Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0

Subject: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Sat, May 1, 2004 12:01 PM
Hi,
Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
The range of the 35-70 is ok for me.
Regards.

The 24-85 Minolta, though reputed to be very sharp, also has quite evident
linear distortion (straight lines curve which is bad if you photograph
buildings or door jambs or anything with straight lines). I would go with the
35-70/4 unless you shoot alot of nature where straight lines aren't that
important to you. The 24-50/4 has minimal distortion for a zoom but does not
get you out to 70mm. If you so desire you could pick up (despite the overlap in
focal lengths) a 24-50 zoom or a 24mm/2.8 fixed lens to fill out the wide part
of the focal length spectrum. Another option would be to get a new or used
24-105 Maxxum D lens (not sure about its distortion) but in either case it
would give you about everything you want in focal length too but it would be
significantly more expensive than the 35-70/4 and possibly even than the
24-85/3.5-4.5.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-03 17:15:02 UTC

Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp, but
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85. Want smaller? Get the
24-50 f4.

Mike

I agree with Lewis Lang on this. I have the Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 and it's
an excellent lens, very sharp, but it does have noticeable barrel

distortion

at the wide angle end. It's reasonably distortion-free at the tele end.
I don't have the 35-70/4, but I know it has a very fine reputation. I do
have the newer 35-70/3.5-4.5 and that's a superb lens also.
As long as the 35-70 has enough range for you, that's definitely the lens
I'd go with. A 2x zoom lens will almost always give better optical
performance than a wider ratio zoom, assuming equivalent lens quality. The
35-70 is much lighter and more compact than the 24-85, and is bound to be

lot less expensive as well.
Neil

Post by badr
Hi,
Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
The range of the 35-70 is ok for me.
Regards.

Neil Harrington

2004-05-04 12:27:30 UTC

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp, but
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85.

Yes, nice lens, notwithstanding the silly little hood. I bought one of those
with my very first Maxxum (in fact THE very first Maxxum, the 7000). Maybe
should have kept it. But I replaced it with the 28-105 which I really like a
lot more.

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Want smaller? Get the
24-50 f4.

I've been keeping an occasional eye out for one of those on eBay for a long
time. I realize they're making 'em again, restyled, but I'd rather have the
original model to go with my old 70-210/4.

Neil

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Mike

I agree with Lewis Lang on this. I have the Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 and it's
an excellent lens, very sharp, but it does have noticeable barrel

distortion

lot less expensive as well.
Neil

Post by badr
Hi,
Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
The range of the 35-70 is ok for me.
Regards.

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-04 15:22:17 UTC

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp, but
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85.

What's wrong with that hood? It makes a great, ummmm. I mean it's good
for, errrr, ummm....

Hmmm. Point taken. Oh, yeah, it helps protect the front element against
bangs. Not much else.

The 28-105 is a sadly forgotten lens. Despite it's lack of reputation and
relatively poor showing on Photodo, I have outstanding 11x17s from it, which
show every hair on the models' head, with great color rendition and
sharpness. I love it. Just goes to show that Photodo results should be
taken with a large grain of salt.

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Want smaller? Get the
24-50 f4.

I've been keeping an occasional eye out for one of those on eBay for a long
time. I realize they're making 'em again, restyled, but I'd rather have the
original model to go with my old 70-210/4.

You'll never see mine on eBay, that's for sure! :)

Mike

Neil Harrington

2004-05-04 18:28:40 UTC

Post by Mike Lipphardt

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp,

but

Post by Mike Lipphardt
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85.

Yes, nice lens, notwithstanding the silly little hood. I bought one of

those

Post by Neil Harrington
with my very first Maxxum (in fact THE very first Maxxum, the 7000). Maybe
should have kept it. But I replaced it with the 28-105 which I really

Post by Mike Lipphardt
a

Post by Neil Harrington
lot more.

What's wrong with that hood? It makes a great, ummmm. I mean it's good
for, errrr, ummm....
Hmmm. Point taken. Oh, yeah, it helps protect the front element against
bangs. Not much else.

Actually I have always felt that's another perfectly valid function for a
lens hood (as opposed to the use of a filter "to protect the lens" which is
one of my occasional rants), but my recollection is that the 28-85 hood was
so shallow it wouldn't even do much of that.

Post by Mike Lipphardt
The 28-105 is a sadly forgotten lens. Despite it's lack of reputation and
relatively poor showing on Photodo, I have outstanding 11x17s from it, which
show every hair on the models' head, with great color rendition and
sharpness. I love it. Just goes to show that Photodo results should be
taken with a large grain of salt.

Yes, absolutely. I've been more than satisfied with the sharpness and
overall performance of mine too. As one manufacturer said decades ago,
camera lenses are made to take photographs with, not to run tests with.
Photodo's and others' tests do provide some useful information to be sure,
but I've become increasingly dubious over the years about lens testing in
general. Especially misguided IMO are the folks who take such tests so
seriously that they will say Lens X is "better" than Lens Y because Photodo
gives X a grade of 4.1 but only 3.9 for Y.

One problem here I think is that the more seriously such tests are taken by
users, the more temptation for manufacturers to try to make lenses
specifically to do well on the benchmark instead of for overall real-world
performance.

Neil

Lewis Lang

2004-05-04 19:34:08 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Tue, May 4, 2004 11:22 AM

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp,

but

Post by Mike Lipphardt
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85.

Yes, nice lens, notwithstanding the silly little hood. I bought one of

those

Post by Neil Harrington
with my very first Maxxum (in fact THE very first Maxxum, the 7000). Maybe
should have kept it. But I replaced it with the 28-105 which I really

like
a

Post by Neil Harrington
lot more.

What's wrong with that hood? It makes a great, ummmm. I mean it's good
for, errrr, ummm....
Hmmm. Point taken. Oh, yeah, it helps protect the front element against
bangs. Not much else.
The 28-105 is a sadly forgotten lens. Despite it's lack of reputation and
relatively poor showing on Photodo, I have outstanding 11x17s from it, which
show every hair on the models' head, with great color rendition and
sharpness. I love it. Just goes to show that Photodo results should be
taken with a large grain of salt.

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Want smaller? Get the
24-50 f4.

I've been keeping an occasional eye out for one of those on eBay for a

long

Post by Neil Harrington
time. I realize they're making 'em again, restyled, but I'd rather have

the

Post by Neil Harrington
original model to go with my old 70-210/4.

You'll never see mine on eBay, that's for sure! :)
Mike

Hi Mike:

Which would you say is sharper, the 28-105 Maxxum lens or the current 24-105 D
Maxxum lens? Which has better bokeh at or near wide open at 28mm/50mm/105mm?

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-05 10:34:20 UTC

Post by Lewis Lang
Which would you say is sharper, the 28-105 Maxxum lens or the current 24-105 D
Maxxum lens? Which has better bokeh at or near wide open at

28mm/50mm/105mm?

I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with the
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion as
well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never felt
the need to buy one.

As for bokeh, I don't recall any discussions on it, so I can't help you
there at all. Sorry.

Mike

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 01:07:03 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Wed, May 5, 2004 6:34 AM

Post by Lewis Lang
Which would you say is sharper, the 28-105 Maxxum lens or the current

24-105 D

Post by Lewis Lang
Maxxum lens? Which has better bokeh at or near wide open at

28mm/50mm/105mm?
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with the
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion as
well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never felt
the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not the
24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

As for bokeh, I don't recall any discussions on it, so I can't help you
there at all. Sorry.
Mike

That's all right, Mike, muchapprecaited anyways.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-06 10:26:37 UTC

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with the
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion as
well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never felt
the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not the
24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

The comparison has been made between the 24-105 and 24-50, with the 24-105
looking pretty good. Again, this is NOT firsthand information - take it for
what it's worth, the opinions of several folks on the Minolta Mailing List.
Your mileage may vary. Warrantee void outside the province of northern
Elbonia. Use with caution. Do not operate heavy machinery while under the
influence of these opinions..

Mike

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 18:50:20 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Thu, May 6, 2004 6:26 AM

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with

the

Post by Mike Lipphardt
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion as
well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never

felt

Post by Mike Lipphardt
the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not

the

Post by Lewis Lang
24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

:-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Ming

2004-06-03 02:16:38 UTC

I own 24-50mm, 24-105mm , 70-210mm, 85mmf1.4, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm APO.
50mm f1.7 and 50mm f1.4. All Minolta AF.

Both 24-50 and 24-105 are very sharp. 24-105 has distortion in the 105 end.
The 24-50mm has yellow tone on the slide like many older lens. I blow the
slide up on the wall and also printed them in 16x20 using Tmax 100.
However, There are too many variation including aperture used and focal
length used and I haven't done a very systematic test.
But the difference in sharpness between these 2 lens is not too big.

In my humble opinion, I love the 24-105mm. It is almost always on
my Dynax 7 now. It is extremely convenient without the need of changing
lens most of time and the sharpness is very good. I have taken one wedding
event with this lens and the result is good.

For the 70-210mm lens, well, you have to understand that it is not
an APO lens. Under 16x20 inch with Tmax100, it cannot be as sharp as APO
lens at focal length over 135mm. This is mathematical certainty, not the
manufacturer's fault. But, at 8x10, I can say that it is an excellent
lens.

For the 135mm lens, f2.8 is not extremely sharp (at 16x20) . But improves a
lot at f4. Well, it is not APO. You get what you pay for.

85mm f1.4 and 200mmAPO are extremely sharp. I don't think a German
lens can be much better.

If you don't have any lens or camera, I would suggest you begin with
Minolta and 24-105mm. It can give you excellent 8x10 photos.
And Minolta is little bit cheaper than Canon/Nikon.

Next thing to buy is a light meter, like Sekonic 358 or 558. Get a good
meter before you buy other lens.

Hope this helps.

Ming.

¦b Thu, 06 May 2004 10:26:37 GMT, Mike Lipphardt

Post by Mike Lipphardt

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with

the

Post by Mike Lipphardt
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little

distortion

Post by Mike Lipphardt
as
well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never

felt

Post by Mike Lipphardt
the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not

the

Post by Lewis Lang
24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

The comparison has been made between the 24-105 and 24-50, with the 24-
105
looking pretty good. Again, this is NOT firsthand information - take it for
what it's worth, the opinions of several folks on the Minolta Mailing List.
Your mileage may vary. Warrantee void outside the province of northern
Elbonia. Use with caution. Do not operate heavy machinery while under the
influence of these opinions..
Mike

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Bill Tuthill

2004-05-06 15:02:32 UTC

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with the
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion
as well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never
felt the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not
the 24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

Right.

Seems to me that if you want a high-quality lens for your Minolta,
the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di fits the bill better than the Minolta 24-105.
The Di got much better SQF scores from Pop Photo, and more important,
got a photozone.de composite score 4.14 versus 3.28 for the Minolta.

Of course you lose 24-27 and 76-105 focal ranges, but gain speed.

Neil Harrington

2004-05-06 16:41:49 UTC

Post by Bill Tuthill

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with the
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion
as well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never
felt the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not
the 24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

Right.
Seems to me that if you want a high-quality lens for your Minolta,
the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di fits the bill better than the Minolta 24-105.
The Di got much better SQF scores from Pop Photo, and more important,
got a photozone.de composite score 4.14 versus 3.28 for the Minolta.
Of course you lose 24-27 and 76-105 focal ranges, but gain speed.

Personally I'd a lot rather have the extra millimeters at both ends which
would be very useful to me, than the extra speed which generally would not.
A 28-75 would too often leave me feeling cramped. If I really need lens
speed I'll take a fast FFL lens over the fastest zoom they make anyway, but
in these days of very good fast films it usually doesn't seem to be that
important.

As for high SQF (or other MTF) scores, they are nice, but does anyone ever
judge photographs by them? That is, does anyone ever look at a prize-winning
photo and say, "Wow, what great MTF!"?

Don't misunderstand me, I think lens tests and reviews are useful up to a
point. I read 'em with interest. I just think it's a mistake to base lens
buying decisions almost entirely on published test scores, and especially
"composite" scores such as those at photozone.de which seem pretty
meaningless to me.

Neil

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 18:51:55 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Thu, May 6, 2004 11:02 AM

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with

the

Post by Mike Lipphardt
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion
as well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never
felt the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not
the 24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

Right.
Seems to me that if you want a high-quality lens for your Minolta,
the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di fits the bill better than the Minolta 24-105.
The Di got much better SQF scores from Pop Photo, and more important,
got a photozone.de composite score 4.14 versus 3.28 for the Minolta.
Of course you lose 24-27 and 76-105 focal ranges, but gain speed.

If it (the Tamron) only were a 24-75/2.8....... :-(

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 19:19:33 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Thu, May 6, 2004 11:02 AM

Post by Mike Lipphardt
I can't help you with that, since I don't have the 24-105. The Minolta
Users Group thinks highly of it, putting it's sharpness up there with

the

Post by Mike Lipphardt
best of Minoltas' lenses, lik the Gs. It apprantly has little distortion
as well, unlike the 24-85. But that's all hearsay on my part; I've never
felt the need to buy one.

Actually, this sounds like the description/reputation for the 24-50 not
the 24-105. Are you sure you are describing the 24-105 and not the 24-50?

Right.
Seems to me that if you want a high-quality lens for your Minolta,
the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di fits the bill better than the Minolta 24-105.
The Di got much better SQF scores from Pop Photo, and more important,
got a photozone.de composite score 4.14 versus 3.28 for the Minolta.

SNIP

Not so, Bill:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

says...

Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-105mm D 3.17 (3) = average

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Bill Tuthill

2004-05-07 14:54:53 UTC

Post by Bill Tuthill
Seems to me that if you want a high-quality lens for your Minolta,
the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di fits the bill better than the Minolta 24-105.
The Di got much better SQF scores from Pop Photo, and more important,
got a photozone.de composite score 4.14 versus 3.28 for the Minolta.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
says...
Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-105mm D 3.17 (3) = average

Aha! The score went down since I last checked. I wonder why?
Has some magazine newly reviewed it in the past few months?
The Tamron 28-75 score did not change, which is somewhat surprising,
because it is a newer lens and you'd expect not completely reviewed yet.

Lewis Lang

2004-05-07 18:51:11 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Fri, May 7, 2004 10:54 AM

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
says...
Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-105mm D 3.17 (3) = average

Aha! The score went down since I last checked. I wonder why?

I don't know.

Has some magazine newly reviewed it in the past few months?

Possibly, but I haven't been following mag tests too closely recently...

The Tamron 28-75 score did not change, which is somewhat surprising,
because it is a newer lens and you'd expect not completely reviewed yet.

WHat surprises me is that this lens seems optically as good as Canon's best L
glass. If it was a 24-75/2.8 with equal stats I wouldn't hesitate to put it on
my camera. I wish Minolta and Pentax would come out with such 24-70is f/2.8
constant zooms.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Lewis Lang

2004-05-04 19:38:23 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Tue, May 4, 2004 11:22 AM

Post by Mike Lipphardt
Need a little more range? Get the 28-85. It's also extremely sharp,

but

Post by Mike Lipphardt
does not sufer from the distortion of the 24-85.

Yes, nice lens, notwithstanding the silly little hood. I bought one of

those

Post by Neil Harrington
with my very first Maxxum (in fact THE very first Maxxum, the 7000). Maybe
should have kept it. But I replaced it with the 28-105 which I really

like
a

Post by Neil Harrington
lot more.

What's wrong with that hood? It makes a great, ummmm. I mean it's good
for, errrr, ummm....
Hmmm. Point taken. Oh, yeah, it helps protect the front element against
bangs. Not much else.
The 28-105 is a sadly forgotten lens. Despite it's lack of reputation and
relatively poor showing on Photodo, I have outstanding 11x17s from it, which
show every hair on the models' head, with great color rendition and
sharpness. I love it.

Hi Mike:

What film and under what type of lighting (flash/tungsten/daylight/etc.) and at
what aperture/shutter speed did you shoot the shot with the 28-105 Maxxum for
the 11x17" print and is this an inkjet print or a photographic print?

TIA

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-05 10:43:20 UTC

Post by Lewis Lang
What film and under what type of lighting (flash/tungsten/daylight/etc.) and at
what aperture/shutter speed did you shoot the shot with the 28-105 Maxxum for
the 11x17" print and is this an inkjet print or a photographic print?

The film was Fuji Superia 400, flash was Maxxum 5400HS off camera as key
with a softbox on the head, with the Maxxum 7 on-camera flash acting as
trigger and fill. Shots were handheld. Focal length probably about 85mm or
so, aperture IIRC 5.6.

Prints are inkjet, form a Canon S9000 at 300dpi on Canon paper.

The model was my stunning redheaded niece. The shots picked up gorgeous
highlights in her hair.

Mike

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 01:12:59 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Wed, May 5, 2004 6:43 AM

Post by Lewis Lang
What film and under what type of lighting (flash/tungsten/daylight/etc.)

and at

Post by Lewis Lang
what aperture/shutter speed did you shoot the shot with the 28-105 Maxxum

for

Post by Lewis Lang
the 11x17" print and is this an inkjet print or a photographic print?

The film was Fuji Superia 400, flash was Maxxum 5400HS off camera as key
with a softbox on the head, with the Maxxum 7 on-camera flash acting as
trigger and fill. Shots were handheld. Focal length probably about 85mm or
so, aperture IIRC 5.6.
Prints are inkjet, form a Canon S9000 at 300dpi on Canon paper.
The model was my stunning redheaded niece. The shots picked up gorgeous
highlights in her hair.
Mike

How was the grain off of the Superia 400 at the 11x17" print size when viewed
up close at less than a foot (small, large, noticable, not very noticable,
even, smooth, hardedged, soft edge - in other words, how would you describe the
grain at that size?)? Does the grain bring attention to itself and/or in anyway
conflict with/distract from your eye's attention to the small details of the
image?

How large was th softbox?

How far (how many stops/what ratio) under the main off camera 5400HS flash was
your Maxxum 7 camera's built-in flash?

TIA

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mike Lipphardt

2004-05-06 10:29:48 UTC

Post by Lewis Lang
How was the grain off of the Superia 400 at the 11x17" print size when viewed
up close at less than a foot (small, large, noticable, not very noticable,
even, smooth, hardedged, soft edge - in other words, how would you describe the
grain at that size?)? Does the grain bring attention to itself and/or in anyway
conflict with/distract from your eye's attention to the small details of the
image?

The grain is almost unnoticable. It does not conflict at all with the
image.

Post by Lewis Lang
How large was th softbox?

It's the Lumiquest clip on jobbie - maybe 8x10 inches.

Post by Lewis Lang
How far (how many stops/what ratio) under the main off camera 5400HS flash was
your Maxxum 7 camera's built-in flash?

2:1.

Mike

Lewis Lang

2004-05-06 18:49:20 UTC

Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
Date: Thu, May 6, 2004 6:29 AM

Post by Lewis Lang
How was the grain off of the Superia 400 at the 11x17" print size when

viewed

Post by Lewis Lang
up close at less than a foot (small, large, noticable, not very

noticable,

Post by Lewis Lang
even, smooth, hardedged, soft edge - in other words, how would you

describe the

Post by Lewis Lang
grain at that size?)? Does the grain bring attention to itself and/or

in
anyway

Post by Lewis Lang
conflict with/distract from your eye's attention to the small details

of
the

Post by Lewis Lang
image?

The grain is almost unnoticable. It does not conflict at all with the
image.

Post by Lewis Lang
How large was th softbox?

It's the Lumiquest clip on jobbie - maybe 8x10 inches.

Post by Lewis Lang
How far (how many stops/what ratio) under the main off camera 5400HS flash

was

Post by Lewis Lang
your Maxxum 7 camera's built-in flash?

2:1.
Mike

Thanks for the info, Mike.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Phil

2004-05-05 13:18:49 UTC

Want smaller? Get the

Post by Mike Lipphardt