I'm looking to buy a manual focus telezoom, like 80 - 210 or something like
that. Need not be Zuiko. Main use will be sports and action, but not
portraits. I think high aperture no. would be a plus in order to get the
fastest shutter times. I would probably shoot with 400 ISO C-41 films. I do
have a 300mm already.
Alternatively, does anybody use the Zuiko 4.0/200mm? How's your rating on
this one?
I'm looking forward to your comments, pro's and cons. I'll also go check the
list archive on that.
Thanks a lot,
Thomas
Zurich, Switzerland
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Terry and Tracey <foxcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: Samstag, 10. Juli 1999 12:28
Betreff: Re: [OM] Digital depth of field - C2500
>In a John Shaw book, he says a 90mm lens has the same DOF whether it is
>mounted on a 35mm, 6*6 or a 5 *4. I'm so confused.
>
>Foxy
>
>----- Original Message ----- > >I read somewhere that since the digital
>cameras use shorter lenses (starting
>> >around 6mm, I think), their depth of field is MUCH greater.
>> ...
>> >Can anyone comment on the depth of field differences between digital and
>film?
>>
>> There's no free lunch. The focal length is shorter because the
>> imaging area is smaller, which results in proportionately larger
>> "circles of confusion," and the fractions cancel out, and you get the
>> same depth of field for a given exposure.
>>
>> Often these lenses give greater depth of field because they have a
>> tiny aperture, NOT because of their tiny focal length.
>>
>
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|