RolandRB wrote:
On 9 Nov., 20:21, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
saying something like:
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?

No idea how that would stack up. I don't like TC"s and I believe you're
more likely to see CA with them than not.