Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : Wayne Johnson (wjohnson@koyote.com)
Url : http://
Date : 09:54 AM Thursday 19 December, 2002

Does anybody have a copy of the "manual" for the old style 35mm TS, 2.8, SSC lense? I picked one up for a very good price (no gloat intended), and would like to see how it is "supposed" to be used. Thanks

2. From : Ron Gilliland (rongilli@bellsouth.net)
Url : http://
Date : 08:01 AM Wednesday 18 December, 2002

My favorite lens is the Vivitar Series 1 prime 135mm f2.3. Sure, it's heavy and nobody wants this focal length anymore,but this lens is sharp. At f2.3 the depth of field is paper thin,making this lens my first choice for candids.

3. From : doug nelson (douglasfoto@hotmail.com)
Url : http://dougnelsonphoto
Date : 11:23 PM Tuesday 17 December, 2002

Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough answer to my quwstion on the FD 85 1.8. I opened the window briefly, over the protests of my co-workers. It is my understanding that teles often have a little pincusion distortion, and that wides can be expected to show SOME barrel distortion. Architectural shots admittedly present a severe test of lens distortion. I still love the little 85 for portraits, and would go with the 100 f2 if I needed a 100. As I recall, my old breechlock 100 2.8 came to me with a red square taped on the rear cap. A friend bought it for me at "Bargain Center" in Fukuoka, Japan. Maybe that was where Canon unloaded their rejects. Maybe I just got a bad sample of this one. On the subject of good/bad samples, I have a 28 FD 3.5 that I find to be extremely sharp, the best 28 I've ever owned. If it distorts, I can't see it.

4. From : Mark wahlster (awahlster@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 08:36 AM Sunday 15 December, 2002

Doug in regard to your post on the 85mm f1.8 a question were you shooting through a window? As this would cause distortion. As to you selling a 100mm f2.8 S.S.C. due to the fact you couldn't get a sharp image from the lens I would have to say after owning three of these lenses from the first chrome nose version to the latest 100mm f2.8 nFD I have never had a problem with the image quality of one of these lenses unless it would be that for some of the young ladies I shoot portraits of it is WAY TO SHARP. I find that with both the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 I need to use a #1 soft unless the young lady has very very good skin (about 1 in ten based on my experience shooting High School Senior Photo's) It is possible that the example you had had been serviced incorrectly or had some other problem not associated with the lens design.
At what aperture did you shoot the flags? The 85mm f1.8 does have a tiny amount of Aspherical aberration built in at the widest apertures to make it a better portrait lens which is what it was designed for.

5. From : Ricardo Wilson (richoeNsusite@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 03:48 PM Saturday 14 December, 2002

According to this page (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/teleconverter/index.htm) which has featured the rare, old Nikon TC-1 Converter, can anyone explain why would the aperture scales on the Nikon teleconverter needs to have stop-down to f/64 ? By the way, this site is a REAL GEM on the web !!! I am indeed very happy to have found it ! I wish to thank the creator personally and tell him how grateful I am for what he has done for us but I cannot find his E-mail address in his site (just links to other sections). A strange personality too, huh ?... Keep up with your marvelous work. Thank you.

6. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 06:29 AM Saturday 14 December, 2002

hi lora:

you might try posting that question on the olympus forum:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/messageboard/olympusom1n2/index.php3

there are some really knowledgeable folks over there on the nuances of olympus gear.

rick :)=

7. From : Lora Brueck (brueck@peoplepc.com)
Url : http://
Date : 09:09 PM Friday 13 December, 2002

I would like some information re. Olympus Zuiko lenses. I recently purchased on the internet a 35-70 Zuiko lens that the seller swore was a genuine Olympus Zuiko lens. I purchased it to replace my 20+ year old lens which I have worn out. I have not gotten a new Olympus lens in many years and they may have changed since I got one, but the new lens that I received was totally made of plastic and very light weight. All of my previous lenses are metal and a lot more susbstantial. Can someone advise me if these lenses have changed in recent years or did I get ripped off? The lens has all of the markings of earlier lenses, except that it has a dot and a line for "close focus," which my original lens does not have.

I appreciate any comments you may have.

8. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 06:15 AM Thursday 12 December, 2002

Hi Ed: You can buy these in screw-in filter thread mounts at some camera stores; it's listed on page 51 of the current porter's camera catalogue. you might try going to www.porters.com and look for "multi-image filters". rick :)=

9. From : Ed Malouf (malouf@kpainc.com)
Url : http://kpainc.com
Date : 03:14 AM Thursday 12 December, 2002

Dear folks- We are searching for a faceted lense that will provide a mosaic view. It is to be used in a children's museum exhibit that mimics the way an insect might see. Any ideas? Thank you! Ed

10. From : Wolfgang Bujatti (wolfgang.bujatti@chello.at)
Url : http://www.panoshots.com
Date : 06:21 PM Tuesday 10 December, 2002

I'd like to use your Sunpak 120J (with or without TTL) with my Nikon Coolpix 5000 digital camera (ISO 518 hotshoe with the special Nikon TTL-system). I want to use it in F1 mode with circular Fisheye (180°).

I was told from the German reseller, that the adapter doesn't fit. Can I use this flash (TTL or non TTL version) with TTL or any automatic or manual mode or not at all? Wolfgang Bujatti wolfgang.bujatti@chello.at

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216