Flowers 2010

[Dr. Harout]

Bruce, that shot heats my inner feeling toward Zeiss lenses. I hope someday I'll get myself one of those new CP.2 lenses of Zeiss. I hope so, I dream so...

[BruceKingston]

Thanks Greg, and you too Doc! With two CZ lenses in the bag, I can't see myself doing anything else from this point in (much to the disgust of my wife I think). The 16-35mm is going to take some figuring out though because it does some fairly disturbing things to straight lines at the edges of the image if you're not really careful. Just an excuse to take more photos though, all in the name of practice.

Birma, thanks to you as well. Although it's probably a bit early to judge the 16-35, I'm still partial to the 135. As I've initimated here before, it is rarely ever off my camera and, in fact, it's longest stay in the bag has been while I try to get my head around the new lens. The specs say that it's minimum focus length is 72cm, as in this Kangaroo Paw

_DSC4963-Edit.jpg (246.26 KiB) Viewed 3763 times

...but there is always another way to skin the cat - most notably by adding $30 worth of extension tubes so you can get close enough to (figuratively) poke your eye out with the hairs on the stems!

_DSC4966-Edit.jpg (208.77 KiB) Viewed 3763 times

and I do like that shallow depth of field

_DSC4943.jpg (178.95 KiB) Viewed 3763 times

albeit that, if you look at the EXIF, this one isn't all that shallow.

[aster]

Hi Bruce,

Congratulations! The photos with your brand new Carl Zeiss are impressive and joyous for the inspection of the eyes!

Enjoy!

Yildiz

[Birma]

Hi Bruce - thanks for the extra pictures - that one with the extension tubes is amazing . Greg also mentioned extension tubes a few weeks ago. What set are you using?

[BruceKingston]

Cheers Birma,

They're Kenkos. In this case a 12mm stacked on a 20mm stacked on a 36mm. Since there is no glass in them, I'm guessing that one set is pretty much as good as any other. Feel free to correct me anyone but these work pretty well with the A900 and any lens I've used them. I must admit I'm pretty good at forgetting to put them in my bag though, so they spend a fair bit of time on my desk and I haven't used them with the 16-35. Don't think I ever will need to get closer than the 4cm minimum focusing distance anyway. They do have the effect of making the 135 a little ungainly (unbalanced at any rate) and I've only ever once attempted balancing the A900 with vertical grip and a kilo of 135 with an extra 70mm of length on a tripod for fear of the whole lot falling over. The Kangaroo Paw was shot hand held as a consequence.

[Dr. Harout]

Beautiful. I'm amazed.

[bossel]

Just a little test with my new NEX:

[Dr. Harout]

Aha, congratulations Thomas. Let it serve you well. Did you by chance purchase the A-mount adapter too?

[bossel]

Aha, congratulations Thomas. Let it serve you well. Did you by chance purchase the A-mount adapter too?

Merci! So far no A-mount adapter. I am down to 3 A-mount lenses (10-20, 16-80, 70-210) and they're all screw-drive. Haven't decided yet how to move on. A Leica M-mount adapter is intriguing, then you could add for little money a Voigtländer 35/1.4, that is smaller than the kit lens. But it would be manual focus.

[Dr. Harout]

Aha, congratulations Thomas. Let it serve you well. Did you by chance purchase the A-mount adapter too?

Merci! So far no A-mount adapter. I am down to 3 A-mount lenses (10-20, 16-80, 70-210) and they're all screw-drive. Haven't decided yet how to move on. A Leica M-mount adapter is intriguing, then you could add for little money a Voigtländer 35/1.4, that is smaller than the kit lens. But it would be manual focus.

After all we are used to manual focus. The idea is great. Why not?

[Dusty]

Aha, congratulations Thomas. Let it serve you well. Did you by chance purchase the A-mount adapter too?

Merci! So far no A-mount adapter. I am down to 3 A-mount lenses (10-20, 16-80, 70-210) and they're all screw-drive. Haven't decided yet how to move on. A Leica M-mount adapter is intriguing, then you could add for little money a Voigtländer 35/1.4, that is smaller than the kit lens. But it would be manual focus.

Thomas, you should donate all those old screw drive lenses to the "Dusty Needs Good Lenses" charity, and get yourself the new SAM versions.

Dusty

[Greg Beetham]

I went for a quick trip around the yard too see if there was anything remotely interesting...not a lot at the moment, anyway I thought I'd use a lens that doesn't get much use, only because it's about twice the weight or more of my 24-105 for example.
Greg

A700 KM28-75

DSC00554.jpg (42.13 KiB) Viewed 3729 times

DSC00555.jpg (56.19 KiB) Viewed 3729 times

DSC00557.jpg (58.92 KiB) Viewed 3729 times

[david antony]

Thats a good test pic Bossel, off to a great start.

Really like those 3 Greg. I guess spring is arriving
down there. ;^)

Three wonderful photos atop Bruce.

[Greg Beetham]

Thanks DA, I meant too say I liked those excellent shots from Bruce as well, and a good sharp pic from a NEX...I got sortof sidetracked...again.
Greg

ps. Yep it's warming up here now DA, and the wet seems too have started a month early, I've been a bit busy with the interior of the boat too get involved with photography, except for a brief flurry now and then.

[Birma]

Lovely colours from the Nex Thomas - lens strategy for E and A mount is a dilemma when you have screw drive lenses. That 35/1.4 manual lens sounds interesting and I understand it is "reasonable" in price.