brucemuir wrote:
210 f/4 mfd on the "C" version is marked 8ft/2.5m.
I saw one go for around 32.00usd + shipping just this week on the Bay.
They average about 50-55usd for a clean "C"
My 210mm is the "non-N" version mentioned above. The MFD on the focus ring is indeed 8ft although the stop is actually at something more like 7.5-7.75 ft. Mine is in mint condition, came with both caps and Tiffen UV and original case and it cost less than $30usd. The scary thing is that a replacement plastic OEM front cap for my Canon 70-200 f2.8 would probably cost that much or more.
Is the 80 macro as well compensated as the 120? The smaller size might make it an easier "to go" lens, when you're packing a lot of equipment already....
The 150 lens seems to (bokeh-wise) work best at medium distances - and I will probably add an indent for a halfway between 2.8-4 (F/3.5) position. Putting the aperture ring in between the 2.8 and 4 indents removes all bright-ring tendencies, and makes the pictures scary sharp. To get equally sharp in the absolute corners you need to get to somewhere between F/4 and F/5.6, but corners are definitely sharp enough for most purposes already at F/2.8 - some sagital/meridonal differences are obvious (or is it pure astigmatism?), and would show up very visibly on an MTF-graph as the S/M lines diverging from each other. Radial and tangential structures don't focus on the same plane in the absolute corners...
But when I say "less sharp in the corners", you need to get some perspective on your judgement... This is almost-edge lower left corner at F/4 and 70% scale from the original 24MP (like a 12MP FF camera @ 100% - my "reference") http://pici.se/pictures/nGZXGcOSt.jpg
theSuede wrote:
Is the 80 macro as well compensated as the 120? The smaller size might make it an easier "to go" lens, when you're packing a lot of equipment already....
No, it's not as well compensated as the 120, but it's very, very good nonetheless. The 80/4 Macro only does 1:2 natively though, you need the extension tube to get 1:1, the 120/4 does 1:1 natively.
Conner999 wrote:
Jim - I have to ask you, where the hell to you live? The backdrop and subjects in your shots are like a shooter's Disneyland.
Ha Ha, that made me laugh .I live in SW Ohio.I wash windows for a living and i carry my camera with me wherever i go.The caribou were on a farm that raises them for meat to sell.Many of my flower shots are in the yards of the homes that i do windows for.Of course always with the homeowner's permission
-Jim
Jim Schemel wrote:
Ha Ha, that made me laugh .I live in SW Ohio.I wash windows for a living and i carry my camera with me wherever i go.The caribou were on a farm that raises them for meat to sell.Many of my flower shots are in the yards of the homes that i do windows for.Of course always with the homeowner's permission
-Jim
It's one thing to have the subject matter......it's another thing to identify it and figure out an appealing way to capture it. That's a skill Jim proves he has. As far as the equipment goes....he has picked the right tools to do what he does well.
