|
It's a macro lens, so it focuses much closer. It's also extremely sharp. It's not long enough to give you close shots of really small things, but it will be excellent for product photos.
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Musket posted:True but they are compact and FX and cheaper than going with an M6, 35mm 1.4 Summilulz
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Musket posted:http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Nikon-S-35mm-Rangefinder-Film-Camera-Body-Only-/83185393 I guess what I'm saying is that Leica and Nikon RFs are almost identical price-wise for comparable models.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
I had no trouble selling an F3 in worse shape than that for $150 on craigslist. Nice find!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I wonder why, in this era of a multitude of sensor sizes, we don't switch to field-of-view degree notation when talking about lenses. As opposed to the good old days when we only had to deal with 110, 126, 135, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Brosnan posted:Fair enough. I've been poking around on eBay a bit as well, so I'll probably just stick to that route. here ya go
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Anyone who smugposts about Sony's dumbass hotshoe design gets a six-hour. Have to admit his camera would be safe though - he wouldn't have ever been able to find any flashes to put on it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 14:06
|
|