Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-31-2014, 01:45 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Focus breathing refers to the change of the angle of view, when a lens is focused. basically, when you change the focus, the angle of view changes. A 50° angle of view may change to 48° or 52°.
Got it.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
In some cases this change can be much more dramatic. The lens that you refer to has two groups of elements, one stationary, and one that moves for focusing. As the subject gets closer to this lens, the angle of view get smaller. increasing the effective focal length of the lens.
I'm not sure this is quite right or maybe you have a different viewpoint, or maybe it's the difference in what you're calling the effective focal length? Over at Field of View Calculator - Rectilinear and Fisheye lenses - Bob Atkins Photography he gives the usual simple formula relating field of view, sensor size, and focal length (above the built in calculator):

FOV (rectilinear) = 2 * arctan (frame size/(focal length * 2))

Below the calculator he also gives the corrected formula that's accurate for the high magnification case, and as magnification goes up with a fixed focal length the field of view goes down:

FOV (rectilinear) = 2 * arctan (frame size/(focal length * 2 * (m+1)))

This is also shown in action on Pierre's page with the first 'inert' 50mm lens example, when you mouse over to get a closer focus (and slightly higher magnification), the field of view goes down (slightly as expected) but the focal length remains the same. So it seems that angle of view can be changed somewhat independently of focal length, and this makes sense, the stuff around the edges moves off the sensor as the lens moves away from it. Maybe it's just a difference of terminology here, the (focal length)*(m+1) term could be replaced with what Pierre would call F'A'+f', which might be what you're calling effective focal length?



In the case of the macro lens examples it seems that the focal length is reduced as you move to the minimum focus distance, but you're also increasing the 'back-focal-length extension' which acts as a virtual extension tube which results in a small minimum focus distance and hence higher magnification. (There's a more detailed animation at Short Presentations, by Pierre Toscani which shows what happens to the 85mm over the whole focusing range, it's pretty cool)

This seems an important distinction, with the DFA100mm (min focus 300mm, 1:1 magnification), I've found adding ~60mm of extension tubes nearly doubles the magnification. This would make sense if it's acting like a ~75mm lens already on ~75mm of 'back-focal-length extension', but less sense if it was acting as a 150mm lens (I may also not fully understand extension tube math). It's optical design is obviously different from the nikon examples, but it seems to behave with similar motives. Bob Atkins has details on Measuring Focal Length, and I'll see if I can't try his "Hard Way" for my dfa100mm in a few days.

Thanks again, I'm at least finding this all very interesting.

12-31-2014, 05:55 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
Actual focal length and relative focal length is two different things. Actual focal length is a property of the lens, and remains fixed on prime lenses and is variable within the given range for a zoom. Relative focal length is only used two explains the image size for various film and sensors. For instance in order to get a actual 1:1 ratio for a given lens, The distance to the subject needs to be twice the focal of the lens. Which is what I was referring to. On a 1.5 crop sensor, this will give you a relative image size of 2:1 . To get a 1:1 ratio, simply move your object out to 4 times the focal length of the lens. If you have a camera with a difference sensor size, It will have a different effect, I prefer to let the user figure out the crop affect. you can use complex math to achieve the same thing, but then you may need a calculator. I prefer doing it in my head using the inverse square rule.
01-01-2015, 07:21 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Actual focal length and relative focal length is two different things. Actual focal length is a property of the lens, and remains fixed on prime lenses and is variable within the given range for a zoom. Relative focal length is only used two explains the image size for various film and sensors. For instance in order to get a actual 1:1 ratio for a given lens, The distance to the subject needs to be twice the focal of the lens. Which is what I was referring to.
I've been trying to get your definition of what you're been calling focal length out of you for a few posts. I'm guessing you've been using both 'focal length' and 'effective focal length' to mean the same thing as what you've now also called 'relative focal length', namely the 'actual' focal length of a lens that would give the same angle of view (or essentially the way they use 'effective focal length' here: How to use the Thin Lens Formula to model a thick lens -- PanoHelp.com).

I can handle full-on math heavy textbook definitions, anything less is potentially extremely confusing

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
On a 1.5 crop sensor, this will give you a relative image size of 2:1 . To get a 1:1 ratio, simply move your object out to 4 times the focal length of the lens. If you have a camera with a difference sensor size, It will have a different effect, I prefer to let the user figure out the crop affect. you can use complex math to achieve the same thing, but then you may need a calculator. I prefer doing it in my head using the inverse square rule.
I know magnification ratios defined as (image height) : (object height) where image height is the size projected on the sensor and object height is it's real life size. This is given independent of final print size, and is not in any way affected by the sensor size. For example the DFA100mm at minimum focus distance gives a 1:1 magnification on a crop dslr and it gives 1:1 magnification on a 35mm film camera.

You seem to be implying the sensor size changes this, which isn't the case. Or your 1:1, 2:1 ratios mean something else?
01-01-2015, 12:03 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I've been trying to get your definition of what you're been calling focal length out of you for a few posts. I'm guessing you've been using both 'focal length' and 'effective focal length' to mean the same thing as what you've now also called 'relative focal length', namely the 'actual' focal length of a lens that would give the same angle of view (or essentially the way they use 'effective focal length' here: How to use the Thin Lens Formula to model a thick lens -- PanoHelp.com).

I can handle full-on math heavy textbook definitions, anything less is potentially extremely confusing



I know magnification ratios defined as (image height) : (object height) where image height is the size projected on the sensor and object height is it's real life size. This is given independent of final print size, and is not in any way affected by the sensor size. For example the DFA100mm at minimum focus distance gives a 1:1 magnification on a crop dslr and it gives 1:1 magnification on a 35mm film camera.

You seem to be implying the sensor size changes this, which isn't the case. Or your 1:1, 2:1 ratios mean something else?
The focal length is the stated focal length of the lens at infinity. I am not referring to relative focal length.

The 1:1 ratio is only for the full frame sensor. A 1.5 crop sensor will have a ratio of 1:2, when printed the same size, 8 x 10. But only because the sensor is smaller, not because there is any difference in the lens. A 100mm lens will produce the same size image, taken at the same distance, when projected on a screen, regardless of what size camera it was designed for. The only difference is the angle of view. not the projected size of the subject. the difference is seen only when printing the image, on screen or a physical print. Although there may be some slight variations in image size between manufacturers, all manufacturers use the same units for documenting their lenses, even though the lens was made for a FF or crop sensor camera.

The actual focal length of the lens, (The rated focal length printed on the lens), And the relative focal length, should not be considered the same thing. Actual focal length gives you a specific image size. relative focal length is only relevant when printing.

please read the document that I mentioned earlier carefully. It has been reviewed and critiqued by experts since WWII . In is the most accurate document that I know of related to photography. I'm still looking for the updated version.

01-01-2015, 12:40 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
The focal length is the stated focal length of the lens at infinity. I am not referring to relative focal length.
Then I'm back to the same problem, you're saying the focal length of a macro increases as you move to the minimum focusing distance, the other source (which you said 'wasn't wrong') is saying the opposite. If you're both talking about the focal length as measured 'at infinity', you cannot both be correct.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
The 1:1 ratio is only for the full frame sensor. A 1.5 crop sensor will have a ratio of 1:2, when printed the same size, 8 x 10.
Could you please just tell me what these ratios are supposed to represent then? It can't be the usual magnification ratio we talk about with camera lenses, because the usual one absolutely does not change with sensor size, nor does it depend on print size. Yours can't even just depend on the print size either, when both images are blown up to 8x10 the stuff in the 1.5 crop image will be reproduced 1.5 times the length as the stuff in the FF image, not a factor of 2.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
The actual focal length of the lens, (The rated focal length printed on the lens), And the relative focal length, should not be considered the same thing. Actual focal length gives you a specific image size. relative focal length is only relevant when printing.
Still lost. Can you not point me to your definition of either of these terms?

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
please read the document that I mentioned earlier carefully. It has been reviewed and critiqued by experts since WWII . In is the most accurate document that I know of related to photography. I'm still looking for the updated version.
Working on it, but it seems lacking in the technical details I'm after. They also define only one version of focal length, though talk about 'equivalent focal length' at one point with regards to different sizes of film (the usual 'crop factor'), no mention of 'absolute focal length' or 'relative focal length'.
01-01-2015, 02:27 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Then I'm back to the same problem, you're saying the focal length of a macro increases as you move to the minimum focusing distance, the other source (which you said 'wasn't wrong') is saying the opposite. If you're both talking about the focal length as measured 'at infinity', you cannot both be correct.



Could you please just tell me what these ratios are supposed to represent then? It can't be the usual magnification ratio we talk about with camera lenses, because the usual one absolutely does not change with sensor size, nor does it depend on print size. Yours can't even just depend on the print size either, when both images are blown up to 8x10 the stuff in the 1.5 crop image will be reproduced 1.5 times the length as the stuff in the FF image, not a factor of 2.



Still lost. Can you not point me to your definition of either of these terms?



Working on it, but it seems lacking in the technical details I'm after. They also define only one version of focal length, though talk about 'equivalent focal length' at one point with regards to different sizes of film (the usual 'crop factor'), no mention of 'absolute focal length' or 'relative focal length'.
Okay try once more.

1: The focal length of all lenses as measured at infinity.

2: as the subject gets closer, you have to refocus. Moving lens out away from the sensor.

3: there is a relationship between the distance to the subject, and focal length.

Sd is the distance to the subject.

F is .the stated focal length of the lens.

R is the ratio between the subject distance and the lens actual focal length. Not the stated focal length on the lens.

R = Sd / (
01-01-2015, 04:21 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
first of all, you are correct about the crop factor number it should have been 1.5 , not 2. Sorry for that, it was getting late on New Year's eve.

Okay, I will try again.

1: The focal length of all lenses Is the stated focal lengthat infinity.

2: as the subject gets closer, you have to refocus. Moving the lens out away from the sensor.

3: there is a relationship between the distance to the subject, and the actual focal length.

So The basic formula to describe this goes as follows. Note: this formula does not consider lens design, nor should it. Doing photography we do not need to know exactly how a particular lense Is designed. we just need to know how to use It.

Sd is the distance to the subject.

F is .the stated focal length of the lens, at infinity. This number is also represented as the first number in the ratio " 1: " Or one unit. Note the use of the word unit: a unit can be any number, as long as they represent the same number. In this case the Stated focal length.

R is the ratio between the subject distance and the lens actual focal length. Not the stated focal length on the lens. It is that relationship that the ratio represents. It also indicates the general size of the image.

R = Sd / ( F * 2 ) . This gives you the Second number of the ratio.

Using this formula, to get a 1:1 ratio, on a 50mm lens, the subject distance would be 100 mm. using the ratio number as a fraction of " F " You would need to add that fraction to the stated focal length " F ". Remember the first number represents a unit and is the actual focal length of the lens. so 1:1 = 1/1 which is a whole unit or 50mm. F + 50mm or 50mm +50mm = 100mm. so the actual focal length is 100mm and the subject distance equals 100mm.

using this basic formula as a guide, I can use any standard "non-macro lens" and determine how much I need to extend the lens out from the camera to achieve a certain magnification.

I can also use it to determine what my focal distances for any Prime macro lens. For instance if I had a 100mm with a 1.5 micro. That tells me I need a distance equal to F * 2 * 5 . So I would need 1000mm to the subject, or 39.37" .

this is how I was taught to do it nearly 40 years ago, by a professional photographer in my area. and it has worked well for me over the years.

01-02-2015, 11:44 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
first of all, you are correct about the crop factor number it should have been 1.5 , not 2. Sorry for that, it was getting late on New Year's eve.
No problem, but I still say sensor size has nothing to do with the magnification ratios we've been talking about, even in your definition below it's irrelevant as it doesn't seem to concern print size, only the image size on the negatve/sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
So The basic formula to describe this goes as follows. Note: this formula does not consider lens design, nor should it. Doing photography we do not need to know exactly how a particular lense Is designed. we just need to know how to use It.
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
this is how I was taught to do it nearly 40 years ago, by a professional photographer in my area. and it has worked well for me over the years.
This probably goes a long way to explaining vocabulary differences. References I'm looking at are from a more rigorous optics direction, the translation to a working photographers knowledge is bound to muddle up the technical terms. I agree that you don't need a deeper optics knowledge to go out and take photos, but I usually find it much easier to understand these things from a more rigorous sense than the usual back of the envelope photographer calculations.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Sd is the distance to the subject.

F is .the stated focal length of the lens, at infinity. This number is also represented as the first number in the ratio " 1: " Or one unit. Note the use of the word unit: a unit can be any number, as long as they represent the same number. In this case the Stated focal length.

R is the ratio between the subject distance and the lens actual focal length. Not the stated focal length on the lens. It is that relationship that the ratio represents. It also indicates the general size of the image.

R = Sd / ( F * 2 ) . This gives you the Second number of the ratio.
Sd is the distance from the subject to what? Front of the lens is my guess here (it does matter!).

It looks like you're saying F*2 is the "actual focal length"?

I'm now pretty positive that you're using 'actual focal length' to mean what the basic army photography book calls 'image focal distance' (pages 1-27 to 1-29) and that would explain why you've been saying the focal length of a macro gets longer at close range. You're using 'focal length' in a different way, especially when up close.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Using this formula, to get a 1:1 ratio, on a 50mm lens, the subject distance would be 100 mm. using the ratio number as a fraction of " F " You would need to add that fraction to the stated focal length " F ". Remember the first number represents a unit and is the actual focal length of the lens. so 1:1 = 1/1 which is a whole unit or 50mm. F + 50mm or 50mm +50mm = 100mm. so the actual focal length is 100mm and the subject distance equals 100mm.
Please compare the vocabulary you're using with the army books on page I-27 where they say a 1:1 reproduction with a 50mm lens requires 100mm Object focal distance and 100mm Image focal distance, and note that Image focal distance is not the same as the focal length, though they are close when your focus distances are mid distance to far away.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
using this basic formula as a guide, I can use any standard "non-macro lens" and determine how much I need to extend the lens out from the camera to achieve a certain magnification.

I can also use it to determine what my focal distances for any Prime macro lens. For instance if I had a 100mm with a 1.5 micro. That tells me I need a distance equal to F * 2 * 5 . So I would need 1000mm to the subject, or 39.37" .
From what you've put in your formula, it looks like by "1.5 micro" you mean "a 1:5 reproduction ratio"?

If so, this answer doesn't work. A 100mm lens focused to 1000mm gives a 1:7.7 reproduction ratio, or 0.13x life size. To get 1:5 or 0.2x life size, the focus distance needs to be 720mm away. You can see the magnification calculators Lens Magnification and Depth of Field Calculator or Macro Camera Lenses or use the equations on page 1-27 of the 'basic' army photography book you linked to (where the focusing distance is the distance from the image/film to the subject) or the scale on the side of a 100mm macro lens (that also gives magnification ratio).

Or "1.5 micro" is referring to a crop sensor? But still, the definition of your ratio has nothing to do with sensor or print size, so I've no idea how you're working that in to your calculation.
01-02-2015, 10:39 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
strange, I put in the same parameters used in my calculation, f 100mm, Distance to subject 1000mm, and the extension tube that I calculated that I needed, 20mm, I left the other parameters alone. And it gives me a 1:5 ratio. Exactly the ratio that is used in my previous calculation. Also note: This Calculator can be manipulated to give different readings by putting in whatever extension tube number you want. The formula that I use gives you the distance to the subject and the size of the extension tube needed for a given ratio. maybe I did not explain the math right, But the math I use works. Although it does not account for depth of field or image sensor size, but that is an easy parameter to incorporate in this calculation.

The 1:1 ratio, means that the image projected on the screen is the same size as the object being photographed. in order to achieve that the distance from the object to the front element of the lens must equal the actual focal length of the lens. that's all that ratio number means. it is basically a fraction that is used to compare the two focal lengths, and in doing so compares the image size as well. You can dive too deep into a subject, and in up confusing yourself. For instance, You do not need to have a doctorate in computer science to use a computer. It doesn't hurt, but it is not necessary. you don't even need to know how to program or build one. You just need to know how to read, and have enough comprehension about what you've read, to use the software that you need.
01-03-2015, 02:46 AM   #40
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
The 1:1 ratio, means that the image projected on the screen is the same size as the object being photographed. in order to achieve that the distance from the object to the front element of the lens must equal the actual focal length of the lens
I don't pretend to understand your discussions but surely that should be 2 times the stated focal length from the optical centre of the lens which in practise is close to the front element?

Last edited by GUB; 01-03-2015 at 04:03 AM.
01-03-2015, 08:24 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
strange, I put in the same parameters used in my calculation, f 100mm, Distance to subject 1000mm, and the extension tube that I calculated that I needed, 20mm, I left the other parameters alone
You made no mention of a 20mm extension tube that I can see and even so, I still can't get your numbers to work. In the first calculator, Lens Magnification and Depth of Field Calculator, entering:

focal length: 100m
focusing distance: 1m (<- note this is what the lens is set to focus to)
extension tube: 20mm

gives magnification of 1:3.1 at an effective focusing distance of 0.54m (where your subject has to be).

If I put in

focal length: 100m
focusing distance: 1000m (<-lens focused at infinity for all practical purposes)
extension tube: 20mm

I get the 1:5 magnification but at an effective focusing distance of 0.72m. Which agrees with my calculations from the army book (the stuff on 1-27).

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
The 1:1 ratio, means that the image projected on the screen is the same size as the object being photographed. in order to achieve that the distance from the object to the front element of the lens must equal the actual focal length of the lens. that's all that ratio number means.
I understand what the ratio means but the bolded part above is poor terminology. It's close enough to being correct for longer distances but misleading in the macro case. Please, look at the army book page 1-27. Or back to the 85mm macro on Pierre's page. You're using 'actual focal length' to mean what the army book calls "Image focal distance" or the distance between points H' and A' in Pierre's diagrams.

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
You can dive too deep into a subject, and in up confusing yourself.
I'm confident in my understanding of the references. The language you're using doesn't line up with them though. I can handle the complexity, no worries, the hardest part I'm having is with inconsistent terminology outside of rigorous documents and the various simplifications people will use to make things easier for non-math inclined photographers to understand that result in equations inaccurate for the general case. And yes, I agree 100% that photographers can happily ignore most technical details and just go out shooting.
01-05-2015, 03:27 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 340
First of all I did have an error in my math. The formula should have been, ratio x focal length + focal length. this gives you the distance of focus, From the lens to the subject, For a desired ratio that is less than 1. Sorry for the mistake.

For a ratio of 1:1 or less use. ratio x focal length + focal length . To get the extension tube length size, Think of the ratio number as a fraction and divide the lens focal length by that fraction.

for anything greater than 1:1 ratio, use. ratio x focal length . This gives you the extension tube length. To get the subject distance, Think of the ratio number is a fraction and divide the focal length of the lens by the fraction + focal length.

as far as the lens magnification calculator that you were referring to, you need to know the focal length of the lens and the extension tubes that you want to use. It gives you the magnification. Although it does give you the depth of field, But in macro photography, you pretty much take what you get. And that's not much.

With the formula that I use, you need to know the magnification ratio and the focal length of the lens that you wish to use. It gives you the distances and extension tube needed. and you can do it in your head or at least I can. You don't need a smart phone, computer or even a calculator.
01-06-2015, 07:17 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
First of all I did have an error in my math. The formula should have been, ratio x focal length + focal length. this gives you the distance of focus, From the lens to the subject, For a desired ratio that is less than 1. Sorry for the mistake.

For a ratio of 1:1 or less use. ratio x focal length + focal length . To get the extension tube length size, Think of the ratio number as a fraction and divide the lens focal length by that fraction.

for anything greater than 1:1 ratio, use. ratio x focal length . This gives you the extension tube length. To get the subject distance, Think of the ratio number is a fraction and divide the focal length of the lens by the fraction + focal length.
Sorry, I think you have more mistakes. To find the distance from the object to the lens you should be dividing by the magnification ratio, unless you're using 'ratio' to mean both the usual magnification ratio at one point and it's reciprocal at another. Compare what you've written with the army book, page 1-27, it's all there. There's also no reason to split it into cases.

It's also worth pointing out that while the extension needed is (magnification ratio) X (focal length), this extension can be had by a combination of extension tubes and focusing the lens. For example, the 100mm lens at 0.2X needed 20mm of extension, you can keep the lens focused at infinity and add 20mm of tubes, or you could just set the focus distance to 720mm which will effectively rack the lens out 20mm. Note the calculators here Macro Extension Tubes & Close-up Lenses and Lens Magnification and Depth of Field Calculator both work this in (the former by asking for 'Native Magnification' the latter by 'focusing distance').

However, this is where these formulas start to be off if your lenses aren't the simple inert kind whose focal length doesn't change as you change the focus distance. For example if you set the DFA100mm to it's minimum focusing distance, you cannot call it's focal length 100mm and use these formulas if you hope to be accurate, and we are back to the original disagreement about what happens to the focal length of a macro lens at 1:1 magnification. I reckon I've got it sorted though, so no worries. (You might want to take a look at Accuracy, especially the chart about macro lenses and the comments below)

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
as far as the lens magnification calculator that you were referring to, you need to know the focal length of the lens and the extension tubes that you want to use. It gives you the magnification. Although it does give you the depth of field, But in macro photography, you pretty much take what you get. And that's not much.

With the formula that I use, you need to know the magnification ratio and the focal length of the lens that you wish to use. It gives you the distances and extension tube needed. and you can do it in your head or at least I can. You don't need a smart phone, computer or even a calculator.
The calculators use the same formulas from the same basic assumptions (thin lens), just coming from a different direction (see Lens Magnification, use equations M1 and M4 to find their 'h' or 'g' in terms of 'f' and 'm'). And yes, the math needed in the field is pretty easy, the math needed to follow the derivations is high school algebra/geometry.

Having the DoF spit out of the calculator is also very handy, good to know if you plan on focus stacking for example.
02-01-2015, 01:22 PM   #44
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 57
nice guide !!
I wanted to know if the close up filters will work better with 18-135mm pentax or hd 55-300mm lens. pl show some pics and sample if any.
Thanks
02-25-2015, 03:43 AM   #45
Veteran Member
old4570's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,551
Original Poster
Hmmm

Dont own either lens :

I would take which ever lens focuses closest , and buy a Filter for it ..
There so cheap , Buy one for each lens ...

If you find that you like the results , you may wish to invest in a higher quality one ...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
basics, car, cf, distance, f8, filters, focus, format, length, lens, macro, macro guide, people, person, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comprehensive Rebuild Guide: Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:1.9/85 jbondo Do-It-Yourself 6 06-27-2014 03:41 PM
Machinery Corvettes - Part 1 SpecialK Post Your Photos! 3 05-21-2014 04:25 PM
Travel Cruising - Bonaire - Part 1 daacon Post Your Photos! 6 12-24-2013 06:25 AM
Travel Victoria, BC part #1 jnguyen Post Your Photos! 12 08-27-2013 03:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Vivitar S1 105mm f2.5 1:1 Macro; Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro; Pentax-F 1.7X thomasxie Sold Items 4 02-02-2010 05:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top