:48 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:36:58 -0400
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had
to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Paul Delcour wrote:
that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly
useless. I often get much closer than that. Can any zoom handle that better?
The FA28-80/3.5-5.6, 0.5m across the zoom range. The FA50/1.7 is
0.45m, for comparison.
OK, not
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Myself, I'd be using only primes for situations that
required low rectilinear distortion.)
What he said!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Ah Fred, that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m
makes the lens partly useless. I often get much closer than that.
Min focus distance is an annoying aspect of many lenses - for me,
it's not a constant annoyance, but only an occasional frustration,
but sometimes - depending on the
Paul wrote:
PD that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly
PD useless. I often get much closer than that.
Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is
limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may
vary). To get
]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:27:49 +0300
To: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:30:22 -0400
Paul wrote:
PD that reminds me that the min. focus
Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is
limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may
vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8.
Or the F135/2.8, but I recommend the FA which has better mechanical design.
Alan Chan
.
:-)
Paul Delcour
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:29:43 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:29:53 -0400
Sorry to disapoint you, the K
Hi all,
you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses...
I'm still considering to get a good zoom for parties, weddings, any
situation where switching primes can be tedious and makeing me miss shots.
There's an A28-135/4 on a secondhand site for sale at about 200$. From what
I've read on
I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue assoicated with the
SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight. Other lenses you might consider included SMC-A
35-105/3.5 Tamron SP 28-75/2.8.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses...
I'm still
Alan Chan wrote:
I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue
assoicated with the
SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight.
Hi Alan,
Long ago I resolved that I would bear the weight of any lens
that helped me produce the results I wanted. big grin
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my
Paul,
I owned an A28-135/4 for a while. The photo quality was good, but it is
indeed a large lens. It has a very large front element (77mm filter
diameter) and only does macro (close focus) at its 28mm setting. Try one if
you can to see if you like the handling.
--Mark
Paul Writes-
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had
to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe
rectilinear distortion. heavy frown
[and I replied] It is true that the A 28-135/4's strongest point
is certainly not its distortion (it does have a fair amount of
13 matches
Mail list logo
