Fixed Aperture Pentax Zoom

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by Wayne R., Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Wayne R.

    Wayne R. Guest

    Wayne R., Feb 1, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Robert Coe wrote:
    > > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    > > <> wrote:
    > > : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    > > : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    > > :
    > > : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    > > :
    > > : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more expensive
    > > : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    > > :
    > > : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They are
    > > : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    > >
    > > Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I think
    > > it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    > >
    > > It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such cases. Unless
    > > it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of the
    > > barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however. Presumably
    > > Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that thermal
    > > expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)

    >
    > "Glass" is often simply slang for a whole lens - slang that Joel is
    > confusing in the most literal way.


    GLASS is glass or the marterial the glass made of. Sa,e with Fast Lens
    doesn't mean larger aperature or faster shutter speed.
     
    Joel, Feb 1, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    "Norman Weaver" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Joel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Norman Weaver" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> "dadiOH" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:ph5hl.616$2...
    > >>
    > >> > There are such things as constant aperture zoom lenses. They are
    > >> > expensive. I have never seen one and have no idea how they overcome the
    > >> > above but I suspect via magic :)
    > >>
    > >> I have a copy of Pentax's f3.5 35-105mm . I remember wondering how it
    > >> worked
    > >> much as you did. I ran through the zoom with the lens unmounted, and, as
    > >> near as I can tell, the iris seems to simply close a little at the
    > >> shorter
    > >> end. The amount of speed lost would be minimal - probably only a fraction
    > >> of
    > >> a stop - so I have to assume that it's sacrificed in aid of easier or
    > >> more
    > >> consistent exposure calculation.
    > >>
    > >> Unless it's magic.;-)

    > >
    > > It sounds like a magical lens too me. How about comparing your Pentax
    > > f3.5 35-105mm to either Canon 200-400L F4 or 800mm F5.x etc..
    > >
    > > The lens sport photographers use.

    >
    > An excellent idea! I've got nothing major planned for today. I'll rush out
    > and buy a whole new camera system, just for you.


    Thanks! and I will buy you 3-5 magical f3.5 35-105mm lens to return your
    favor <bg>

    > Kidding aside, I would guess that any zoom would function much the same.
    > Can't conceive of any other way of maintaining constant aperture.


    If you mean the lens moving IN and OUT then you are right they are very
    similar to each other. But if you are talking about Quality and Focus then
    I afraid there will be a huge difference.

    > The 35-105 is actually a pretty fair lens, as MF zooms go. It's range is
    > modest so manages to perform well enough at a reasonable price, and it's a
    > nice range for a "walking around" lens in 35mm format, if a bit heavy.


    If you are talking about ZOOM range then I agree 35-105 is a very good
    range. But I am talking about the QUALITY and what the 35-105 f3.5 is
    capable of.

    No kidding, if any of your friend has something like Canon 70-200L,
    100-400L, 200-400L, 500L, 800L etc. then just ask him/her to lets you give
    it a try.

    - FOCUS is what you want to pay closer attention.

    - Image Quality you should be able to find tons of them on the web. You may
    not be able to find the original, but it's possible. And study the XRIF to
    see the setting.
     
    Joel, Feb 1, 2009
    #23
  4. "Joel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Norman Weaver" <> wrote:
    >> Kidding aside, I would guess that any zoom would function much the same.
    >> Can't conceive of any other way of maintaining constant aperture.

    >
    > If you mean the lens moving IN and OUT then you are right they are very
    > similar to each other. But if you are talking about Quality and Focus
    > then
    > I afraid there will be a huge difference.


    No, what I mean is the method for maintaining constant maximum aperture
    throughout the zoom's range - not zoom function, not resolution, not
    distortion, not autofocus performance, and not any other thing you care to
    bring up.
     
    Norman Weaver, Feb 2, 2009
    #24
  5. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Joel wrote:
    > > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Robert Coe wrote:
    > >>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    > >>> <> wrote:
    > >>> : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    > >>> : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    > >>> :
    > >>> : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    > >>> :
    > >>> : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more expensive
    > >>> : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    > >>> :
    > >>> : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They are
    > >>> : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    > >>>
    > >>> Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I think
    > >>> it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    > >>>
    > >>> It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such cases. Unless
    > >>> it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of the
    > >>> barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however. Presumably
    > >>> Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that thermal
    > >>> expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)
    > >> "Glass" is often simply slang for a whole lens - slang that Joel is
    > >> confusing in the most literal way.

    > >
    > > GLASS is glass or the marterial the glass made of. Sa,e with Fast Lens
    > > doesn't mean larger aperature or faster shutter speed.

    >
    >
    > As I said glass is often "slang" for the whole lens.


    I read and heard what you said, but I can only agree with you at some
    degree not the whole point.

    - Yes, Good Glass does mean the whole unit, but also to understand the unit
    with *real* Good Glass the material the glass's made of.

    - Yes, Fast Lens does mean the whole unit with glass is good enough to
    capture image at lower-light larger aperature, but doesn't really mean Fast
    Lens when talking about the SPEED (Faster Focus).

    Samething, Yes "I am full" does mean I have eaten enough food to fill my
    stomatch, but when it comes to "do you enjoy what you ate" then it will go
    to the point "what you ate" etc..

    Samething, I have pointed out the 400L f4 and 800L f5.6 those have much
    smaller aperature, but you seem to ignore them etc..

    > Like some will call a large computer "big iron" (even when it has little
    > iron in it).
    >
    > Get over it Joel. Glass can mean lens and fast glass means fast lenses.
    >
    > In optical glass, while there are qualitative differences there is so
    > little difference in attenuation over types as to be negligible from the
    > photographers pov.
    >
    > And of course the "fast" lenses are larger and have thicker lens
    > elements. That does not "slow" them down however.
    >
    > Is _any_ of this sinking in?


    Nope! mine only sink on real thing.
     
    Joel, Feb 2, 2009
    #25
  6. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    "Norman Weaver" <> wrote:

    > "Joel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Norman Weaver" <> wrote:
    > >> Kidding aside, I would guess that any zoom would function much the same.
    > >> Can't conceive of any other way of maintaining constant aperture.

    > >
    > > If you mean the lens moving IN and OUT then you are right they are very
    > > similar to each other. But if you are talking about Quality and Focus
    > > then
    > > I afraid there will be a huge difference.

    >
    > No, what I mean is the method for maintaining constant maximum aperture
    > throughout the zoom's range - not zoom function, not resolution, not
    > distortion, not autofocus performance, and not any other thing you care to
    > bring up.


    Of course I knew you didn't mean the mechanical part (kinda kidding) ,
    that was why I mentioned about the IQ (Image Quality) and FF (Fast Focus).
    And as I have mentioned in the very first message that Fast Lens requires

    - Good Glass (marterial glass made of) to see clearer image in order to
    capture better image at poorer condition.

    As I have mentioned using F2.8 lens doesn't mean to shoot at f2.8 but
    because the quality of the Glass is good enough to capture acceptable image
    at f2.8

    Besides some wide angle lens and special designed lens (like long zoom
    with Fast Focus) for fast action sport, most if not all regular f3.5 or f4
    is not only slow, but often blur/soft comparing to the special design like
    Canon 100-400L f4, or 800L f5.6 etc.

    Yes, you can get pretty sharp capture using cheapie lens, but it will have
    to meet several requirements like.

    a. shooting at smaller aperature

    b. Plenty of light in order to shoot at smaller aperature. Of course
    someone may argue using tripod, but I don't wanna go that far, so I just
    give the general information instead.

    c. And it may take longer time to FOCUS (or we call HUNTING). Of course
    someone may argue that if it can't auto-focus then we can use MANUAL, but
    again that ain't go that far either.

    - And as I have mentioned, if you have a friend with some special design
    lens (Fast Lens), or just go to a local camera store to try some top-notch
    lens to find out that the Focus is so fast almost like real-time. Or it's
    almost in focus even when you move slowly, and in focus immediately ready to
    press the shutter button when you move to the subject.

    Or with slower lens, or even some f2.8 or larger (we often call them Fast
    Lens or Good Glass because they are fast and better glass when comparing to
    regular lens) you may find some may take few seconds to focus (Hunting), and
    quite afew may start hunting with a small movement. Or you may find the
    focus keep changing In/Out Of Focus (OOF).

    That's kinda of good lens I am talking about, not saying if the lens is
    capable of capturing sharp image or not.
     
    Joel, Feb 2, 2009
    #26
  7. Wayne R.

    Wayne R. Guest

    On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:17:43 -0600, Joel <> wrote:

    > That's kinda of good lens I am talking about, not saying if the lens is
    >capable of capturing sharp image or not.


    Everyone's clear on what you're talking about. It's just that your
    name for it means something else to everyone else.

    In the continuum of similar lenses, fast lenses allow more light
    through than their peers - that's the way everyone else uses the term,
    and that use goes back to well before auto-anything.

    Feel free to dedicate the 'speed' concept to autofocus but also
    understand that you'll be in a distinct minority.
     
    Wayne R., Feb 2, 2009
    #27
  8. Wayne R.

    OG Guest

    "Wayne R." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:17:43 -0600, Joel <> wrote:
    >
    >> That's kinda of good lens I am talking about, not saying if the lens is
    >>capable of capturing sharp image or not.

    >
    > Everyone's clear on what you're talking about. It's just that your
    > name for it means something else to everyone else.


    I think he's stopped arguing seriously and is just trolling now.
     
    OG, Feb 2, 2009
    #28
  9. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Joel wrote:
    >
    > > Samething, I have pointed out the 400L f4 and 800L f5.6 those have much
    > > smaller aperature, but you seem to ignore them etc..

    >
    > For their focal lengths, those are large apertures. To make them larger
    > aperture would make them very expensive, not to mention extremely heavy.
    >
    > Example: Canon 1200 f/5.6: $115,000.00
    >
    > Carl Zeiss 1700 f/4: $2,000,000.00
    >
    > Last time: FAST only has to do with APERTURE for the Focal length class.
    >
    > As Wayne R. pointed out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_lens


    I actually don't really care what Wayne R. may say cuz you may want to
    believe what Wayne say but not me.

    > See esp. the table at the bottom: the very FASTEST apertures (f/1.0 and
    > less) occur at shorter (near "normal") focal lengths.
    >
    > It has nothing to do with the glass of the lens elements. Only the
    > aperture.


    It either you try to ignore my point or whatever reason.

    -You just can't use dirty glass or cheap plastic on F2.8 or F1.0 which just
    won't work.

    - The reason why most cheapie lens is slow Focus, Blurry, Soft, can't handle
    poor lighting situation etc.. not because they have different designed, but
    because the meterial use to make the GLASS is a cheap material.

    - Or you just cover the f1 lens with cheapie dirty filter to see if it still
    work as good as the original f1.0. I am talking about the GLASS now.

    > EOD for me.
     
    Joel, Feb 3, 2009
    #29
  10. Wayne R.

    Joel Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Joel wrote:
    >
    > > It either you try to ignore my point or whatever reason.

    >
    > You don't have a point. That is the reason.


    Thanks for making my point, now go get your point then continue to talk
    <bg>
     
    Joel, Feb 3, 2009
    #30
  11. Wayne R.

    Peter Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    > : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    > : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    > :
    > : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    > :
    > : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more expensive
    > : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    > :
    > : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They are
    > : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    >
    > Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I
    > think
    > it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    >
    > It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such cases.
    > Unless
    > it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of the
    > barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however. Presumably
    > Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that
    > thermal
    > expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)
    >



    If the barrel has the same coefficient of expansion as the glass, why would
    it need to be white? Or, is that marketing hype

    OTOH Why wouldn't the opposite be true when dong cold weather shooting?

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 4, 2009
    #31
  12. Wayne R.

    Peter Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    >
    > As I said glass is often "slang" for the whole lens.
    >


    I knew it wouldn't be the last time you said that. <g>

    (see you prior response)

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 4, 2009
    #32
  13. Wayne R.

    Wayne R. Guest

    On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:50:22 -0500, "Peter"
    <> wrote (with clarity & insight):

    >If the barrel has the same coefficient of expansion as the glass, why would
    >it need to be white? Or, is that marketing hype


    Sunshine on one side of the barrel while the other side is in shadow?
     
    Wayne R., Feb 4, 2009
    #33
  14. Wayne R.

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:50:22 -0500, "Peter" <>
    wrote:
    : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : > : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    : > : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    : > :
    : > : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    : > :
    : > : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more expensive
    : > : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    : > :
    : > : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They are
    : > : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    : >
    : > Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I
    : > think
    : > it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    : >
    : > It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such cases.
    : > Unless
    : > it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of the
    : > barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however. Presumably
    : > Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that
    : > thermal
    : > expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)
    :
    :
    : If the barrel has the same coefficient of expansion as the glass,

    It doesn't ...

    : why would it need to be white? Or, is that marketing hype

    .... But even if it did, a lens that has undergone thermal expansion, even
    without distortion, is unlike to faithfully preserve all its optical
    properties.

    : OTOH Why wouldn't the opposite be true when dong cold weather shooting?

    Maybe it *would* be better to use a black lens on a cold day, especially in
    the sun. But absorption of sunlight aside, a black lens loses heat faster
    through radiation than a white lens does. And in really cold weather, cameras
    already don't work all that well.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 6, 2009
    #34
  15. Wayne R.

    Peter Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:50:22 -0500, "Peter" <>
    > wrote:
    > : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    > : news:...
    > : > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    > : > <> wrote:
    > : > : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    > : > : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    > : > :
    > : > : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    > : > :
    > : > : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more
    > expensive
    > : > : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    > : > :
    > : > : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They
    > are
    > : > : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    > : >
    > : > Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I
    > : > think
    > : > it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    > : >
    > : > It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such
    > cases.
    > : > Unless
    > : > it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of
    > the
    > : > barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however.
    > Presumably
    > : > Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that
    > : > thermal
    > : > expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)
    > :
    > :
    > : If the barrel has the same coefficient of expansion as the glass,
    >
    > It doesn't ...


    Not certain about that. Do you have any place I can see a comparison? My
    Chemical Rubber Handbook, 35th Edition, doesn't cover modern glass and
    composits. ( I used modifications 0f some of its foruulas to mix my own
    developing agents.


    >
    > : why would it need to be white? Or, is that marketing hype
    >
    > ... But even if it did, a lens that has undergone thermal expansion, even
    > without distortion, is unlike to faithfully preserve all its optical
    > properties.


    That would apply to thermal contraction as well. I am not an optical
    physicist, but think that a quality lens design would be ideal at some
    median temperature. I think that any temperature varient would naturally
    cause some change in optical quality.

    >
    > : OTOH Why wouldn't the opposite be true when dong cold weather shooting?
    >
    > Maybe it *would* be better to use a black lens on a cold day, especially
    > in
    > the sun. But absorption of sunlight aside, a black lens loses heat faster
    > through radiation than a white lens does.


    I don't understand the physcal reason for your statement. I always thought
    that black tended to absorb radiant heat and white reflected radiant heat.

    >And in really cold weather, cameras
    > already don't work all that well.
    >

    that makes sense, but I am not really sure what you mean by not working
    that well.



    --
    Peter
    It's hard to take pictures in a greenhouse with a cold lens.
     
    Peter, Feb 10, 2009
    #35
  16. Wayne R.

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:46:21 -0500, "Peter" <>
    wrote:
    : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:50:22 -0500, "Peter" <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : > : news:...
    : > : > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -0500, Alan Browne
    : > : > <> wrote:
    : > : > : The Canon 300 f/4 is $1,200 but the
    : > : > : Canon 300 f/2.8 is over $4,000.
    : > : > :
    : > : > : The f/2.8 is almost 4x more expensive to be 1 stop faster.
    : > : > :
    : > : > : The real point is that the longer the focal length, the more
    : > expensive
    : > : > : it is to make a lens faster as the lens elements get larger.
    : > : > :
    : > : > : This is why many photographers refer to the lens as "glass". They
    : > are
    : > : > : talking about the whole lens (lens barrel and lens elements).
    : > : >
    : > : > Well, actually they're talking about the lens elements. The barrel, I
    : > : > think
    : > : > it's safe to say, is almost never made of glass. ;^)
    : > : >
    : > : > It does, of course, make some sense to ignore the barrel in such
    : > cases.
    : > : > Unless
    : > : > it can't manage to hold the elements in place, the characteristics of
    : > the
    : > : > barrel are nearly irrelevant. (Not totally irrelevant, however.
    : > Presumably
    : > : > Canon makes their larger lenses white because they're concerned that
    : > : > thermal
    : > : > expansion of the barrel might have optical consequences.)
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : If the barrel has the same coefficient of expansion as the glass,
    : >
    : > It doesn't ...
    :
    : Not certain about that. Do you have any place I can see a comparison? My
    : Chemical Rubber Handbook, 35th Edition, doesn't cover modern glass and
    : composits. ( I used modifications 0f some of its foruulas to mix my own
    : developing agents.

    I was assuming (probably erroneously) that the barrel would be steel or
    aluminum (i.e, some metal). Most metals are more subject to thermal expansion
    and contraction than glass is. My gut tells me that plastic is less subject to
    expansion than glass, but I don't know for sure.

    : > : why would it need to be white? Or, is that marketing hype
    : >
    : > ... But even if it did, a lens that has undergone thermal expansion, even
    : > without distortion, is unlike to faithfully preserve all its optical
    : > properties.
    :
    : That would apply to thermal contraction as well. I am not an optical
    : physicist, but think that a quality lens design would be ideal at some
    : median temperature. I think that any temperature varient would naturally
    : cause some change in optical quality.

    Yes, I think so too.

    : > : OTOH Why wouldn't the opposite be true when dong cold weather shooting?
    : >
    : > Maybe it *would* be better to use a black lens on a cold day, especially
    : > in
    : > the sun. But absorption of sunlight aside, a black lens loses heat faster
    : > through radiation than a white lens does.
    :
    : I don't understand the physcal reason for your statement. I always thought
    : that black tended to absorb radiant heat and white reflected radiant heat.

    What absorbs better also radiates better, for the same reason. Black objects
    absorb heat faster, but give it back faster.

    : >And in really cold weather, cameras already don't work all that well.
    : >
    : that makes sense, but I am not really sure what you mean by not working
    : that well.

    Most (all?) electronic devices work best at STP. If you look carefully at the
    specs for your digital camera, you'll see that there's a maximum and minimum
    temperature at which it's supposed to work correctly. The latter may be higher
    than you might have thought.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 12, 2009
    #36
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Fixed Aperture Zoom Lens

    Mike - EMAIL IGNORED, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    518
    David Littlewood
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Mike - EMAIL IGNORED

    Fixed Aperture Zoom Lens

    Mike - EMAIL IGNORED, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    Mike - EMAIL IGNORED
    Nov 11, 2003
  3. Dave
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    774
    Drew Saunders
    Jan 4, 2005
  4. Fred Huint

    Zoom vs. fixed focal length lenses

    Fred Huint, Feb 7, 2004, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    405
    Chris
    Feb 9, 2004
  5. Bob Martin

    D70 fixed vs. zoom quality?

    Bob Martin, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    244
  6. Dave
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    444
    Dave Martindale
    Jan 4, 2005
  7. Derek Fountain

    Lenses with fixed aperture

    Derek Fountain, Jan 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    312
    Skip M
    Jan 12, 2005
  8. Desert Dweller

    aperture and fixed zoom lens non DSLR

    Desert Dweller, Jul 18, 2007, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    480
    Ilya Zakharevich
    Aug 2, 2007
Loading...