If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie question
Somebody can explain me what is a a diference between a Close-up Lense and a
Macro Len, and between a wide angle lens and fisheye lens? What's your opinion about Opteka Lens I have a Konica Minolta Dimage Z3., I would like to buy a wide angle lens (I'm seeing now informations about Opteka ,45x wide angle lens). Is it a good choice?? What about 3,2 telephoto lens??? Thank for answer all my questions Greetings |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie question
Macro schmacro. There are plenty of guys here who will argue endlessly
just where macro ends and close-up begins, and others who will insist that a close-up lens is something that you screw on the front of your regular lens to enable it to focus more closely (okay, I am one of the latter, I confess, but you are probably looking for the practical difference and not a technical argument). To make matters worse, Nikon calls their macro lenses Micro Nikkor. So if you are feeling confused, welcome to the club, because not even the camera manufacturers seem to be able to agree. In real life, a macro lens allows you to focus more closely than a mere close-up lens and leave it at that. A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, of course, but with much less distortion than a fish-eye, which can give you a view of 180 degrees or more. There are two kinds of fish-eye. The original fish-eye had an image circle that fit entirely within a frame, so you always had a round picture. Nowadays cropped fish-eye lenses are more popular. The image circle completely covers the frame so the final image is rectangular. It is really just what it says, though -- part of a fish-eye picture -- the middle part. Fish-eye lenses are considered a novelty lens by most people, but they have their practical uses. I use one in the cockpit for flight instruction, for example. For practical purposes, a straight line running down the side of a picture of a wide angle shot will stay relatively straight. A straight line running down the side of a fish-eye picture will be bowed out tremendously and might run across the top and bottom as well. Get away from thinking about 10x, 45x, 3x, or whatever x. It has no relevance whatsoever to making decisions about lenses. A 45x lens might not bring you any closer to your subject than a 3x lens. The x does not measure how much a lens blows things up, but how much difference there is between the widest angle and the most telephoto. In general, a large x number reduces the quality of the picture in return for the convenience of having a wider range between wide angle and telephoto. This is not a big deal on cameras like yours, where the sensor is so small that just about any lens looks good. If you want telephoto, ask about 35mm equivalents. They will give you a lens focal length in millimeters and you can then make a decent comparison. The larger the number the more telephoto it is. Just remember that it is a 35mm equivalent. A lens that gives you a field of view equal to that of a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera is going to have a lot shorter focal length on your camera. It is not really a 200mm lens. But look at it this way -- your pictures will appear sharper for both near and far objects than the $1600 200mm lens on a 35mm camera will get you simply because the digital sensor is so small. You have at least the appearance of greater depth of field. So your snapshots will often look better than my snapshots taken with the Nikon D70, and mine will often look better than the snapshots that some nut takes with a Canon 1DS Mk II (why the heck is he using a camera like that for mere snapshots?). So we can console ourselves that we can better pictures than we would with the expensive guys because we are too lazy and/or cheap to do what it takes to use good cameras properly. :-) (Flame away, you know it is true. You know who you are.) Seriously, just borrow the lens and take a few shots with it. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, leave it alone. Let other people worry about exposure charts and test patterns. No one gets test chart performance in real life. You bought the Z3 because you like to have fun taking pictures. If another lens adds to that fun, hey, great, who cares what anybody else thinks of the lens? If it is something that just weighs you down and cramps your style, dump it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie question
Clear and simple explanation
Thanks "cjcampbell" escribió en el mensaje oups.com... Macro schmacro. There are plenty of guys here who will argue endlessly just where macro ends and close-up begins, and others who will insist that a close-up lens is something that you screw on the front of your regular lens to enable it to focus more closely (okay, I am one of the latter, I confess, but you are probably looking for the practical difference and not a technical argument). To make matters worse, Nikon calls their macro lenses Micro Nikkor. So if you are feeling confused, welcome to the club, because not even the camera manufacturers seem to be able to agree. In real life, a macro lens allows you to focus more closely than a mere close-up lens and leave it at that. A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, of course, but with much less distortion than a fish-eye, which can give you a view of 180 degrees or more. There are two kinds of fish-eye. The original fish-eye had an image circle that fit entirely within a frame, so you always had a round picture. Nowadays cropped fish-eye lenses are more popular. The image circle completely covers the frame so the final image is rectangular. It is really just what it says, though -- part of a fish-eye picture -- the middle part. Fish-eye lenses are considered a novelty lens by most people, but they have their practical uses. I use one in the cockpit for flight instruction, for example. For practical purposes, a straight line running down the side of a picture of a wide angle shot will stay relatively straight. A straight line running down the side of a fish-eye picture will be bowed out tremendously and might run across the top and bottom as well. Get away from thinking about 10x, 45x, 3x, or whatever x. It has no relevance whatsoever to making decisions about lenses. A 45x lens might not bring you any closer to your subject than a 3x lens. The x does not measure how much a lens blows things up, but how much difference there is between the widest angle and the most telephoto. In general, a large x number reduces the quality of the picture in return for the convenience of having a wider range between wide angle and telephoto. This is not a big deal on cameras like yours, where the sensor is so small that just about any lens looks good. If you want telephoto, ask about 35mm equivalents. They will give you a lens focal length in millimeters and you can then make a decent comparison. The larger the number the more telephoto it is. Just remember that it is a 35mm equivalent. A lens that gives you a field of view equal to that of a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera is going to have a lot shorter focal length on your camera. It is not really a 200mm lens. But look at it this way -- your pictures will appear sharper for both near and far objects than the $1600 200mm lens on a 35mm camera will get you simply because the digital sensor is so small. You have at least the appearance of greater depth of field. So your snapshots will often look better than my snapshots taken with the Nikon D70, and mine will often look better than the snapshots that some nut takes with a Canon 1DS Mk II (why the heck is he using a camera like that for mere snapshots?). So we can console ourselves that we can better pictures than we would with the expensive guys because we are too lazy and/or cheap to do what it takes to use good cameras properly. :-) (Flame away, you know it is true. You know who you are.) Seriously, just borrow the lens and take a few shots with it. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, leave it alone. Let other people worry about exposure charts and test patterns. No one gets test chart performance in real life. You bought the Z3 because you like to have fun taking pictures. If another lens adds to that fun, hey, great, who cares what anybody else thinks of the lens? If it is something that just weighs you down and cramps your style, dump it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie question
I have a similar view as mentioned above... sorry I just glanced
through rather than reading it so forgive me if I am repeating it or contradicting it without knowing. OK I think a true macro is a lens like the canon 60mm macro where U adjust the #x and not the zoom of the lens and they usually have somewhat (still need to make minor adjustments) of a fixed distance taht the subject must be fron the front of the lens. where as the lens that sell as macro are usually psudo macro as one adjustsfocal length. the construction of the 2 is different too. long story short, if u can only use it on objects clost to the lens, it is a true macro. if U can use it as a regular lens and objects atleast a foot away it is a psudo macro. close up lens as mentioned above are usually focal plane (distance subject needs to be from the lens to be in focus) modifiers. P.S. - please correct me if I am wrong. This is just something I picked up adn not formally taught or told to me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbie question | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | January 21st 05 06:57 PM |
Newbie Lens/Focal Length Question | Capt Donkey Smile | Digital Photography | 54 | January 20th 05 09:07 PM |
Newbie Lens/Focal Length Question | Capt Donkey Smile | Digital Photography | 0 | January 17th 05 10:03 PM |
Help: Newbie 35mm Film Question | Keith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 04 06:26 PM |
Contrast Index Question: Newbie | In The Trenches | In The Darkroom | 24 | June 1st 04 01:14 AM |