wish I have that much time to complete trails.....

this photo was maw up by 13 frames, 3 minutes each.... about 40 minutes sitting in the dark alone...

ps: dem a lot of mosquito also

---

Added on March 27, 2011, 10:17 pmthanks bro.... consider my 1st "successful" startrails....

This post has been edited by cjlai: Mar 27 2011, 10:17 PM

cjlai : this is call what kind photo?

cjlai: Nice!

yuhi: Not really.

I have 3 main zooms:

17-35mm (ultra-wide to moderate wide)
24-105mm (wide to moderate telephoto)
70-210mm (moderate telephoto to telephoto)

24mm fits right in between 17-35mm.

50mm is a 'normal' and it fits right in between 24-105mm.

135mm is what I prefer in the 70-210mm range for telephoto. Meaning if I was to shoot stage/concerts the 135mm is the right spot.

That is how I came to like the 24-50-135 combo. I never quite liked 28mm - it's not as able to get everything in. The 24mm is as wide as it gets without appearing like a gimmick.

I also didn't like 35mm on FF because it is too uh, boring, but it does have very practical use, and that is why it is the default focal length on point-and-shoots and phones.

When you use the 135mm much, you'll discover at times that something wider is nice too, and that the 85mm is right in between the 50mm and 135mm. It lets you do some of the shots you'd do with the 50mm and 135mm.

The problem with primes is that as a result of using one focal length you might start to be curious about other focal lengths. For example, I loved the 50mm and 135mm, but when I got the 24mm I started to get into shooting a lot more wide and I forgot how to use the 135mm, tending to like the 85mm more. Also, I fell out of love with the 50mm length, starting to like how 35mm feels.

Longitudinal CA is in the out-of-focus areas - reddish in front, green behind. At the point of focus it's purple fringing. However it's easily Photoshopped - Hue/Saturation/Lightness then pick Magenta and knock down the saturation and lightness.

Mikeshashimi: Ah but the 35mm is sharp too!

ahpingko: Hope you get it back soon!

mastering89: Yeah, but that is what some blogs/forums say - could very well be the people who sell the fake alloy ones posting that. I would rather hear it from B+W themselves.

Second 'big fat and kiut' shot is awesome!

fansoption: If you walk around with your 35mm, I wonder if you'll wonder what it's like if the 35mm has macro (like the 30mm macro.) Then you'd know why the 30mm macro exists.

zhan82: The Sony 28-75mm F2.8 SAM is a great lens. Much better optically than the Tamron and Konica Minolta version. However they downgraded the minimum focus distance. Unfortunately it has a SAM motor, which is potong stim on any camera with DMF capability (A100, A700, A850, A900).

what mean 35mm no good?

This post has been edited by fansoption: Mar 27 2011, 11:39 PM

albnok: now i want the 35mm.. haha.. but its quite expensive in Aussie la..

this is startrails...

thanks...

guys, i wonder who know what we call that flash that use gun powder or was it some explosive powder to boom for flash... when did it started? the best i can find out from uncle google was started in around 1850-60, anyone can clarify me pls? >.<

ier, a quick search...its called flash powder.. but duno how good is it for you...making new materials for training??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_%28photography%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_powder
http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00I31Y

yup yup, but i need date T.T i read those already...

bro, this suit??
http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Flash_History.html

thanks bro, its good material, but it did not mention when it started >.< i guess i just use 1950's

Albnok: Ooo I get it now. Haha! Well I never owned or used any primes besides the 50mm so I can't pass judgement on that. Haha! Do you think 135mm is too tight on apsc? How far does the subject have to be at to get a halfbody or full body shot? I'm currently looking at getting one of the zeiss primes=]

---

Added on March 28, 2011, 6:34 amMike: check out evilbay! That's where I got all of my gears from... Also hunt down the 2nd hand camera shops in tassie! Who knows, you might get a bargain off a minolta lens!

This post has been edited by yuhi: Mar 28 2011, 06:34 AM

135mm is very good for stage shots!

i can get half body shots at about...10 metres away?



DSC00080 by zstan, on Flickr

fansoption: I didn't say 35mm (on full-frame) is not good. I just find it boring.

yuhi: 135mm on APS-C is indeed too tight for portraits. However stage shots will work great.

but my is on APS-C is body now i feel 30mm look good like that

This post has been edited by fansoption: Mar 28 2011, 10:42 AM

10 meters!!??? Thats too far LOL!
Sob, then its not the lens for me, despite it being very poisonous.
I don't have many stage performances here and most of the stage performance here don't really allow cameras unless you're an OP.
So its either the 24Z or the 85Z. =)

Does anybody here have a link to the in depth review of the minolta 80-200mm f2.8 HS APO G? The reviews at dyxum are not really detailed (no kurtmunger, no shuttlebug, no photozone ~_~) How does it fare when its compared to the sony 70-200mm SSM?

interesting photos u got there...

fansoption: I like 30mm and 35mm on APS-C. Why worry about what I like? I like using the 30mm Macro on APS-C (or 50mm Macro on FF) more than a 90mm Macro. But why should what I like influence what you like?

24mm on APS-C is 35mm on FF. I do like how the Zeiss 24mm balances on my A55, but the focal length is very plain. Feels like a much wider 50mm on FF.

yuhi: The Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO is indeed nice, and a very fast screw-drive lens with powerful torque. It is not silent, though, and the minimum focus distance of 1.8 meters is a bit too long. I prefer how close the Sony gets at 1.2 meters.

Also, do you prefer 24mm or 85mm on APS-C? Do you intend to shoot tele or moderate wide?

This post has been edited by albnok: Mar 28 2011, 11:28 AM

ebay cheapest is around AUD$ 260.... consider ok ha?