> Har, they'll try to wear you down. Next you'll be told that the new > zooms perform as well as primes (unfortunately even some of the new > "digital" primes aren't that spectacular in performance)
Yeah it's all a little sad really, I expect a compromise in a zoom lens but there's really no excuse with a prime. Having to use the shorter focal length causes some real problems. > and then > you'll be told that loosing the aperture ring control made the > camera affordable to produce and that it's progress and that you'll > get used to it. Double har. Sorry if I sound a little cynical :-) Progress! I'd rather not get used to it, maybe I'd just accept it if I'd never used the aperture control on the lens. I'm all for development but to me this is a backward step. John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:57:54 +1000 Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm News > On 25 Jan 2005 at 14:37, John Whittingham wrote: > > > I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36mm x 24mm digital > > body. I would need more then one W/A lens or a very good zoom to replace 24mm, > > 28mm and 35mm lenses not to mention 17mm rectilinear and 16mm Fisheye that I > > also use from time to time. > > Har, they'll try to wear you down. Next you'll be told that the new > zooms perform as well as primes (unfortunately even some of the new > "digital" primes aren't that spectacular in performance) and then > you'll be told that loosing the aperture ring control made the > camera affordable to produce and that it's progress and that you'll > get used to it. Double har. Sorry if I sound a little cynical :-) > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 ------- End of Original Message -------
