2 lenses in 1 converter

stumbled upon this website talking about 2 lenses in 1. have you seen this wide angle macro lens. i have an entry level nikon d40 and have been pondering to get some lenses. Due to budget, im trying get a lens that gets me the range but not too expensive as im on a tight budget.
Thankz Donald for your reply, im having a 18-55 lens, lol.. i would like to get something wider than 18mm but my budget restricts me.

Similar Messages

I have a Lumix G2 camera with two lenses, when I take RAw pics I Convert them using the Adobe RAW co

I have a Lumix G2 camera with two lenses, when I take RAw pics I Convert them using the Adobe RAW converter. Now I have bought a Lumix 25 macro lens and it will not convert these pics into a readable file

That's strange. The lens shouldn't have made any difference. Does the camera do JPG OK with that lens fitted? Did the samera come with software to convert RAW files, and if so, does it work on the problem files?
When I checked your camera against this list, I see it has two entries for the required version, so I suspect that the lens electronics require a slightly later version of ACR. If I am right, you'll have Camera RAW 5.7 and you need 6.1 So what version of Photoshop do you have? You need CS5 to support ACR 5.#
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
If you have CS4, then you'll need to install the latest DNG conversion software, which is free. You'll then be able to open the files in Photoshop CS4

How do I convert to DNG for CS3 without demosaicing?

Recently purchased the Sigma 60mm 2.8 lens for my Sony NEX-6, which shoots ARW raw files. When converting to DNG (using the newest 8.2.0.94 version), the files increase in size from ~15MB to ~60MB. This appears to be because I have the compatibility settings set to Camera Raw 4.6 compatibility, and the converter believes this means it has to demosaic the image. This is done with no override and no warning that information is going to be discarded, despite the fact that I shoot raw files because I want raw data. How can I produce DNG files compatible with Photoshop CS3 and Camera Raw 4.6, without discarding data and producing huge files?
This is doubly frustrating since manual lenses convert fine. I do not care about any lens correction information in the original ARW files, as only very minor corrections are needed anyway. Losing this information to produce good DNG files is perfectly acceptable to me.
Similar threads show that newer versions of DNG can be converted to without the demasaicing being applied, but this is not helpful to me. See http://forums.adobe.com/message/4312768, http://forums.adobe.com/message/3333887.
I have no plans to upgrade photoshop (especially the CC versions), so need something that works with CS3.

Okay, so I lied. I'm going to answer one more time. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to change your "entire workflow". Take the example of a panorama image. As in ACR, I make adjustments to the raw images using Lightroom. Of course, I have imported those images so I'm able to see that folder of images in my Lightroom library. Lightroom has an adjustment where I can highlight all images and choose to "match total exposure". I have found that using that really simplifies the merging to panorama process.
When I have done all that I need to do in Lightroom, I highlight all the images and choose the option to merge to panorama. Photoshop opens, the images that I've highlighted transfer to Photoshop and the panorama dialogue appears listing those images. I set my options and let Photoshop build the panorama.
When I'm through with Photoshop I save the panorama image and return to Lightroom. The panorama is there automatically added to the catalog. I can take that image back to Photoshop if needed. And I can export images in different formats for different purposes. But I only have the master images and the one panorama that I have to maintain. If changes are decided upon in the future I only have the one image to worry about.
The postprocessing in Lightroom is much more elegant (in my opinion) than ACR. You know, you can download Lightroom and try it for 30 days and see what you think. I still believe you are anticipating much more change than is really necessary. So my original answer still stands.

CCP colour profiles and different lenses

Hi,
I just got a Nikon D7000 and I've been playing around with my ColourChecker Passport to set up some standard colour profiles for use in ACR as a general starting point for processing. I've been pondering if it's worth my while to create different profiles for each lens I have, something I've not previously done when profiling my old D60, where I just created a series of profiles (including some dual-illuminants) by using one lens and capturing the target under a variety of different lighting conditions (e.g. tungsten, flash, sunshine, etc).
Anyway, I just tried creating a profile for my 105mm 2.8 lens under tungsten lighting, having previously (yesterday) created one under the same lighting with my 50mm 1.4 lens and I've been comparing them in ACR using the colour dropper. I’ve opened up the images used to create the profiles, applied the profile generated using the ColourChecker software for the corresponding lens, and then set the white balance using the ‘off-white’ colour patch with the eye dropper WB tool. I then used the colour dropper on the same colour patches in each image. I’ve noticed that the RGB colour values aren’t matching quite as well as I’d expected (note that I thought it potentially unrealistic to get a perfect match): blues and greens seem to be roughly the same, so for example with patch #3 (third from left on the top row), one is at 69,72,115 and one at 70,77,115, but reds and oranges seem to be a bit further out of sync, e.g. with patch #15, one is at 99,45,29 and one at 109,51,34; with patch #16 one is at 166,167,29 and one at 175,179,33. This surprises me a little, as I thought the idea of CC was to calibrate the profiles so that colours were essentially the same across different lenses – and different cameras if applicable. I have to say though that, colour values aside, when eyeballing the two images on my monitor (profiled) they do look very similar, which I guess is the main thing!
I wonder if perhaps I’m missing something here? I’m quite prepared to be told that I’ve got this all wrong!
Also, I wonder if others on the forum using CCP have gone to the trouble of creating lens-specific profiles, or if they’ve just created profiles for their camera body using one lens? This is the approach I took with my D60, but having done more reading on CCP I know that some folk do advise to create separate profiles for each lens they use (and I am of course aware that the CCP user manual also states to do this). Do you even create a profile for each and every shoot (when possible)?
I’d be very interested to hear your opinions on this as I’ve not been using CCP for all that long and am always eager to learn more.
M

First of all, a color profile is for correcting color, not luminance, so compare the HSL or Lab coordinates not the RGB values so you can just ignore the L coordinate. From your given RGB numbers, you can already tell that one of the images is brighter than the other so it is just confusing looking at the RGB values and guessing what you would expect the three values to be in the other image. For comparing two images, I would concentrate on the Hue number in HSL coordinates, since Saturation can change with contrast, and Luminance can change with Exposure and Contrast.
Also, as part of your eyedroppering comparison, another thing to do would be adjust the "Exposure" of the darker image until the L number (in HSL or Lab) is the same as the L in the brighter image and then see what the other two numbers are--maybe the other two numbers won't change, and then you can try putting one of the HSL values in the "Old" patch of the color-picker and the other in the "New" patch and see how much different they look. You'll have to do this comparison in Photoshop not ACR so use ProPhotoRGB when you export to keep the colors as close to the same as you can.
The two questions you seem to have, are: does using a lens-specific profile make enough difference to real world situations to bother with, and where are the variations I'm seeing when the profiles are applied to their source images coming from since I would think they would be the same.
For testing whether the profiles computed for the two lenses make a noticeable difference even with your two profiles that don't appear to correct the same, apply the two profiles to the SAME CC image (one of the two you created your profiles with), save an sRGB JPG of each, and see if you can tell the difference, either side-by-side, or even better, when you flip back and forth in some sort of photo viewer--like with Windows Picture Viewer when those are the only two images in the folder. By apply the two profiles to the same image you have mitigated any luminance and white-balance differences in the source image and are merely looking for differences in the effect of the two profiles.
If you can't tell much difference between the same image using each of the two profiles then it's just an academic exercise. I like academic exercises, but am also a perfectionist and lazy so I would do the experimenting until I found out I'd perfected things enough that I can't tell any difference then I can stop. In other words, do I need to profile for various lenses or not, or am I just doing it because I like to control everything as much as possible and it really doesn't make any difference.
Before answering the other question, about where any profile variations might be coming from, understand that the combination of white-balance and color-profile is attempting to convert the colors of an object photographed in the lighting scenario the profile was created for into the colors of the object photographed in a standard lighting scenario. In my mind the works out to be "make the colors of the object look like it was photographed in sunlight". The issue that requires making a profile and not just white-balancing, is that any part of the object that was colored the same as the light color will be neutral when the white-balance is done, and more generally the closer the color of the object is to the color of the light, the more neutral it will become when WB is done. For example, if you have a red ball and a gray ball and photograph them in red light, they will both look gray when white-balanced. A real-world example of this would be flesh-tones in incandescent light, when white-balanced will have even less color and be more neutral or pale or even bluish, than the skin photographed in sunlight, so after white-balancing, the job of an incandescent profile is to boost the reddish colors and diminish the bluish colors so the skin looks like it would in sunlight. This might be an argument for NOT WBing skin in incandescent lighting. In severely-colored lighting, especially nearly monochromatic lighting such as sodium vapor lighting, correcting the colors to be as if in sunlight will be impossible, but to the extent the lighting isn't monochromatic, the colors can be made to look more normal, if not perfectly normal..
To understand whether the differences you're seeing in the profiles are due to the lenses being different color or due to variations in the profiling process, itself, think about where the variations could come from and how you might test for each:
Was the source lighting exactly the same color between the two shots with different lenses (that were taken a day apart)? Test by eyedroppering the WB of same neutral-color patch in each photo and see if there is any difference in the Temp/Tint numbers. You cannot test the source-lighting color unless you have shot with the SAME lens for both days, so if you don't have shots with the same lens, seeing that the WB is not much different between the two shots can give you some comfort that the difference in the profile was not a difference in the source lighting. The source lighting might have changed if there was some daylight mixing in on one day and not the next, or if the A/C was running on one day and not the other and the voltage was slightly different and the redness of the light was different. One other thing that can wreak havoc in repeatability of both color and exposure is if any of the lighting is fluorescent CFL or tubes, because that sort of gas lighting changes intensity as the voltage varies and reverses 60-times per second and this variation is especially noticeable if the shutter is fast. So while your lighting may have been incandescent any changing daylight or flickering fluorescent lighting mixed in might have changed the source-lighting color enough to make a variation in the profile more than the color of the lenses might have.
This first question dealt with the photos taken with each of the two lenses. The remaining questions are about testing with just one lens.
Is the profiling process repeatable? Test by creating two different profiles from the SAME CC photo and be a little sloppy about when marking the corner patches, and see if you get different numbers applying those two profiles. An idea where things might not be repeatable, is that there are slightly variations in the color of the color patches (you should be able to move the eyedropper across the color patch and see if the RGB numbers change) due to slight color noise and depending on where you put the "corner" markers on the CC image, you'll get slightly different results.
Does the exposure make any difference? You can determine this by taking a photograph using the SAME lens in the SAME lighting (a few seconds apart), and just varying the exposure by 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop, and then computing a profile for each exposure and apply those two profiles to one of the exposures and see if the non-L coordinates of HSL or Lab eyedroppered.
If you check all these variations you'll have an idea of how much each affects the profile and then can judge if the magnitude of the differences you're seeing are related to variations with creating the profile, or actually related to differences in the lenses and thus a new profile for each lens might be warranted, assuming you can tell the difference, still. I mean even if you can tell the difference between the profiles created with different lenses, are the differences from the lens significantly more than the differences due to exposure or lighting color or corner-patch placement?
I haven't tried computing a profile for each lens; however, I have created a dual-illuminant profile (2700K and 6500K) and then computed new color-matrix slider values (the ones under where you set the profile) for various lighting conditions using Tindemans' script and despite the slider values being not close to zero, I can hardly tell any difference on the few images I've looked at. Once exception to not having the color-matrix sliders make much difference is when using the dual-illuminant profile with fluorescent lighting, which has a significant Tint value compared to either of the standard illuminants, but in the case of fluorescent lighting, I'd rather compute a whole new profile, than use a slider-corrected dual-illuminant profile.
Besides eyedroppering Lab or HSL coordinates in Photoshop, another way to check for color variations is to create a color-error plot in the Color Check module of Imatest and see how far the squares and circles are off from each other for each color-patch. An example of such a color-error plot is linked below, where it shows how far off the colors of a color-checker are in incandescent lighting after computing a color-profile in incandescent lighting. You'd expect them to be completely correct, but they aren't, and is a lesson in color profiles only being to go part way in making the colors look as if they were photographed in sunlight:
http://www.pbase.com/ssprengel/image/101322979
If you click on the above image, you will return to the thumbnails for color-error the gallery, and in the gallery description you can see links to both Imatest and Tindemans' script if you care to pursue things more in depth. Imatest is not free but does have a free 30-day trial, which should be enough time to get some useful information out of it.

Lenses not listed in the Lens Optimizer in Digital Photo Professional

As the topic title states my lenses are not listed in the Digital Lens Optimizer. I've placed the CD in the tray, and yet the program says it's connecting to the server, and when done, they are not found in the list. The lenses are:
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Why are they not listed? How do I get them?
DPP version 3.13.0.1
EOS 70D / EOS Rebel t4i / EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II / EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS II / Sigma 17-50 f2.8/ Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro/ Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro/ Tamron 70-300mm / 430EX II Speedlite / Canon FS 300
Canon Pixma MG 3100 / Canon LiDE 2100
Adobe Lightroom 4, Canon DPP, Corel Paintshop Pro X4

Of the lenses I have, the following are not supported by DPP 4 (However, they are supported "in camera" with EOS Utility 3)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II USM
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM
I don't care if they are "old" lenses or not. Why have the correction profiles for "in camera" correction (when saving/converting to JPG) and not in DPP 4? They have the data, they could just port it over from the database used in EOS Utility 3.
These lens correction profiles bring new life to some of the old "film" lenses like the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens. That lens has lots of distortion. However with in camera correction, it now produces good pictures.
I am not a professional photographer. I am a photography enthuisasts. I'll NEVER spend $1,000.00 or more for an "L" series lens (in fact I sold the Canon 24-105 f/4 L "kit lens that came with my EOS 5D. It was way too heavy, and the zoom on the low end was cramped (only 4mm movement between 24mm and 28mm). I like/use my Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM and Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM better.
Maybe my mistake is that I am using a program call Digital Photo Professional and I am not a professional. I noticed that that software leans heavily and supports the "L" series lenses.

Iphoto can't import .CR2 shot with manual lenses on intel imac

I'm shooting with a Peleng 8mm on my Canon REBEL Xt, it is a manual lens and my problem is that all the pictures shot with regular EF lenses can be imported in iPhoto, but the ones shot with the Peleng freeze the import process. I got this problem on 2 different intel iMacs, never on the PPC ones. and only with CR2 (raw) pics. JPEGs are imported, whatever the lens I shot with.
My idea is that manual lenses do not feed information to the camera. (regular EF lenses inform the camera of their aperture and approx. focus distance). Consequently, the EXIF in the CR2 file has no values for the aperture and focus distance. I think the problem comes from that, but I was wondering if nobody knows a workaround. I did file bug reports, twice.
if someone want to give it a try :
http://homepage.mac.com/karimc/iphoto_bugreport.zip
CAUTION: when you try to import the above file, iphoto hangs, you have to force-quit it and delete the contents of the "Import" folder in the iPhoto Library. Only for the strong.

Try converting the files to DNG and import that format. It should work.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Convert QuickTime VR file into Screen Saver

I took a 360 degree panoramic photo with my camera and used the camera software to stitch them together and create a quicktime vr file. When I open the file I can manually pan around and around endlessly. I found free programs that can create a screensaver from a movie file that plays by itself. Any ideas on how to convert the manually panning image into a video?
PowerBook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Open the file in QuickTime Player and drag the lower right corner to get the size as large as practical. Use the - to zoom out (Control key also does this).
Use the keyboard shortcut Command-Shift-4 to turn the mouse into "cross-hairs" and carefully drag from upper left to lower right while holding down the mouse. Try to avoid capturing any of the QuickTime window. When doing the Command-Shift-4 combo do not have the cursor over the QuickTime file (Shift key will zoom).
Adjust the QTVR file and make as many captures as are needed and assemble them using an image editing app. Because wide angle lenses are used in making these QTVR's you may also need to "skew" some of the images before pasting them into the final image to re-create the wide angle look of the original shot.
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/.Pictures/pano.jpg
I didn't bother skewing and only used two images but you get the idea.
Probably not worth the the work but it could be done.

Why are no Pentax lenses in the Adobe Camera Raw lens profiles when processing JPG files?

I normally shoot and process raw files and use the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw for processing. Some of these files are converted to jpg for use on the net or e-mailing etc. Sometimes I want to make minor changes to the now converted jpg file and often go to Adobe Camera Raw for ease and speed of use. Lately I have gone back to some files that were not thoroughly processed as raw files before conversion to jpg. When, in ACR, I go to Lens Corrections panel, Profile tab, I Enable Lens Profile Corrections and choose Setup: Auto (or Default) and get the message, "Unable to locate a matching lens profile automatically".
I then go down to Lens Profile and click on Make with the intention of choosing the Pentax lens which I used for the photo. Here is the problem - there are only six choices under make, namely Apple, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Sony and Tamron. I have no such issues when processing a raw file in Adobe Camera Raw. Pentax lenses are automatically detected and Pentax, along with Leica, Samsung, Zeiss, etc. are choices under Make of lens.
Do other people have this problem? Is there some setting I have missed? Is Adobe just not permitting some makers' lenses, for which there are profiles, to be corrected if the files are jpgs?
BTW, I have checked and the same issues exist for tiff files opened in ACR.

Assuming I read your post correctly, and that you're trying to use Lens corrections on JPEGs and TIFFs... I believe there's a completely different set of profiles for correcting already "developed" images (such as JPEGs and TIFFs). If I recall correctly (and it's been a while since I read about this), it's the same set that's used inside Photoshop for the Filter - Lens Correction tool (I hope someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read this somewhere).
If your lenses are known to Camera Raw when you develop raw files, I suggest you will need to go all the way back to your Raw file and reprocess it from that stage. You'll get a better result anyway.
-Noel

Convert vinyl records.

I am planning to buy turntable and convert old records. Is the Numark's EZ Audio Converter a preferable choice for software? What options in Logic can I use? Does logic do a better job? How to get the best possible transfer and then eliminate pops and other undesirables with out loosing the cleanness of the original sound. Thanks in advance.

Hi,
First make sure your turntable is the highest quality possible, is transparent or neutral sounding, the stylus/cartridge is in good condition, is grounded correctly to eliminate hum etc, is turning at the right speed (calibrate it), and preferably is using a stylus/cartridge/tonearm that will be able to pull plenty of high (and low) frequency content off the record. You'll have to research but some high end ones will capture information right up to 30khz and beyond which definitely makes a difference compared with the truncation at 22.05khz of CD.
Use as good a vinyl source as possible. Find the best version of the record as you can. There may be superior pressings, masterings, etc etc of the recording and these will have a dramatic effect on the information that is captured. You might just want to transfer the records you already have but it shouldn't be so hard to find better versions for not much money.
Depending on the condition and what you know about the history of the records, you can clean them carefully using soap and warm water. Dont use an abrasive cloth but instead use one or a few of those very soft cloths for cleaning glasses/camera lenses. A small bit of detergent and a gentle hand moving around the record grooves (not across to the centre like you do with CD) should get a lot of crap out of the record depending on its condition and could provide a big leap in sound quality. Take care not to get water on the inner labels. Make sure to dry the record for a few hours (not using too much heat) before playing.
Make sure your signal chain is as short and high quality as possible. The RIAA EQ curve is important as stated - get yourself a Cambridge Audio 640P Phono preamp for about £50 - this has excellent sound quality, will preserve your frequency response up to about 50khz and it will be much better to let hardware like this do the RIAA curve than letting software do it.
To record on the computer, use a high quality interface (Apogee Duet, MOTU Ultralite etc) use 24bit and at least 96khz sample rate to preserve the high frequency information. Determine the loudest parts of the record and set the level according to that - you can leave 6 - 10db headroom with 24 bit, just to be safe, and the sound quality/resolution won't suffer.
Use something like spectral view in Sountrack Pro to check the integrity of the recording. You'll be able to see things like hum, clicks, pops and may be able to edit them. I use iZotope RX Advanced as it is very good for things like noise reduction, manual/automatic click restoration etc and it does it very transparently (as long as you put the time in to find the exact right settings). But you won't want to do too much noise reduction generally as the sound will almost certainly suffer.
You might want to convert your master to 32 bit before editing as it will preserve the audio better and not introduce (albeit very very low level) dither etc.
Finally, I would avoid 'delivering' the final needledrop on CD and personally would always listen to the results in a nice environment with high resolution monitors/speakers in native 24 bit 96khz resolution, because that way it will sound as much like the record played live as possible. If you do have to go to CD, I would recommend sample rate conversion by iZotope (64 bit SRC) or Voxengo (r8brain), and dither by iZotope (MBIT+) as these are definitely among the best available.
Hope this helps
Cheers
rrrobo
Message was edited by: rrrobo

Opening Images from another converter in ACR

I save the output from a RAW converter like DXO as a dng. It opens in ACR. What would I expect to see?

Yes, I understand the difference, and I know DXO outputs a Linear DNG. I've known that for some time now.
I also know that DXO "actually" applies the lens correction to the image. What do you think I have been concerned about over in the Lens correction Forum and here as well?
I've known that for some time now and have made extensive tests on their output. I started well over a year ago, when lens corrections were only a gleam in Adobe's eye. This has been the thrust of my concerns; that no auto correction be applied in any part of the application w/o notification and the ability to say no. ACR is good in that aspect. In any event, the question posed here is about color correction, not lens. The DXO support person has covered these concerns quite well. He is an engineer, not a sales person. No, he is a physicist, with a PhD. who has explained their typical correction tests as each lens/body combination is characterized.
The question here is based in trying to understand the entire process. Is the demosaicing done as part of their lens correction process? The answer appears to be: No.
Is demosaicing done as part of the color correction? I would expect the answer to be yes, which posed the question, which I will state again:
What would you expect to see if you open a color corrected RAW file saved as a DNG which ACR opens? I see three possibilities:
1) The file in ACR looks like the file which DXO saved as a DNG as shown in their viewer. ACR and DXO Look the same
2)The file looks like the nef file, that is, the DXO correction is stripped. ACR and DXO look different
3) The file looks weird! DXO looks ok, ACR ???
What would you expect to see? Forget lens corrections.
FYI, Jeff, I am a long time engineer, starting my professional life in 1958 at Argonne National Labs working on Linac instrumentation.. I became a full time Photo Pro in 1974, and in 1998, returned to engineering as a contractor and consultant. My major career work was with Tektronix, which included test and evaluation of lenses for oscilloscope cameras. If I don't understand, I ask. Which brings me to a question from your post: What do you mean by "colors backed in"? I can make a SWAG, but I would rather not.

Odd Maze Pattern with Olympus E-P1 & DNG Converter

Hello. I wanted to report an odd maze pattern when I convert a raw file from the Olympus E-P1. It seems to happen when using wide angle lenses (Zeiss 21/4.5 C Biogon and Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon. The maze pattern is very prominent in the right corners of the image attached, where some softness is exhibited by the lens. Anyone else experiencing this? I do not get these patterns when converting with Olympus Studio or CaptureOne. -Norm

Hello Eric,
Many thanks for your reply. I sent two RW2 files; 295 made with the
Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar 15mm II at f/11, and file 299 with the
Leica Summicron-C 40 mm at f/8.
The maze artifacts are most visible in the top righthand corner. The
longer the focal point of the lens the less visible seem the artifacts.
Although I have seen posts on Flickr that the artifacts can change
with the same focal point lenses of different brands. A 35mm Zeiss
showed maze artifacts while a 35 Leitz did not.
I had some more interesting pictures with nice blue skies but these
had already been converted to DNG (still showing strong maze artifacts).
If I can supply any more files or information please do not hesitate
to ask.
Best regards,
Herb
Op 1 nov 2009, om 03:01 heeft MadManChan2000 het volgende geschreven:
Herb 19, can you please send me sample raw files (.RW2 files) taken
with these lenses that show the problem? You can use YouSendIt.com
with a target email address of mailto:[email protected]
>
Thanks,
Eric
>

Just bought T5i looking to get zoom lense

I am a novice with a camera. I just bought a T5i kit that has a zoom lense 55 to 250. I am considering the sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM. Because it is almsot twice the zoom. I am also thinking of getting a 1.4x canon teleconverter for the canon 55 to 250mm lense instead of the sigma, I know the canon 1.4x will decrease the picture quality but how much is the question. So which lense do I buy?
I am going to use it for my granson's hockey and football games and I love to take picture of birds in the wild. Any and all thoughts would be apreciated.
Joe
Joe

The tele converter won't work on the EF-S 55-250 zoom.
For indoor sports like hockey, or for any sport played at night, it is a challenge to get good shots cheap because you have dim light and moving subjects together. You need a wide aperture to let a lot of light in, and that tends to be expensive.
This one, the Canon EF 135mm f/2 would work well for the sports but would be short for birds unless you lure them in close with a feeder : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
It gives a very wide aperture, letting like 8 times more light in than your kit zoom can, and it gives razor sharp images. It costs 1/2 of what the 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2 costs, and is twice as bright, though shorter and less versatile. See http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Scott
Canon 6D, Canon T3i, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; EF 85mm f/1.8; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites
Why do so many people say "fer-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

Adaptors for Lenses

Hello,
I recently inherited some lenses from my grandmother, she did not have a camera that these went to so it may of broken a while ago. I know on the 35mm lenses the picture will not be the same width as when I use digital lenses. I know you can get adaptors and it may be that I can not get an adaptor that will work on any of these but I would like to try first. Thank you for any help.
I have an EOS Cannon Rebel XTi.
These are the lenses I inherited:
Digital ?
Vivitar Series 1, o67mm, 28-210MM 1:42-6.5 MC Aspherical IF
35mm
Sears, Auto 2x Tele Converter 4E/MC, PK 271.8102
Promaster Spectrum 7 1.4x Tele Converter MDAF

Those are Auto Focus lenses with Minlota mounts and there is no adapter available for Canon EOS cameras. Even if there was an adapter, I doubt you would be happy with the image quality.
Minolta AF lenses will mount directly to Sony Alpha (A-mount) and the Sony E-mount (NEX), but I would just sell them for what ever you can get.
The 28-210mm is only worth about $50 (or less) and probably less for the two teleconverters.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_nkw=vivitar+series+1+28-2...
Mike Sowsun
S110, SL1, 5D Mk III

Need to a voltage converter to run US-bought 110v HP Printers in 220v Pakistan any recommendations?

I Purchased Three Printers
1.
HP LaserJet Enterprise 500 MFP M525dn(CF116A)
2.
HP Color LaserJet Enterprise CP4025n Printer(CC489A)
3.
HP LaserJet P2055d Printer (CE457A) -
All of them three operates on 110v USA. but i need them to use in 220V . Can anyone recommend me any good Voltage converter ?
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Hi,
Before go out to buy a converter/transformer (you need over 2KW for all 3 of them), please check the switches at the back, they may have switches to switch from 110V to 220V. I don't know your market, my suggestion: talk with an electrician who knows the real world much better.
Regards.
BH
**Click the KUDOS thumb up on the left to say 'Thanks'**
Make it easier for other people to find solutions by marking a Reply 'Accept as Solution' if it solves your problem.

ALL MY DESKTOP APPS CONVERTED TO PDF FILES.

After sending an urgent email attachment in Adobe PDF to Government Offcom, all my Desktop applications in windows 7 64 bit have been converted to PDF files and cannot be opened.   The attachment used was sent to me by my Secretary remotely using an old MAC.
I can return my laptop to normal operation by un installing my Adobe Reader 11 app, but the problem returns when I re Download Adobe Reader
11 again.     After discussing this with Adobe Technical in London they advised me to raise this issue with your Adjudicators in this Forum.
Please assist asap as this is very urgent right now for several genuine reasons.
Many thanks.   Derek Horder.

See if anything in here helps: https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/kb/application-file-icons-change-acrobat.html

2 lenses in 1 converter

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for