Lens Download Older Version //FREE\\

I want to install a previous, specific version of k8slens ( ) but impossible for me to find this (neither for mac nor windows !) Do I have to download the source code and rebuild it? Even with this there is no "install" section in the makefile !Why is it so difficult to find a specific version?

The question was made some time ago but just in case you haven't reached the answer yet, One thing I did to solve this problem was that i went to the lens repo : and search through the old release versions seeking for a binary asset (.exe) (the news version provide the source code but not the binary) then i managed to find the binary of the version 4.2.3. ( release in Apr 26, 2021)

Lens Download Older Version

Download Zip 🔥 https://geags.com/2y4yWH 🔥

Many guy thinks than Lens doesn't free anymore. But (personal licence) Lens is still free. If you have license problem. you just needvisit and enter credentials, login and the personal license will be added to your lens id.The issue is with redirection from the Home page when trying to add a new subscription. It redirects you to the download page instead of opening the subscriptions page.

I am pretty sure that I looked for profiles for the PannyLeica 25mm when I first started using Lightroom and didn't find any, though I found profiles for legacy lenses and stuff. That seemed pretty odd, since it is such a popular lens.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

I was already a fan of the original 90mm ts-e, so the opportunity to upgrade to a L lens with better durability, sharper optics and weather sealing was exciting to say the least. Though due to the design quirks of a tilt-shift lens, the weather proofing is not as effective as on a typical L lens. My initial feeling about the lens once I had time to do a little shooting, was that it was the best lens I had ever worked with. But I have learned over the years that it is easy to jump to conclusions that prove to be incorrect. So I decided to test my perception by a simple head-to-head comparison.

Once all of the pieces were in place, I made some images of the chart. The aperture was set at f11 which should provide the best sharpness results for both lenses. I shot one image with each lens with the shift centered and another shifted fully in order to test edge to edge sharpness. I pulled up the results in camera raw and was surprised by the results. Rather than the huge jump in quality I had anticipated, I could barely see a difference. The new lens had the edge, but just barely. It was so small a edge that I could barely see a distinction when zoomed in at 100%. Just to be sure, I took the files from both lenses and layered and aligned them in photoshop so I could go quickly back and forth between the files and the result was the same. There was an almost imperceivable difference, with the very slight edge going to the new 90mm ts-e macro.

Surprised by my results, I decided to expand my test. I found some sharp contrasty lettering on a jar in my studio, I focused and shot with both lenses, stacked and aligned the images and sure enough I got the same outcome. Both lenses were amazingly crisp, but with such similar results, is the upgrade worth it? At this point I had my doubts.

While there is no appreciable difference in sharpness at f11, at f2.8 the two lenses are quite a bit different, the new 90mm is a lot sharper. As the aperture goes up, the difference between the lenses shrinks to become almost negligible. The important consideration is determining how this type of lens is most likely to be used. For product, I am always shooting at an aperture of f7.1 or higher, at which point there is very little distinction between the lenses. Both lenses do exceedingly good jobs with the precise technical demands of product photography but the newer lens adds the ability to shoot (near) macro. For photographing food, depending on the style it might be more common to shoot at lower apertures where the extra sharpness of the new lens might be beneficial, however for the more editorial style of shooting food the original lens is plenty sharp and makes files big enough for almost any use. It really seems like the only place in food photography where upgrading to the new lens might be necessary is to capture highly technical commercial work for packaging or advertising.

Richard, I didn't perform extensive tests but as far as I know from other people the optical performance of both lenses is excellent. I agree with those who claim that the 100mm macro is the sharpest lens in the whole Canon lens lineup. Actually it's the only non-Carl Zeiss lens I use anymore.

The new lens has it's front element really in front which makes it prone to flare, some people claim. I never had this problem, but it might be related to the sort of lighting I prefer. The older, non-USM lens is designed in a way, that the front element is deeply recessed, therefore perfectly protected from flare but almost impossible to clean, should it get dirty.

IF is also an essential part of the macro IMHO. When you get close, you start getting worried that your lens might touch the subject... That's especially true if you use a 50mm in reverse for extra magnification...

You won't regret spending the extra cash for the USM version. While I'm spending your money here, be sure to get the Canon hood, too, because the objective element isn't recessed on the USM lens as it is on the older one.

I have the old canon 100 mm f/2.8 non-usm macro lens. I want to sell it infact because I purchased a sigma 180mm f/3.5 hsm ex macro lens. I have been very happy with it and don't see much use for the 100mm now...at least for macro. the sima 180mm is slightly more expensive than the new canon lens (in the US)...but not as expensive as the canon 180m macro. It gives great working distance (useful for shooting butterflies ) and has a tripod collar. has its own big hood and a nice case.

the canon 100mm f/2.8 lens is very sharp though....fantastic for portraits....gives great blurred bg when opened up to 2.8 or 3.5. However, for 1:1 macro, one might need a focusing rail to get great results.

the internal focussing and usm for the new lens must help. One more difference, i think is the diameter. The old one used to be 52mm...the new one is 58mm i think. am not sure what difference that makes for the image

Are there profiles in /share/lensfun/version_1? If not, you can download the version 1 profiles and point RT to that folder. I am mobile, but the most up to date Lena profiles are just a zip you can grab from source forge.

Do you have a max budget for a lens. Most telephoto lenses aren't cheap even used ones too. It's best to look into a lens that has IS (Image Stabilization). This reduces camera shake when using a slower shutter speed.

The cheapest telephoto lens is the EF-S 55-250 STM or USM unit, as my respected colleague Mike has said. However, it does not have that much reach for wildlife, where birds are small and easily spooked, and a lot of large animals are not wise to approach too closely for either party's safety. So, I would tend to suggest going for a longer focal length, if you can afford it (so, we are back at the budget question again).

At a minimum, I would suggest the Canon EF 70-300 MkII IS USM lens (not the 75-300 which is not a great lens).

On occasion, Canon have a refurbished unit (like new with a warranty: Shop Canon Refurbished EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM | Canon U.S.A., I) You can ask to be notified when one comes available.

For further reach, I would suggest the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens. Sigma make great lenses and this is reasonably light and should be cheaper than the Canon EF100-400L MkII lens which, while a fabulous optic, is pricey.

For more reach again, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is a great wildlife lens, with a wide range and is reasonably light for its size and focal range. I have one and it produces great images.

As we go down the list, we go up in focal range and price, but now you have a list to consider. In the end it may be that you have to save up a bit to get the right lens, and personally I would take that approach as it is frustrating to invest in a lens that falls short on what you really need.

The most affordable lens of reasonable quality with the features needed for wildlife photography is the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, which costs about $299 new (plus a few $ for the separately sold, highly recommended lens hood). The "STM" is important because this indicates "stepper motor" focus drive, which is faster focusing than the lens without it. Wildlife photography generally demands fast focus or you'll miss a lot of the action. HOWEVER, to be honest, 250mm really isn't "long enough" telephoto for a lot of wildlife photography.

A little better is Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" that sells for $599 (plus lens hood). "USM" also indicates the type of focus drive and is even faster than STM. If you consider used, there also was an earlier version of this lens that was quite good too. In addition, you might find a used EF 70-300mm IS USM "DO" version at reasonable cost. This lens uses "diffractive optics" to be particularly compact (but not lighter weight). At one time it was quite expensive, but now can be found used for very reasonable amounts. HOWEVER, 300mm is only marginal for wildlife photography. AND, unless your budget is extremely tight, I recommend you avoid the cheapest of all Canon EF 75-300mm III lens ($199). It uses slower/noisier micro motor focus drive, lacks the "IS" or "image stabilization" found on all the other lenses and just doesn't have all that great image quality.

On a camera like yours, with APS-C size image sensor, about the best wildlife zoom of all is the Canon EF 100-400mm "L" IS USM "II". This lens has great image quality and 400mm is "just right" for a lot of wildlife photography. e24fc04721