May I elicit some constructive commentary re where one shifts mentally
from a lens like a telescope (weight - size - cost- etc.) to the option
of high quality mirror telephoto? ........ibid re photography of Mars
to the stars?? Realize this is not a simple question and mirrors have
unique optical characteristics which are + or - given diff situations.
(At root of my question is a pristine Tamron 500 mirror and 2 X
coverter sitting in a drawer for FAR too long. High speed films
available today and this box and I need to be bayoneted.) Stimulate
me plez.....
Thanks
Bill
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 12:30 AM, Doug Smith wrote:
On Sunday August 10 2003 9:25 pm, gwilburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
That's a tough call. As I bought lenses i went form a 135/3.5 to a
200/4 to a
300/4.5. The 200 is the longest lens I can use hand held or prop on
something
without using a real tripod. I do a lot of traveling and tend to do my
shooting from roadsides parking lots and the like.
For some shots I've taken with the 200/4 goto
http://www.dreamscape.com/dhsmith/
< 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 >
|