I'm upset because Pentax doesn't say their lenses will work on Canons. :-) There should be a CCA (Canon Compatible with Adapter) designation.
I've been totally misled. Tom C. >From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:56:16 -0400 > >would someone also be upset about designation if it turned out that some >K (M,A,FA...) lens covers 6x45 format? doesn't K500/4.5? why it isn't >labeled >as such? besides, although it is labeled as K, it has preset aperture! burn >'em! > >best, >mishka > >On 10/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the more functional variables a lens has, the more important the > > designation becomes. > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Tom C > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:39 PM > > To: pdml@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > > > > It could be. Wasn't intended as such though. I apologize. > > > > My point was that if nomenclature on a lens is a big issue, then I want > > to > > be in your (whoever's) shoes, because you're living pretty charmed > > lives. > > :-) > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > >From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > >Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:23:39 +0200 > > > > > >Tom, with all honesty and due respect - this is rather impolite remark. > > > > > >Respectfully. > > > > > >Boris > > > > > >Tom C wrote: > > > > Who cares? If you can't think for a couple of milliseconds or can't > > > > be troubled to research a product you're going to plunk money down > > > > for, you probably shouldn't be allowed to press the shutter release. > > > > > > > > Maybe they should have gone to an incompatible mount just to make > > > > sure > > >that > > > > people that can't read don't have this problem. > > > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > > >> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <pdml@pdml.net> > > > >> Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > >> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400 > > > >> > > > >> LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series designation > > > >> should cover all functionalities like coverage, AF, aperture rings, > > > > > >> optimized for digital etc. They should be all the same within a > > > >> given designation. This is how is was for K/M, A, F lenses so it > > > >> was very clear what you were getting. Now its getting very unclear. > > > >> jco > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > >> Behalf Of P. J. Alling > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39 PM > > > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > >> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Why? So that you can curse that they don't have aperture rings? > > > >> Give me a break. If a lens incidentally covers a larger format but > > > >> doesn't do > > >it > > > >> > > > >> well, or doesn't have the mechanics to make it useful, then to do > > > >> what you suggest would be a disservice, as well as asking for > > > >> complaints and bad publicity. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > >>> I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked so > > > >>> so there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff bodies. jco > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > >>> Behalf Of P. J. Alling > > > >>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:52 PM > > > >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > >>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may > > > >>> cover a > > > >>> > > > >>> larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts > > > >>> nothing if they cover a larger format. > > > >>> > > > >>> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens designation > > > >>>> should convey if a lens wont cover 24x36mm IMHO. A APS-C only > > > >>>> lens is not > > > >> the > > > >>> > > > >>>> same thing as a 24x36 lens and there should be an easy way to > > > >>>> know by the lens designation IMHO. jco > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > >>>> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > > > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM > > > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > >>>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full > > > > > >>>>> frame > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax > > > > > >>>>> probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do > > > >>>> not. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use with > > > > > >>>> the digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm > > > >>>> format isn't really relevant to the mount designation. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Godfrey > > > >>>> > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> Not really relevant but interesting: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In the course of researching my latest lens acquisition, I saw an > > > > > >>>> article about someone who took an M42 mount Pentax > > > >>>> Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm lens and cobbled up a mount to fit it on a > > > >>>> 6x6 rollfilm folder with behind-lens leaf shutter. His goal was > > > >>>> to make circular fish eye > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> images inexpensively ... it produced an image circle ~ 45mm in > > > >>>> diameter on the 6x6 format film, which suited his needs > > > >>>> perfectly. > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > >> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and > > > >> follow the directions. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > >> PDML@pdml.net > > > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and > > > >> follow the directions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >PDML@pdml.net > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > >follow the directions. > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
