On 2/16/2011 5:39 AM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
> Inspirational... no kidding.
Wow, thanks!
But now I have to make a maybe confession. The shot of the dead tree may have
been taken with a Tamron 150-500/5.6 @ 500
mm. I took one lens on one trip and the other on another last spring, but which
was which? You'd think I'd take notes.
Heck, maybe I did, but . . . I should start taking pics with a compact of what
I'm using when using MF lenses. EXIF has
spoiled me.
> I had no idea one could pull such results from a mirror lens.
Although one of my examples was over miles, most were just getting really close
to something not far away. The
lighthouse was taken on a clear, good air day over ocean. no long distance
shots, you usually get some loss of contrast,
which isn't the lens's fault, from dust, pollution, haze, etc. But there's also
some loss, particularly to detail and
edge sharpness from air movement, with any but quite fast shutter speeds.
On 2/16/2011 7:01 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
> Thanks for the input all. Had my eye on a BGN condition one at KEH. I was
> interested for the long focal length at a relatively small size and weight,
> but it sounds like it's not worth the trouble.
It really depends on what you want to do and what the subject may be. For a
dedicated tele session, nope. As a carry
along, in case, as in Chuck's post, it can be great.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|