bumper sticker on back that says "will photograph for
Kodak stock" ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <40462F5B...@attglobal.net>
Thanks for the info/URLs, Gordon :-)
Gordon Moat
> >The big issue is that my housemate has default settings on this computer
> >
> >for her e-mail, and short of altering those, I have not found a solution
> >
> >to getting either of my e-mail addresses to work. I spent 30 minutes
> >with tech support trying different settings, and did no better than
> >receiving e-mail, but still unable to send out any. I wish I could load
> >
> >some different software in this, but it is not my computer.
> >
>
> Some possibilities... Get a Yahoo! or some other outside free email account,
> ask the housemate if she would allow you to segment the drive so you could put
> your email software/preferences on it, would she allow you/someone else to
> alter the default settings on the computer so you could start sendung email?,
> perhaps she has some virus or email filtering/other preferences that prevent
> you from sending out email?
Just got my computer back today. I hope this is still working okay. They did not
charge the batteries, so operation is slightly erratic. If it does not clear up by
Friday morning, I am taking it back to them.
>
>
> >I have been checking EBAY for Nikon 24 mm AI and AIS choices. These are
> >
> >all with Close Range Correction, so really good designs.
>
> Excellently sharp lens, I shot "WHO'S ON FIRST?" with that lens on T-Max 100,
> definitely akeeper.
>
> The prices are
> >
> >fairly tempting, though I might get rid of my 28 mm upon getting a 24 mm.
> >
>
> Or you could use it on another body as emergency backup so you don't lose
> agreat shot whilst changing film... or, you can sell it on eBay/etc. and buy
> some more film ;-).
>
Unfortunately, my choice of 28 mm from Nikon is not worth much. It is in great
shape, and even produced one of the images I displayed at a juried show last year.
Anyway, I hate to see it just collect dust, so maybe I will put it on consignment
somewhere.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Okay, $900 is not cheap, but for what the lens is capable of doing, and
> >>>
> >>>considering the cost of any Leica M 35 mm lens, it is a relative
> >>>bargain.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, but so is a Rolls Royce for $10,000, but bargains are relative, if
> >you
> >> can't afford even a fraction of the bargain, then it "ain't such a bargain
> >no
> >> more" ;-).
> >
> >The problem with a Rolls is that everyone expects you to pick up the
> >tab. ;-)
>
> I'd rather pick up a 7Up® or a Leomon Shanty ;-).
>
> I wonder if having a Leica M means everyone expects you to buy
> >
> >the film . . . . .
> >
>
> Nah, Leicas are jewelry for some people so it doesn't matter whether film or
> air is inside it so long as it looks cool ;-) (you can say that about other top
> cameras some people tend to wear as jewelry too, though).
>
Yeah, and F5 substitutes nicely for a hand bag . . . ;-)
>
> >>
> >> Anyway, I know what you mean, but remember that last year was
> >>
> >>>very tough, especially for art works. Hang in there, and you may find
> >
> >>>that this year is better.
> >>
> >>
> >> At this point, forget about my art selling, I'd make more money hanging
> >myself
> >> on a wall (w/ wire and nail, not a noose - I wouldn't give my critics
> >the
> >> satisfaction, LOL ;-) :-)).
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, it seems that way sometimes.
>
> Sometimes?, LOL :-)
>
> The art scene appears to be picking
> >up locally, at least with a few more opportunities. However, I am not
> >yet convinced that more sales are happening. One idea I am working on
> >currently is renting my art for parties and events.
> >
> >Ciao!
> >
> >Gordon Moat
> >Alliance Graphique Studio
> ><http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
> They can say that they took it w/ their (empty) Leica Ms whilst riding around
> in Rolls Royces w/ a bumper sticker on back that says "will photograph for
> Kodak stock" ;-)
. . . . Grey Poupon makes the images sharper!
Lewis Lang
BIG SNIPS
>Just got my computer back today. I hope this is still working okay. They
>did not
>charge the batteries, so operation is slightly erratic. If it does not clear
>up by
>Friday morning, I am taking it back to them.
Glad to hear you got it back. Hope you can clear things up with it, Gordon. If
after re-charging batts still don't work maybe buying a new batt if available
would work?
Gordon Moat
> Hi Gordon:
>
> BIG SNIPS
>
> >Just got my computer back today. I hope this is still working okay. They
> >did not
> >charge the batteries, so operation is slightly erratic. If it does not clear
> >up by
> >Friday morning, I am taking it back to them.
>
> Glad to hear you got it back. Hope you can clear things up with it, Gordon. If
> after re-charging batts still don't work maybe buying a new batt if available
> would work?
Unfortunately, this is the memory battery (PRAM battery), which takes 48 hours to
fully recharge. It is a new NiMh replacement. It just seems strange that they
would not have kept the computer fully charged, though it could have discharged
during shipping.
Computer hardware problems are a pain. The I/O Board and Processor were replaced,
along with one bad control cable. I still think the Power Management Unit might
be faulty, but hopefully I am wrong on that one.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <4047B377...@attglobal.net>
I hope everything works out for you Gordon. But if things still aren't up to
snuff have you considered a cheap/er older computer that you could start from
scratch with? Just a thought. Sorry, my knowledge about computers is limited.
You ususally can use alocal libraries computer for free but you'd still need a
Yahoo!/other email address.
Anybody else out there have any thoughts/suggestions or should I consider this
thread a sort of private email in and of itself? ;-)
Sorry I couldn't be of more help, Gordon, I'm just about out of ideas. I hope
it sorts itself out positively for you soon :)