Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2010 10:50:18 GMT -5
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 5, 2010 13:45:55 GMT -5
Wayne,
Were there helium and hot air balloons? Did you take a flight in one?
It looks to have been a good day out. Thanks for posting.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 5, 2010 19:45:02 GMT -5
Wayne
Looks like an entertaining night out. That 17/3.5 Tokina is no slouch either. I had one years ago and it was sharp on film. I should not have sold that one. Goes to show you that you can get some very fine performance out of older made for film lenses without resorting to the latest ones.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2010 21:46:53 GMT -5
Dave:
These are hot air balloons. I've never ridden in one but I understand it's a great experience.
Bob. There's two versions of the Tokina: the one I have and the Pro model. Mine has a lens hood that can't be removed, which I don't like, but it's cheaper than the Pro model. It has about the same coverage as a 25mm film lens--which is a real wide angle sweet spot IMO. I have a couple of zooms that start at 18mm and you would think there wouldn't be much difference between the 17mm and them, but the difference is noticeable. I like the depth I get in shots like the one of the girls and the deer statues.
W
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 5, 2010 22:45:09 GMT -5
Wayne
I am thinking mine was the manual focus SL model. I get a similar impression when going from 28mm to 24mm. It does not seem like a big difference but it sure is. Yea, 24/25mm seems to be a good spot on the wide angle trail.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 6, 2010 1:01:40 GMT -5
The widest with full frame coverage I have is the Cosina 19-35 AF in Pentax fitting. It certainly isn't that wide when linked to a digital camera with the 1.5 factor in place. It's amazing how times and terms change. Once upon a time a lens of 35mm focal length lens was considered wide angle, with 28mm being super-wide. Then 24mm and on to 21mm and so on almost ad infinitum. What I am unsure about is the 'distortion factor' for want of a better phrase. For instance does a 15mm fisheye have more coverage than a 15mm lens with no distortion? I know that the super-zoom lenses are a little optimistic in their figures. Are some lenses also somewhat optimistic? The widest I have for the Canon is an 18mm (-200 zoom) which equates to about 29mm full frame. Some shots don't really make it look like a wide angle lens, but changing the viewpoint can change the perception:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 14:05:51 GMT -5
I have the 12-24mm Tokina zoom which can produce some outstanding shots. 12-24mm is about 18-36mm in film. The reason I don't use the lens more is that it's fairly heavy.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 8, 2010 14:31:34 GMT -5
Taken singly even a fairly hefty lens isn't too bad, it's when several are carried in the camera bag with a couple of bodies and flash gun - especially when you get home and you haven't used half the stuff.
|
|