HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Norman_Furlong@dolphin.com (Norman Furlong)
Subject: Re: Telephoto zoom lens recommendations wanted
Followup-To: rec.photo
Reply-To: norm@dolphin.com
Organization: Dolphin Software
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:11:09 GMT

In article <TJWU.92Sep11030852@e40-008-5.mit.edu>, tjwu@athena.mit.edu  
(Thomas J Wu) writes:
>   I have a Canon EOS Elan with a 35-105mm USM lens (an excellent lens,
> IMHO).  Right now, I am considering the following telephoto zooms:
> 
>   Sigma 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO, $300
>   Sigma 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DL, $170
>   Canon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6, $180
>   Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, $260

I am also considering which way to go telephoto for my Minolta 8000i, and  
would appreciate recommendations for a "bang for the buck" decision (using  
B&H prices) verses:

	Sigma 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO, $260  (or "DL" at $170)
	Tokina 75-300 f/4.5-5.6, $200
	Minolta 70-210i f/3.5-4.5, $205  (I have a Minolta i camera)
	Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 APO, $510  ($440 at Abe's of Maine)

On a related point, I have a Minolta 28-85i f/3.5-4.5 which I have been  
pleased with so far, but I am getting more serious about my photography  
and wonder if I should forgo the "ease of framing" that the zoom lens  
affords and go with prime lenses.  I definitely cannot afford the  
manufacturer's APO lenses, so that's right out!  How much sharper will my  
pictures be if I pay the extra expense for a couple of non-APO prime  
lenses?  Compared to say, the Tokina 70-210 f/2.8 APO?  

If prime is the way to go, which lenses should I purchase, in what order,  
as money permits, a 180, 500, then a 300?  And how much should I rely on a  
1.4x converter, understanding that I lose a stop of light?  Does picture  
sharpness go down the toilet?  Will I need to stay >= f/8 to make up for  
the converter's vignetting, or is it futile?

Is there a FAQ on all this?  If not, there should be.  :-) 

Thanks very much, in advance.  I'll summarize E-mail postings.  NeXTMail  
is welcome!
norm@dolphin.com
From: a139146@cc.tut.fi (Ahokas Jarno)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Kodak TMax & TRI-X
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:12:42 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland



Could anyone tell me what is the difference between Kodak TMax and TRI-X
b/w films. I've heard that press people prefer TRI-X.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sbertsch@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steve Bertsch)
Subject: Monopods
Organization: University Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:05:27 GMT


I'm thinking of buying a monopod for hiking trips, but I've never tried
one before. If I can hand hold a camera reasonably well at 1/F.L. secs,
how slow will a monopod let me go?

And yes, I do have a tripod, sometimes I just don't feel like lugging
it through the woods for miles.

Thanks,
Steve
-- 
bertsch.3@osu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: news@walter.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Experience with Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:18:56 GMT

In article <BvIFsn.KuJ@acsu.buffalo.edu> tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai) writes:
>
>So, what's the f/ stop reading when the focal length of the 70-210 USM
>reaches 100mm?  Still 3.5?  
>

Between 3.5 and 4. I don't have the lens off hand. But I know that the
largest aperture drops to f/4 @135 mm. 



C. Jason Chen 
jchen@wind.bellcore.com
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Experience with Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:51:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Oct2.165104.18263
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1aghq1INN5td@introl.introl.com>, tim@introl.com (Tim Chase) writes:
> 
Re: the EF100-300 USM lens....

> I've also got one and must agree. Also, it's practically silent and focuses
> very fast.  The downside is that it eats batteries.
> 

It shouldn't eat batteries faster than any other "consumer" type Canon EF
lens (which is certainly fast enough!). The big, heavy, "L" series telephotos
with USM motors do draw more current, but they have a lot of heavy glass to
move (Canon even say that the rolls/battery numbers in the camera manuals
DO NOT apply when using these "L" series USM telephotos). As far As I know
there is no significant difference in current draw between the regular EF
lenses and the small USM lenses.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EPP vs EPX
Date: 27 Sep 1992 12:37:05 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:

>EPP: Ektachrome 100 Plus Pro, 35,120,220 and sheet. 100ISO, datlight.
>EPX: Ektachrome 64X Pro, 35, 120. 64ISO, daylight warm balance. New this year.

Could you explain EPP better?

Is it to Ektachrome what PKR is to Kodachrome?  (I.e., just tighter
tolerances, same chemistry).

So if I've been using vanilla Ektachrome 100 I could safely
standardise on EPX?  Apart from higher cost, there is nothing
to lose? 

(If you wonder ``what could be lost'': I don't like Kodachrome's
dislike of projection, and I don't like the colours of Velvia.
Velvia may be ok for advertising types, but I find its really
false).

Thanks,

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: asadigh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (sadigh)
Subject: Re: Macro Lens Opinions
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:34:03 EDT

In article <1992Oct04.115528.20028@bmerh85.bnr.ca> illidge@bcarh758.BNR.CA (Ed Illidge) writes:

.
.
.
>
>I primarily want the lens for, surprise surprise, macro work.  I like
>that both of these lenses will go to 1:1 without tubes.  I would also
>like the 105 since I figure that I could probably get away with it as
>a protrait lens also.  Is this a reasonable assumption?
>

I had an opportunity to play with a 105mmAFmac a couple of days ago. 
If you use the lens on a manual foucs camera, I think you may find it a bit 
hard to use it as a portrait lens.  The reason is that when your object goes
farther than one meter or so, you find the focusing mechanism very sensitive to
changes in angle of the focusing ring as opposed to closer ranges where you get so much leverage
and accuracy in focusing.  This may not bother you if you work in AF mode.
But manually, I found it hard to focus on objects farther than 1m.  This 
behavior may be expected, for the lens is micro.  I don't know if the manual
focus version of that lens (105mm/mac) behaves the same way.  Does anyone
agree/disagree?
Beejan
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Anyone using the Pentax P30N/P30T
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:21:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep29.160604.1@summer.chem.su.oz.au> piton_m@summer.chem.su.oz.au writes:
>G'day, Shooters:
>
>Well, I just had to ask. There's been alot of talk regarding AF SLRs and
>old manual cameras like the Pentax K1000 but little discussion about more
>recent additions to the manual camera market.  Does anyone use the new
>Pentax manual cameras P-30T and/or P-30N?  Apart from any snobbery about good
>old solid [read cast iron] technologies, are these in the same league as the
>K1000 and the later K1000 SE?  Playing with one in a local shop, it seemed
>pretty good although the shutter did seem a bit heavy.  Very light, though,
>so it must be a blessing to carry on long hikes.  Anyone out there own one
>and would care to comment to a future prospective buyer?
>
>Mark, the Canuck DownUnder


  That's the P-3n, not P30N.  A few month ago I helped a friend of
mine choose this camera.  It is a good camera - with manual, aperture
priority and programmed autoexposure.  The body is very light and
compact (though I too would still prefer metal).  It has a depth of
field preview lever (though on all K-mount bodies you can get depth of
field preview by twisting the lens slightly off the mount).  The only
really negative thing about the camera is that there is no manual film
speed setting.  Often manual ASA setting can be used to do exposure
compensation in autoexposure modes.  I also didn't really like the
small plastic shutter speed dial that looked somewhat fragile.  But I
would agree that this is a better buy than the K-1000.  

  Minolta introduced a new manual focus camera called the X-9, which,
if priced similarly, would probably be even better.
From: isbell@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Andy Isbell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Anyone using the Pentax P30N/P30T
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:47:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvCpFM.9LK
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

piton_m@summer.chem.su.oz.au writes:
>Well, I just had to ask. There's been alot of talk regarding AF SLRs and
>old manual cameras like the Pentax K1000 but little discussion about more
>recent additions to the manual camera market.  Does anyone use the new
>Pentax manual cameras P-30T and/or P-30N?  Apart from any snobbery about good
>old solid [read cast iron] technologies, are these in the same league as the
>K1000 and the later K1000 SE?  Playing with one in a local shop, it seemed
>pretty good although the shutter did seem a bit heavy.  Very light, though,
>so it must be a blessing to carry on long hikes.  Anyone out there own one
>and would care to comment to a future prospective buyer?

I have a Pentax P3N (which as far as I know is functionally identical to the
P30T.)  I have only had it since mid-May, and this is the first decent camera I
have ever owned, so I can't compare it to other cameras.  I have been very
happy with it.  I have gotten excellent pictures from it for the most part (the
ones that didn't turn out great were due to my inexperience or lack of knowing
what I was doing.)  Since I'm fairly new at this, I don't really know what you
want to know.  If you have any specific questions about the camera, I'd be
happy to try to answer them. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Isbell           		                  isbell@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't
cross the street to vote in a national election.
                                -- Bill Vaughan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nilsa@idt.unit.no (Nils Andreas Thommesen)
Subject: Canon EOS User Group/Magazine ?
Keywords: EOS
Reply-To: nilsa@idt.unit.no (Nils Andreas Thommesen)
Organization: Div. of CS & Telematics, Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:44:11 GMT


I was wandering : is there a user group or a magazine for us EOS users ?

I waguely remember a reference in a British photo magazine that told about different useful stuff this group or magazine sold.

Does anyone know its name and adress ?

PLease answer me by e-mail to nilsa@idt.unit.no

Nils Andreas Thommesen, owner of an EOS 1000


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: DH02000 <DH02@polytec1.polymtl.ca>
Subject: Advise on Repairing a 1960 Rolleicord!
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:49:23 GMT

Hello Everyone!

I just acquired my dad's 1960 Rolleicord VB1, his student camera.
It hasn't been used for atleast 8 years, I learnt my photography
with it :-)

My interest in medium format has been rekindled and I wish to
re-plunge myself in it!!  But the camera (it's older than
me and my father insists that I call it my "elder" brother!!) needs
some servicing (the focusing ring isn't smooth, the rubber pad
around the back needs replacement etc.).

Would anybody be kind enough to recommend to me, a decent place
where I could "rejuvenate" my "treasured brother" without much fear!
I would prefer repair stores in the NY-NJ area, preferably those
that specialize in older cameras. I've seen advertisements of
ESSEX camera repairs in Pop. Photo; anybody dealt with them?
And please don't recommend Cambridge ;-)

Thanks a lot and have a nice day!!

-Tamal Ghosh
 Departement de genie chimique
 Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Would you use 35mm or 2 1/4?
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:53:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


If you are comfortable shooting with the hassy, go for it...you'll
never regret it.  The superwide is......SUPER!

Yes, there is a vast difference between the 50 and the swc. I have and use
both, and once you use them you'll know what I mean.  The swc is a remarkable
lens and has a WIDE angle of coverage.  The 50 is a very good lens (the FLE
is what I have) as well. Both have their appropriate uses.

brian
From: davec@ecst.csuchico.edu (Dave Childs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking to buy flash lighting
Keywords: flash, lighting, buy
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:42:53 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico


	I have ended up needing to purchase some flash lighting.  It will
be used to do some portrait photography, but I am mostly a nature photographer
so I don't expect to use it often.  So, if anyone has any used lighting
that they are interested in selling, please let me know.  Also, if you have 
any suggestions on places where I could find a reasonably priced set of 
lights, please let me know. 

	I'm shooting a Canon 10s, and figure on syncing off of my 430EZ.

	Oh, yes, I'm also looking for a backdrop.

Thanks

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
David Childs                      (davec@csuchico.edu)
California State University, Chico
From: yzhang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Yinong Zhang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Kodak Safelight Filter For Sale
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:38:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB


         Kodak Safelight Filter For Sale


      Kodak Safelight OC Filter 10x12inch (25.4x30.5cm)

                      Never used, still in box.

      Kodak Safelight 1A Filter 10x12inch  (25.4x30.5cm)

                      Like new, with box. 

      $ 20 each, or $ 35 for both.  
             ($48 each new from B&H!)
From: ghica@fig.citib.com (Renato Ghica)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Don't Buy From Smile Photo
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:27:13 GMT
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Originator: ghica@duck


In article <1992Oct2.174905.25005@chpc.org>, rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
|> 
|> >Then again, there's no connection between Slime and Smile except for the
|> >same letters being used. So to get presented with a libel suit, you;d
|> >have to say, "Slime Photo, of such and such State, with such and such
|> >phone number etc etc." Otherwise one could claim to be talking about anyone
|> >company.
|> 
|> 
|> I'm sure your attorney would be able to make this point clear once (s)he
|> had collected his/her retainer to defend you.


Nah, I'm a fool and I'd represent myself. Either that or resort to 
"..If you cannot afford one, an Attorney will be provided for you..."

Maybe I'm dyslexic and meant to say LeMis photo...
Or maybe I had a typo and meant misletoe photo....
or maybe the citrus exchange, limes photo.....
hmmmm....was that Melis hot op?
-- 

"I am a brain, Watson."
"These views are my own. / Mail me or Flame me"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ravoor@cs.iastate.edu (Suresh Babu Ravoor)
Subject: Canon lenses 28-70+70-200 or 28-200 mm
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:58:56 GMT

Hi,
I was just goin thru the prices on some Canon lenses and noticed that we can get
an EF 28-200mm for about 250$ while a combination of a 28-70mm and 70-200mm will
cost about 300$. Is there any performance advantage with any one of these 
choices. I mean, instinctively it seems that the 28-70mm will give better 
performance than the 28-200mm for the lower focal length ranges (i.e a wide 
angle shot with both the lenses will probably look better in the 28-70mm). Thanx
in advance. Please reply to ravoor@judy.cs.iastate.edu.


*******************************************************************************
       Suresh Babu Ravoor                    (ravoor@judy.cs.iastate.edu)     
       308A, Westgate Hall, Ames, IA 50012.            Ph: (515)-294-6255    
*******************************************************************************
Van Roy's Law:
	An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: former nikon owner
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:53:00 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Hoi Chong writes:

> >> But too late, after 15 years with Nikon I switched to Canon last month.
> 
> Are you sure you can learn to focus the other way (Nikon focus in reverse
> direction in the turn of the focus ring) after 15 years?  Or is your new
> camera AF? 


Although it is AF, focussing is not the problem as much as changing lenses:
the new Canons go one way, the Bronicas the other way, as do the Nikons I
still use at work, while the Olympus goes the way of the Canons.

Come to think of it, that's probably why I was always so slow focussing
these years.


eugene
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brein@gpvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Barry Rein)
Subject: Re: George Eastman's musical descendant
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:24:31 GMT

In article <26587@castle.ed.ac.uk>, huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <1992Oct5.194609.22413@news.media.mit.edu>
> wave@waits.media.mit.edu (
> Michael B. Johnson) writes:
> >H G J Evans writes
> >> In article <1992Oct4.025230.17209@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
> andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
>   
> >writes:
> >> >Does anyone know the name of a direct descendant of George Eastman
> who is a
> >> >MAJOR rock and roll star?
> >>
> >>....Linda Macartney stuff deleted....
> >> 
> >> Huw.
> >
> >This belongs in alt.urban-legends, guys...
> >
> >Linda McCartney is not George Eastman's direct descendant.  And if you 
> >really think she is, I have a Neiman Marcus cookie recipe for you...
> >
> 
> 
> OK, somebody has already pointed out (correctly, for all I know) that
> George Eastman had *no* descendants, but everything I have ever heard or
> read on this subject suggests that Linda is, at least, 'closely'
> related. I am not saying that I would consider the discovery that she is
> a seventeenth cousin, twelve times removed, to be a complete
> vindication, but I have always been given to understand that she was
> (amongst how many others I don't know) in line of inheritance to the
> Eastman estate. If anybody can prove me wrong, I am happy to be
> corrected, but lets keep it on email, because it doesn't really seem to
> belong on rec.photo.> 
> 
> Huw.

I recently heard Linda McCartney interviewed on National Public Radio. She
said her father, who was a well-known New York entertainment attorney,
changed his name TO Eastman from Epstein.  She said she is Jewish, and
totally unrelated to the founder of Kodak.

******************************************
*       Barry Rein                       *
*       brein@dsfvax.jpl.nasa.gov        *
******************************************
*       No clever comment.               *
******************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Lens Focusing (was Re: lens tests..)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:56:30 GMT
Keywords: lens tests patterns

In article <1992Sep25.224817.22960@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, dbailey@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (David R. Bailey) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.173104.25354@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, 
> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>  > On a related subject, testing
>  > lenses (AF and Manual) with EOS 10s and 630 bodies, I have come to the
>  > on the viewfinder screen and an in focus image in the image plane (using
>  > magnifiers to examine both), with AF and MF lenses. The 10s gives excellent
>  > in focus images in the image plane using AF, but the viewfinder screen image
>  > is SLIGHTLY, and I repeat SLIGHTLY out of focus.  Nothing you could detect
>  > without going to extrodinary lengths though. 
> 
> Yes!!!
> I noticed the same thing when I added a used 10s to my 650.  I didn't
> notice it right away, but I wouldn't say that you need to go to
> "extraordinary lengths" to detect it.  I first noticed it in a
> people-picture where the person was about 15 feet away, using a Tokina
> 20-35 probably at 24 or so.  So it was not even a low-depth-of-field
> situation.  I could clearly see that the face was fuzzy.  The lens was
> new as well as the camera, and being non-Canon, it was the first
> suspect.  But then I noticed the same effect with my trusty old 35-135
> USM.

Very interesting observation. Let me repeat, however, that the effect on MY
10s is VERY slight. I do not see out of focus viewfinder images in normal
use. I have to use a viewfinder magnifier with a 500mm f5 to see the effect,
and then it manifests itself as a slight change in the "cross hatch" pattern
you can see on the inner ground glass (fresnel) section of the screen as the
image passes through focus. Maybe a got a good 10s, or maybe you got a bad one,
either way it's not a good sign.
> 
> I, too, would like to know of others with this problem, as well
> as any suggestions as to what to do about it!
> 

I don't think much can be done about it physically, since the 10s screen is
fixed (due to the three illuminated "focus zone" indicators). This may be one
unfortunate consequence of plastic (polycarbonate) bodies. Maybe the required
precision (probably 10's of microns) is tough to get? In my case I know that
I need to focus slightly shorter than the screen indicates. Since there is
always a small "zone" over which the image appears to be in focus, I always
chose the "short" end of the focus zone. This might be the difference between
getting say 65lp/mm and 75 lp/mm, so in my case the difference is small but
quite detectable.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo