The Moon with a telephoto lens and teleconverters

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    wrote in message news:...
    > Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    > a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    > http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
    >


    Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
    Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
    multiple tries on manual)?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    > in message news:...
    >
    >> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    >> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    >> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
    > Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
    > multiple tries on manual)?
    >
    > Bart


    Bart,
    The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
    only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
    on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
    the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
    sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
    autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 25, 2005
    #3
  4. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    >

    http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html

    Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
    - spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames. Here is one of
    mine:

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849

    17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
    image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit of
    USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful desktop).

    For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder C
    or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite the
    poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based on
    Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy. (And
    your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than focus.)
     
    , Jan 25, 2005
    #4
  5. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Anonymous Guest

    Hi Roger,

    I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
    fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.

    However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
    with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
    changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
    considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.

    However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
    work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
    street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
    limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
    candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.

    Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.

    Many thanks in advance...




    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...

    > Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    > a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    > http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
    >
    > Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
    > 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
    > for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
    >
    > Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
    > detail.
    >
    > Roger
    > Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com
     
    Anonymous, Jan 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    > Hi Roger,
    >
    > I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
    > fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.
    >
    > However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
    > with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
    > changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
    > considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
    >
    > However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
    > work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
    > street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
    > limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
    > candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.
    >
    > Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.
    >
    > Many thanks in advance...


    Hi
    You might want to start a new thread so others might see it
    who are not reading a post about the moon.

    Having said that, your lenses (at least mine are and other
    serious amateurs and pros) are probably more expensive than your
    camera, and the lenses will generally last many cameras.
    For example, I started with a Canon EOS 650, then elan I,
    elan II, elan 7, film cameras, then digitals: Canon D60,
    10D, and 1D Mark II. I still use some of my original
    lenses. My newer L lenses will probably last for
    many more cameras, and in general my lenses have cost
    me more than all my cameras put together. Why did I choose
    Canon for my first auto focus camera? Random at the time.
    I might have just as easily chosen Nikon. I had no
    preference for either at that time.

    So, do you really have "a bunch of fine Nikon glass" that
    you want to abandon, especially before seeing reviews on
    the D2x? Nikon makes great equipment. Great lenses,
    great cameras. Perhaps Canon is leading the digital
    arena now, but Nikon is not far behind, and the front runner
    could change in a couple of years.

    Do you have a big telephoto, like a 500mm f/4? Since you say
    you want to do telephoto work, I suggest if you don't have a
    super telephoto, to get that first, then assuming you have
    to wait and save money for a new camera, the whole camera
    selection and market leader could be quite different,
    and in general much better.

    If money is no object, and you can afford to change cameras
    and super telephotos and all other lenses, then go for it.
    The Canon lenses and cameras are superb too. But don't forget
    the Nikon D2x has some innovations the top Canon's do not
    have.

    Having said all that, the Canon 1D Mark II is a wonderful camera.
    The speed is awesome, the auto focus accuracy and speed is excellent,
    the signal to noise is excellent, battery life is excellent,
    etc., etc. I've been able to get action shots I could not
    get with my previous cameras. But I do wish for more
    megapixels. The speed of the 1D Mark II and the pixels
    of the 1Ds Mark II (16.7 MPixels) would be ideal.
    Maybe next year....

    Roger
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >
    >
    >>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    >>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    >>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
    >>
    >>Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
    >>1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
    >>for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
    >>
    >>Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
    >>detail.
    >>
    >>Roger
    >>Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com

    >
    >
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 26, 2005
    #6
  7. wrote:

    > Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
    > - spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames.


    The problem here on the eastern side of the mountains in Colorado
    is turbulence from air blowing over the mountains. The atmospheric
    seeing is rarely better than 2 arc-seconds, and usually much
    worse. At the extreme magnification with my 500 mm +2x +1.4x
    TCs, optical image distortion prevents stacking any frames
    if the moon is imaged in different parts of the field of
    view. After all, we are talking registering an image
    that is over 1800 pixels across, so distortion must be less
    than 0.03%. I would need to track the moon so it remains
    stationary (I do have a Losmandy G11 equatorial mount,
    and I will try it sometime) in order to stack more images.
    I long for better seeing I've experienced in other places
    (but not as much as the dark skies at night, and the
    mountains and wildlife during the day where I live ;-).

    > Here is one of mine:
    >
    > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849
    >
    > 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
    > image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit of
    > USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful desktop).
    >
    > For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder C
    > or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite the
    > poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based on
    > Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy. (And
    > your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than focus.)
    >

    Sorry, but I do not like your moon photo. It is way too over
    sharpened, making the sunlit crater walls extremely bright.
    It is also less than half the size of the image I presented.
    Considering it was done with a 500 mm + 2x TC on a 10D
    (1.5 arc-sec/pixel), the full size image should be 80%
    the size of my image (1.2 arc-sec/pixel), so it seems your
    large image on your web page is reduced by 2x (3 arc-sec/pixel).
    If my image was reduced by a factor of 2.5x it would look
    sharper too. After all 3 arc-seconds per pixel is
    less affected by atmospheric turbulence than
    1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.

    I do have the right angle finder C, but find the 1D mark II
    auto-focuses better than I can, even with the angle finder.
    I was using the angle finder to frame the moon so I didn't
    have to bend over.
    I also have a 10D, and I can assure you the 1D MII autofocus
    is much better than the 10D in my experience.

    For those missing the original post, the other image being discussed is at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Anonymous Guest

    Many thanks Roger. It was just the feedback I was looking for...


    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > Anonymous wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Roger,
    >>
    >> I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
    >> fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.
    >>
    >> However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
    >> with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
    >> changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
    >> considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
    >>
    >> However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
    >> work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
    >> street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
    >> limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
    >> candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.
    >>
    >> Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.
    >>
    >> Many thanks in advance...

    >
    > Hi
    > You might want to start a new thread so others might see it
    > who are not reading a post about the moon.
    >
    > Having said that, your lenses (at least mine are and other
    > serious amateurs and pros) are probably more expensive than your
    > camera, and the lenses will generally last many cameras.
    > For example, I started with a Canon EOS 650, then elan I,
    > elan II, elan 7, film cameras, then digitals: Canon D60,
    > 10D, and 1D Mark II. I still use some of my original
    > lenses. My newer L lenses will probably last for
    > many more cameras, and in general my lenses have cost
    > me more than all my cameras put together. Why did I choose
    > Canon for my first auto focus camera? Random at the time.
    > I might have just as easily chosen Nikon. I had no
    > preference for either at that time.
    >
    > So, do you really have "a bunch of fine Nikon glass" that
    > you want to abandon, especially before seeing reviews on
    > the D2x? Nikon makes great equipment. Great lenses,
    > great cameras. Perhaps Canon is leading the digital
    > arena now, but Nikon is not far behind, and the front runner
    > could change in a couple of years.
    >
    > Do you have a big telephoto, like a 500mm f/4? Since you say
    > you want to do telephoto work, I suggest if you don't have a
    > super telephoto, to get that first, then assuming you have
    > to wait and save money for a new camera, the whole camera
    > selection and market leader could be quite different,
    > and in general much better.
    >
    > If money is no object, and you can afford to change cameras
    > and super telephotos and all other lenses, then go for it.
    > The Canon lenses and cameras are superb too. But don't forget
    > the Nikon D2x has some innovations the top Canon's do not
    > have.
    >
    > Having said all that, the Canon 1D Mark II is a wonderful camera.
    > The speed is awesome, the auto focus accuracy and speed is excellent,
    > the signal to noise is excellent, battery life is excellent,
    > etc., etc. I've been able to get action shots I could not
    > get with my previous cameras. But I do wish for more
    > megapixels. The speed of the 1D Mark II and the pixels
    > of the 1Ds Mark II (16.7 MPixels) would be ideal.
    > Maybe next year....
    >
    > Roger
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    >> in message news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    >>>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    >>>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
    >>>
    >>>Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
    >>>1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
    >>>for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
    >>>
    >>>Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
    >>>detail.
    >>>
    >>>Roger
    >>>Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Anonymous, Jan 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Guest

    In message <41f62340$0$13478$4all.nl>,
    "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:

    >Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.


    Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
    regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
    teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant way;
    they merely stretch the center of the focal plane over a larger area,
    exposing the limitations of the prime.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 27, 2005
    #9
  10. wrote:

    > 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing".


    I've been prowling around various astronomy photos sites and seen
    mention of this several times. I understand the idea, but not the
    technique. What software do you use for stacking the images?


    --
    Eric Schreiber
    www.ericschreiber.com
     
    Eric Schreiber, Jan 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Eric Schreiber wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing".

    >
    >
    > I've been prowling around various astronomy photos sites and seen
    > mention of this several times. I understand the idea, but not the
    > technique. What software do you use for stacking the images?
    >
    >


    registax (free) http://registax.astronomy.net/

    ImagesPlus (not free) http://www.mlunsold.com/

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Eric Schreiber, Jan 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Jon Pike Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    in news::

    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    >> wrote in message news:...
    >>
    >>> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    >>> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    >>> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5
    >>> x-700.html
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
    >> Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
    >> multiple tries on manual)?
    >>
    >> Bart

    >
    > Bart,
    > The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
    > only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
    > on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
    > the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
    > sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
    > autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
    >
    > Roger
    >


    ....
    you used AUTOFOCUS?!
    are you a complete retard or something?
    do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!

    --
    http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
     
    Jon Pike, Jan 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Jon Pike Guest

    wrote in
    news::

    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >>

    > http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-
    > 700.html
    >
    > Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
    > - spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames. Here is one
    > of mine:
    >
    > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849
    >
    > 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
    > image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit
    > of USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful
    > desktop).
    >
    > For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder
    > C or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite
    > the poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based
    > on Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy.
    > (And your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than
    > focus.)


    there's no need for autofocus at all when you're shooting something like
    the moon.
    geeze. this is why it's a -bad- thing to go and learn photoSHOP instead of
    photoGRAPHY.
    there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?

    --
    http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
     
    Jon Pike, Jan 27, 2005
    #14
  15. "Jon Pike" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95EBDB00EBB6LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
    SNIP
    > there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?


    The focus-ring can rotated beyond the infinity marker, thus enabling
    to compensate for thermal effects.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Jon Pike wrote:

    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote
    > in news::
    >
    >
    >>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    >>>wrote in message news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
    >>>>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
    >>>>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5
    >>>>x-700.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
    >>>Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
    >>>multiple tries on manual)?
    >>>
    >>>Bart

    >>
    >>Bart,
    >>The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
    >>only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
    >>on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
    >>the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
    >>sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
    >>autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
    >>
    >>Roger
    >>

    >
    >
    > ...
    > you used AUTOFOCUS?!
    > are you a complete retard or something?
    > do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!
    >


    There is no need for a response like this. You are showing
    who is the retard. You are also a well known troll
    who attacks with little knowledge of your subject.
    Others reading can google "Jon Pike" and see this for themselves.

    Jon, you obviously have no clue as to the
    superb capabilities of the 1D Mark II
    camera, and its auto focus accuracy. The image speaks
    for itself. The pixel scale on the image is at about
    the 10% MTF level of a diffraction limited system. The
    Richardson-Lucey restoration I did improved the MTF
    to about 50%. It would be tough to do much better
    with a 5-inch aperture lens. The focus had to be
    essentially perfect to achieve that image.
    For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
    system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
    animals in action, which I do a lot of. With animals
    in action, there is no time for manual focus.
    See my bear gallery:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Jon Pike wrote:

    > there's no need for autofocus at all when you're shooting something like
    > the moon.
    > geeze. this is why it's a -bad- thing to go and learn photoSHOP instead of
    > photoGRAPHY.
    > there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?
    >

    There is no need for a response like this. You are showing
    who is the retard. You are also a well known troll
    who attacks with little knowledge of your subject.
    Others reading can google "Jon Pike" and see this for themselves.

    Jon, you obviously have no clue as to the
    superb capabilities of the 1D Mark II
    camera, and its auto focus accuracy. The image speaks
    for itself. The pixel scale on the image is at about
    the 10% MTF level of a diffraction limited system. The
    Richardson-Lucey restoration I did improved the MTF
    to about 50%. It would be tough to do much better
    with a 5-inch aperture lens. The focus had to be
    essentially perfect to achieve that image.
    For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
    system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
    animals in action, which I do a lot of. With animals
    in action, there is no time for manual focus.
    See my bear gallery:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 27, 2005
    #17
  18. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <41f62340$0$13478$4all.nl>,
    > "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.

    >
    > Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
    > regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
    > teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant
    > way;
    > they merely stretch the center of the focal plane over a larger
    > area,
    > exposing the limitations of the prime.


    That's correct, and the moon will be in the center of the image.
    However, the converter/extender still requires a good lens in front of
    it, otherwise it just magnifies rubbish.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 27, 2005
    #18
  19. "Jon Pike" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95EBD76E3776LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
    SNIP
    > you used AUTOFOCUS?!
    > are you a complete retard or something?
    > do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!


    I'd wager he does know how optics work, better than most. A simple
    test will tell whether autofocus (on a high contrast subject) does a
    better job than manual focus. The 1D family of bodies, combined with
    long focal lengths will usually autofocus very well.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 27, 2005
    #19
  20. Bart van der Wolf, Jan 27, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    741
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  2. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,181
    Bill Hilton
    Jun 23, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    588
    Michael Gray
    Sep 15, 2005
  4. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    837
    Denis Loubet
    Jan 12, 2006
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,749
Loading...

Share This Page