Bobsprit wrote:

You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??

Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....

A camera. If it was a 35mm camera, then the angle of view looks a little
wide to have been a 50mm standard lens. You're right that it has very good
depth of field, as evinced by the sharp rendition of the pulpit in the top
left corner, while retaining a clear, unblurred horizon.

If the light was bright, or if you were using fast film, then you could
potentially acheive such depth of field by stopping stopped the lens down -
f11 at minimum; f16 or f22 would be better (for a 50mm lens). The sky looks
overcast, so I'm tempted to think that maybe it wasn't bright enough for a
small aperture without compromising shutter speed to the extent of risking
camera shake - but the picture looks sharp, so maybe the camera was on some
kind of support.

However, looking at the picture, it seems to have a wider angle of view than
one would expect from a 50mm lens - there are mild distortions, typical of
wide angle lenses, in the shape of the coach roof and the horizon. It just
doesn't look like a shot through a 50mm lens.

It's well known that a wide angle, for a given neg size, has greater depth
of field than a standard lens, so this would account for both the wider
field of view and the excellent depth of field - consequently with less risk
of compromising shutter speed.

If your claim that it was done on a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens is true,
then it must be the case that you altered the focal length of the lens in
some way - by means of a teleconverter, for example. I used to use a 24mm
lens, and this photo doesn't look as wide as the stuff I got from that, so
the photo has either been cropped, or a slightly longer lens was used -
hence my guess of something in the 28-35mm range.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.