Desert Island Lens' question

I'd take the 18-55 @206g!

I think I'd miss the extra 30mm of the 85, but not for 300g (less 6g).

Coast to Coast, I don't think that I'd miss the 10-22 atall - I found
myself last year in Salamanca with a 50-200, and very much missed the
Nikkor 18-135, but unless your route takes you through winding mediaeval
lanes, I don't think you'll need much in the way of wide angle.

I came to about 100m of a roe doe with new-born fawn this morning, and
happily had the Nikkor 70-300 on, but I still needed to crop a great
deal off!

Richard

In message <5oSdnZBVTOVD2PTVnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@posted.plusnet >, Chris
Gilbert <Chris@ravenseye.plus.net> writes
>Weight ? does that count :-D
>
>17-40 L ;-)

Yeah! Quite a brick :-)

......but what a lens!
--
Bill Grey

In message <VZCdnRbL-dgPXfTVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@pipex.net>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Most likely only an old person would say that.

Watch it kiddo !.....:-)
--
Bill Grey

In message <z7ednb8c9qHVyfTVnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet >, Chris
Gilbert <Chris@ravenseye.plus.net> writes
>Bill Grey wrote
>
>> .....but what a lens!
>
>We're inseperable :-D
>
>And on the 5D............wow.
>
>Chris

Indeed - what a combination., though after a day hanging round your neck
- it really is heavy :-)
--
Bill Grey

Thanks to all for the replies and opinions, I'm off now and have decided to
take the lightweight 18-55. I plan to take the Red Pike / High Stile alternative
from Ennerdale and I'm going to need every advantage I can get in terms of weight.

TR will follow in due course,

--
Boo

In message <7q-dnZcIB6nuyvfVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@pipex.net>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Bill Grey wrote:
>
>>> Most likely only an old person would say that.
>>
>> Watch it kiddo !.....:-)
>
>Actually I've never thought of you as an advocate of using a 50mm lens only,
>but I used to hear that so often when I first started photography...
>
>Paul

Well my two Canons - the AT1 and the A1 both came with 50mm lenses.

The 50mm lens was/is supposed to represent the human eye's view of the
world. It probably is the best general lens for beginners - forget
landscapes or buildings etc.

My so called wide angle lens a 28mm soon became too "long" for me and I
bought a 24 mm WA lens - much better for my landscapes.

Now I prefer the 10-22mm for the 400D or the 17 - 40 for the 5D
--
Bill Grey

When I wrote this:-"

The 50mm lens was/is supposed to represent the human eye's view of the
world. It probably is the best general lens for beginners - forget
landscapes or buildings etc."

Why do have to have interminable inconsequential explanations like this
???

For goodness sake my statement was innocuous and is fair enough as a
general remark!



In message <_e6dnRlwM8jG4vLVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@pipex.net>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Mike..... wrote:
>
>>>> The 50mm lens was/is supposed to represent the human eye's view of
>>>> the world.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's quite correct. I believe it represents the same
>>> *perspective* as the human eye, but not the same field of view
>>
>> does a lens have a perspective? I'm sure *you* picked *me* up on that
>> years ago :-) It has a field of view and enables the photographer to
>> move to a position with a different perspective. OK i'm hair
>> splitting :-)
>
>Yes, you're hair splitting, but thanks for pointing it out, since it's
>correct. Technically lenses don't have a perspective, but people talk about
>them as though they do. The effect is real but the explanation is wrong.
>Different focal lengths don't "change perspective", as people say, instead
>they just alter the field of view.
>
>When people talk about lens perspective, what they're really talking about
>how large foreground objects appear relative to background objects. With
>wide angle lenses, foreground objects appear disproportionately large,
>whereas with telephoto lenses, background objects appear disproportionately
>large. A "standard" lens shows foreground and background objects at the
>"correct" relative sizes.
>
>This is of course relative to field of view, which in turn is relative to
>viewing distance. Take an A4 print for example, how far away do you look at
>it from? Do you hold it with outstretched arms? At normal reading distance
>perhaps? I'm sure there's an optimum viewing distance for each size of
>print, but I don't know what it is offhand. (This sort of thing tended to be
>discussed in older, more technical photography books, but no-one ever seems
>to mention it nowadays. I'm sure I've read that there was a "correct" size
>of print for each different focal length - wide angle photos should be
>printed larger, telephoto images smaller.)
>
>So, assuming you're looking at a print from the optimum viewing distance,
>the perspective (i.e. the relative sizes of objects in the image) should
>correspond to the human eye if you took the photo with a standard lens. Now
>obviously that doesn't correspond to human field of view. An A4 print at
>normal reading distance only covers a fraction of our field of view, which
>is much wider.
>
>As I mentioned previously, our field of view, including our periphiral
>vision, is extremely wide, rather like a fisheye lens. But if you take a
>photo with a fisheye lens and look at it on an A4 print at normal reading
>distance, it looks extremely distorted. However, if it were printed at a
>large size on the inside of a sphere, and we looked at that image from
>inside the sphere, at a distance which matched our field of view (so the
>image would wrap around us), then the perspective should look correct (I say
>should because I've never actually tried that!).
>
>One curious aspect of this so-called "perspective" is that it affects our
>sensation of speed. I once put a video camera in my car and recorded the
>view as I drove along a motorway. When I watched it later I was amazed at
>how slowly the car seemed to be moving. This was because I used a wide angle
>lens. Since distant objects look smaller, they appear to be further away,
>hence you seem to be travelling more slowly toward them, even though you
>aren't. With a telephoto lens you'd appear to be travelling faster than you
>actually are.
>
>This is well illustrated with certain types of computer games, such as a
>flight sim. When I fly, I usually use a wide angle view when I want to look
>at the scenery, since that more closely corresponds with my normal field of
>view. However, I find it very difficult to land with a wide angle view. The
>runway looks smaller and further away than it actually is, which makes it
>harder to line up the plane and to judge my landing speed. So when landing,
>I switch to the standard view instead. This gives me a much narrower field
>of view, but that's okay, because I only need to look at the centre of the
>view, i.e. the runway! At this setting the size of the runway looks correct
>and the speed feels right, making it much easier to land due to this
>"correct perspective".
>
>So, while a 50mm lens may look "perspectively" correct, it certainly doesn't
>match our field of view, which is probably why most people (especially
>landscape photographers) prefer to use a wide angle lens.
>
>However, to be even more picky, 50mm isn't even the correct focal length for
>a standard lens on 35mm equipment. Apparently the correct focal length
>should be 43mm (I think), so it should be slightly wider. I can't remember
>the reason why 50mm became the standard, but technically it's wrong. But you
>know what it's like, once something becomes established, it tends to stay
>that way.
>
>Paul

--
Bill Grey

In message <91z2c5sks6uy.kkgq6wn6e348$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike.....
<mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> writes
>Following up to Bill Grey
>
>> Why do have to have interminable inconsequential explanations like this
>> ???
>
>why not? :-)

If you want a good read then buy the Beano :-)
--
Bill Grey

Mike..... wrote:

>Following up to Bill Grey
>
>>>> Why do have to have interminable inconsequential explanations like this
>>>> ???
>>>
>>>why not? :-)
>>
>> If you want a good read then buy the Beano :-)
>
>you mean the posts here are sub Beano, surely not!

You could always uk.try rec.sport.tablefootball

Where posts are sub buteo. :-)

IGMC
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In message <ro84749pu3grpg5pgadm2duoj4p1b9tb6o@>, Phil Cook
<phil@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Mike..... wrote:
>
>>Following up to Bill Grey
>>
>>>>> Why do have to have interminable inconsequential explanations like this
>>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>>why not? :-)
>>>
>>> If you want a good read then buy the Beano :-)
>>
>>you mean the posts here are sub Beano, surely not!
>
>You could always uk.try rec.sport.tablefootball
>
>Where posts are sub buteo. :-)
>
>IGMC

You're on the ball Phil :-)
--
Bill Grey