| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2006 06:05:06 PM · #51 |
| I got an idea, you give me your EOS 1D Mark II, and I'll call I'll say you're right. ;) |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 06:13:04 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I got an idea, you give me your EOS 1D Mark II, and I'll call I'll say you're right. ;) |
as long as you give me around $2700. Then you have a deal. I'm selling it anyway. :D
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 06:18:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I got an idea, you give me your EOS 1D Mark II, and I'll call I'll say you're right. ;) |
as long as you give me around $2700. Then you have a deal. I'm selling it anyway. :D |
What are you getting to replace it?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 06:33:03 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Ram21:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I got an idea, you give me your EOS 1D Mark II, and I'll call I'll say you're right. ;) |
as long as you give me around $2700. Then you have a deal. I'm selling it anyway. :D |
What are you getting to replace it? |
a 1Ds Mark II.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:13:56 PM · #55 |
Darn that's tempting....
*ponders*
How many actuations on it?
*ponders*
Don't know if my Tokina 12-24mm will work on the 1D |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:22:19 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Darn that's tempting....
*ponders*
How many actuations on it?
*ponders*
Don't know if my Tokina 12-24mm will work on the 1D |
Under 10k I'm sure. I've only had it since september and it had about 5k then. I've hardly used it.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:29:10 PM · #57 |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:30:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Darn that's tempting....
*ponders*
How many actuations on it?
*ponders*
Don't know if my Tokina 12-24mm will work on the 1D |
Under 10k I'm sure. I've only had it since september and it had about 5k then. I've hardly used it. |
12-24 WILL work... except you will probably have major fringing under 14mm. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:37:10 PM · #59 |
As if I understand it.
12mm * 1.6x = 19.2mm
vs.
14mm * 1.3x = 18.2mm
15mm * 1.3x = 19.5mm
So, even at less wide zoom you're getting the same equivalent "wideness" as you would on a 20D. Fringing isn't all that big of an issue. (Crop it out).
I'm more concerned about the fact that many EF-S(or equivalent) lenses won't mount on a 1D because they hit the mirror. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:38:30 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
 |
Great point....I take everything I've said back. My favorite looking lens, are the two that I actually use for looking. They're inside my eyeballs. And without them, I couldn't look at anything and all other extension lens' are pointless.
;0) |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:44:20 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
As if I understand it.
12mm * 1.6x = 19.2mm
vs.
14mm * 1.3x = 18.2mm
15mm * 1.3x = 19.5mm
So, even at less wide zoom you're getting the same equivalent "wideness" as you would on a 20D. Fringing isn't all that big of an issue. (Crop it out).
I'm more concerned about the fact that many EF-S(or equivalent) lenses won't mount on a 1D because they hit the mirror. |
a small extension tube would take care of both.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:50:14 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...but in everday use they are known as a lens, not a telescope. Telescopes don't have to have a large image circle to project an image on a film plain like lenses do.
That's why there are lenses AND telescopes. :D |
FWIW, the ACS camera (Advanced Camera for Surveys) in Hubble carries a 4096x4096 pixel ccd sensor (actually two 2048x4096 sensors butted against each other). The sensor has a 15 micron pixel pitch, so the telescope image circle must be at least 87mm to cover this sensor.
Most telescopes, including mine, can easily be adapted to an SLR, and they throw an image circle large enough to cover a 35mm frame when the proper adapter is used (no additional optics involved, BTW).
Bottom line, although telescopes are often designd to optimize different criteria, they are lenses in their own right. Lenses can be telescopes as well. A top-notch refracting telescope is very similar to a 600mm f/4 SLR lens, though the optics at the back end are designed differently.
Edit:
For those with an interest, here's a very detailed look at the ACS:
//acs.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/overview/
Message edited by author 2006-03-22 19:52:41.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 07:55:21 PM · #63 |
I knew we could count on Kirbic to wade in here...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 08:09:31 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I knew we could count on Kirbic to wade in here...
R. |
A man's got to do what a man's got to do!
;-)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2006 12:09:52 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
that's easy...my newest lens which I am loving !
 |
Of them all so far i think i agree with you, i like the long square looking lens. Thats probobly as big as ide want to go. Those long long one just seem a bit much. |
|
|
|
03/23/2006 12:14:41 AM · #66 |
Wait, i said lenses not a car transmition. :P |
|
|
|
03/23/2006 12:46:06 AM · #67 |
actually this is my favorite of all time.
I use to love using this lens...
|
|
|
|
03/23/2006 05:03:18 AM · #68 |
I like the old Olympus Zuiko 55mm 1.2 lens as I said, but this is one of the best looking cameras pre my D200!
//www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/olympus-om2/00_1.jpg
|
|
|
|
03/23/2006 05:04:12 AM · #69 |
Let's try that link again...
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 04:22:36 PM · #70 |
I wonder how much a lens like that weighs? i just got a 2X telephoto and its HEAVY |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 04:24:05 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by BowerR64:
I wonder how much a lens like that weighs? i just got a 2X telephoto and its HEAVY |
16kgs or something like that is what it says on one of the websites.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:48:30 PM EDT.
