on 11/20/02 9:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ------------------------------
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 02 : Issue 34
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA [ frank theriault <knarf.theriault@sy ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24 [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Shots of the wear on my Limited lens [ "Cesar Matamoros II" <cesar_abdul@m ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: new to the list, + a repair ques [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Epson 2450 results [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Night photography [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: OT: Doug's Birthday, was Terrori [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> OT: visiting the USA [ "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: HELP: Monitor/Printer color matc [ Paul Stenquist <pnstenquist@comcast ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited [ Dan Scott <daniel559@directvinterne ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q [ "Doug Franklin" <jehosephat@mindspr ]
> Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited [ "Doug Franklin" <jehosephat@mindspr ]
> Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:26:57 -0500
> From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <033901c2910d$db75d490$0200a8c0@brad>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Okie, not gonna like it however,
>
> My beloved instructor that you all hate. Someone at Pentax Canada (not a
> rep or sales/phone person). A dealer of Pentax in a store here in London, a
> guy who knows his stuff too, not a 16yr old part-time cash person.
>
> There, said that, and still waiting on some more information on it. As well
> getting someone to look at Defence here in London and the large amount of
> plastic used in armour now. (Look up the specs. of an American M1A Main
> Battle Tank for a good example, of course, the best parts are 'classified'.
> I wouldn't use web resources for this type of query.)
>
> They didn't say, they're not good, or any such thing, but the price is
> inflated because of the look and the buyers, and demand.
>
> I'd take an ill-informed guess that the optics are great or perhaps superb,
> but the mechanics or build quality may have some fooled. Metal and quality
> are wholly separate things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad Dobo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
>
>
>>> I have been told that the Ltds. are more expensive, not because they are
> so
>>> superior in build and optics (but not saying they aren't) but that they
> are
>>> for a select few, like some here, and thus command a far higher price, as
>>> they are a 'different' lens, so to speak.
>>
>> May I ask, who? Just curious.
>>
>> regards,
>> Alan Chan
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:56:39 -0500
> From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL
> WAS--Re:WideangleDilemmas
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hi, Paul,
>
> I know, I know... <g>
>
> I've got two working Spots, so I'm still a screwhead! I've told myself that
> I'm
> going to get my Yashica Mat CLA'd next. It's working, but it needs to be
> overhauled.
>
> One day...
>
> thanks,
> frank
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Frank,
>> I bet you can get it in top working condition for less than $150. I had
>> three Spotmatic Fs CLAed here in Detroit for around $100 each.
>>
>> frank theriault wrote:
>>>
>>> My most beautiful body is my black Spotmatic SP. Brassy all around the
>>> edges.
>>> Unfortunately the meter's pooched, and the slow shutter speeds are ~real~
>>> slow,
>>> so I just keep it on the shelf and look at it.
>>>
>>> It's soooooo lovely.... <g>
>>>
>>> -frank
>>>
>>> Pentax Guy wrote:
>>>
>>>> And here I was thinking I was the only vain person. Beauty marks are
>>>> vanity! I thought it was 'who cares how it looks, it's how it works and
>>>> the
>>>> person behind it' So 'brassing' aka plain old wear....
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
>>> fears it is true." -J. Robert
>>> Oppenheimer
>
> --
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
> fears it
> is true." -J. Robert
> Oppenheimer
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:41:53 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> It's here! The 50mm lens. Came today even though it was only mailed yesterday.
> (The UPS lady told me they have extra drivers on for the holiday season.)
>
> Definitely the right thing. Says SMC Pentax-M 1:2 50mm on the front. Fstops go
> up to 2.
>
> It's beautiful and in great shape -- almost looks new. Also came with a draw
> string bag and front and rear caps.
>
> Already got it on the K-1000, and you know what I'll be doing the next few
> days. Yup, trying it out.
>
> I think I got a steal/deal at ebay ($20 & S&H). Just goes to show it pays to
> read ALL the adds and look at ALL the pictures (for the category of thing you
> are looking for.)
>
> Happy here. More later.
>
> Doe aka Marnie :-)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:49:40 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <01cf01c29111$054b7ce0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Dobo
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
>
>
> People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will
>> beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime
> lens.
>
> Theaccepted term within the photographic community is "prime".
> It has nothing to do with pride, or quality, it is merely the
> word given to identify single focal length lens.
> The reason why some people have a hard time admitting that a
> zoom can be better than a prime is because with few exceptions,
> good quality prime lenses are better lenses than zooms of any
> quality, based on accepted criteria such as resolution,
> contrast, colour fidelity, and minimization of the six major
> optical abberations.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:54:26 -0500
> From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax-Discuss \(E-mail\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Shots of the wear on my Limited lenses.
> Message-ID: <001601c29111$b2d8cf20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> As promised earlier, if anyone is keeping score, I just put up some shots
> of the battle scars of my Limited lenses.
>
> I was in error earlier. The 31 is still spotless, but its cap isn't. The
> 77 though has not been as lucky. I did gasp when it hit the floor and
> rolled at the Shrimp and Oyster Festival this year.
>
> Look at the shots here: http://cesar_abdul.home.mindspring.com/limwear.html
>
> C?sar
> Panama City, Florida
> in Dayton, Ohio
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:10:18 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> In a message dated 11/20/2002 5:04:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Any Pentax 50mm is a good lens. I have an M 50mm f/2, and it has
>> been a fine little lens.
>> This was shot with it:
>> http://pug.komkon.org/02mar/dime.html
>> The f/2 has the advantage of being a flat field design, which
>> makes it nice for close up work, if you ever decide to get
>> a set
>> of tubes or a bellows.
>>
>> William Robb
>
> You know looking through the lens the view finder appears brighter with the
> Pentax 50mm than with the Albinar zoom. Now, I am looking through it right now
> at night with incandescant light, but it does look brighter. Going to have to
> check that out in daylight.
>
> Er, hum, cough. Not exactly positive what you are talking about. I have been
> reading all of the list (though I am now a day a half behind), even threads
> that do not apply to me (such as medium format). Lots is incomprehensible to
> me, but I figured I pick up some it by context and osmosis.
>
> So I am going to guess, because I've seen bellows mentioned before in this
> list and reversing lens mentioned before. And I have seen some pics of bellows
> at one of the Pentax sites (one of the links pointed to by Stan's.)
>
> Guessing, a 50mm can be reversed with a bellows to do macro work? Is that
> right?
>
> Is there an advantage to doing that, versus just getting a macro lens? Are
> bellows cheaper? Is the picture clearer?
>
> Not sure what flat field means, either, actually.
>
> Your dime is like really, really close up. Impressive.
>
> BTW - I have also noted the print film recommendations others have made.
>
> So much to learn, so little time to learn it. Hehehe.
>
> Doe aka Marnie Parker
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:17:16 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: new to the list, + a repair question
> Message-ID: <023801c29114$e0377720$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephanie Stiavetti
> Subject: new to the list, + a repair question
>
> I tried to get one of my ME Supers to repeat your problem,
> unsuccessfully. If the mirror is locked up, but you cannot
> release the shutter, then the mechanism has come out of its
> sequence. You could try to finish advancing the film by opening
> the camera back and rolling the sprocket towards the take up
> spool.
> This might cause the shutter to complete it's cycle.
> Or, you could paddle its bottom, that might jar the mechanism
> into sequence.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>> on to my question: I recently acquired an old, very loved,
> Pentax ME
>> Super SE. the mirror is stuck in the up position and
> replacing the
>> batteries hasn't fixed the problem. I tried to gently
> dislodge the mirror
>> and it will move back to the down position, but then it pops
> right back
>> up. neither the shutter release or the film advance lever are
>> functioning.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:11:21 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Epson 2450 results
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 01:07 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
>> I have been doing some comparative scans of slides with my Epson 2450
>> and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II. What I am finding is that the Epson
>> is delivering a more usable scan.
>
>> Any questions, let me know.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Any chance you could email to me or put on a web page a sample scan
> from each showing what you are referring to? I am curious as to the
> level of detail lost between the two with the Epson at 2400 and the
> Scan Dual II at 2820 (I've got a dead Scan Dual II, and have been
> waffling over whether to fix it or just buy a new scanner).
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:06:11 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <01e301c29113$53cac900$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brad Dobo
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
>
> I don't know the background of the people you treat as experts,
> but I do know good quality camera equipment, and I am very
> demanding of high optical quality and solid build quality. This
> is why I shoot with a 4x5, and am somewhat disdainful of 35mm.
>
> The limited lenses are expensive because making an excellent
> lens is an expensive process. The limited lenses are extremely
> high quality, both optically and mechanically.
> That they appeal to a different, much smaller demographic than
> the average Bohemian from London Ontario means they won't sell
> in quantity.
> Anything that is both rare and high quality is expensive.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>> Okie, not gonna like it however,
>>
>> My beloved instructor that you all hate. Someone at Pentax
> Canada (not a
>> rep or sales/phone person). A dealer of Pentax in a store
> here in London, a
>> guy who knows his stuff too, not a 16yr old part-time cash
> person.
>>
>> There, said that, and still waiting on some more information
> on it. As well
>> getting someone to look at Defence here in London and the
> large amount of
>> plastic used in armour now. (Look up the specs. of an
> American M1A Main
>> Battle Tank for a good example, of course, the best parts are
> 'classified'.
>> I wouldn't use web resources for this type of query.)
>>
>> They didn't say, they're not good, or any such thing, but the
> price is
>> inflated because of the look and the buyers, and demand.
>>
>> I'd take an ill-informed guess that the optics are great or
> perhaps superb,
>> but the mechanics or build quality may have some fooled.
> Metal and quality
>> are wholly separate things.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brad Dobo
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
>>
>>
>>>> I have been told that the Ltds. are more expensive, not
> because they are
>> so
>>>> superior in build and optics (but not saying they aren't)
> but that they
>> are
>>>> for a select few, like some here, and thus command a far
> higher price, as
>>>> they are a 'different' lens, so to speak.
>>>
>>> May I ask, who? Just curious.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Alan Chan
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
>>> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:31:47 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Night photography
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 02:22 PM, Jostein wrote:
>
>> There were so many interesting thoughts in the Moonlight-thread as to
>> why the images _seemed_ blurred;
>>
>> - film reciprocity failure,
>> - lower film accutance,
>> - motion blur (leaves),
>> - camera shake,
>> - focusing problems,
>> - thermal distortions in the air...
>>
>
> Has earth vibration transmitted through the tripod been ruled out? The
> ground tembles all the time, doesn't it? Are people moving around doing
> things near the tripod while the exposure is taken? Nearby roads or
> freeways? Is the tripod lacking sufficient weight to resist small
> vibrations? Is there any play between lens and body or the body and the
> tripod head that could accentuate minute vibrations transmitted
> throught the tripod?
>
> Dan Scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:35:41 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT: Doug's Birthday, was Terrorist Warning
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 08:08 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> Happy Birthday to the list guy. Thanks for making this a special place.
>> Paul Stenquist
>>
>> Leonard Paris wrote:
>>>
>>> So, which Doug is having a birthday today?
>>>
>>> Regardless of which Doug it is, let me say, "Happy Birthday to Doug!"
>>>
>>> Len
>>> ---
>>>
>
>
> Happy Birthday Doug!
>
> Dan Scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:41:23 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 10:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> But to get pictures as clear as John Shaw for instance (well, I doubt
>> I will ever become as good a photographer as him), I realize I
>> probably have to use a slower speed film and a tripod.
>>
>
> Make that "I definitely need to use a very slow, very fine grain film
> and a really good tripod" and it will be so. (and practice, practice,
> practice. And then do it again, and again, and again...) <g>
>
> Dan Scott (still practicing)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:44:43 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 11/20/02 7:26:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << I have
> to say, the difference between the 24-90 and the 77 ltd as I said is
> clearly visible under even small enlargements. Heck I can see it on
> 6*4s!
>
> I have my doubts. Sorry I don't think you can pick it out that easily.... I'm
> not saying the 77 is not a great lens but I doubt you could tell the
> difference in a 4X6...
> Vic
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:20:33 -0500
> From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: OT: visiting the USA
> Message-ID: <000601c29119$39b8d6a0$47a83c18@mishka>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> That shouldn't matter, Tested on myself (it's tough to find more ex-Warsaw
> Pact place than Russia. Warsaw included)
>
> Mishka
>
>> That's not me but I do have a significant amount of (ex)Warsaw
>> Pact stamps. Is this likely to cause problems? I'm not averse
>> to investing in a squeaky-clean new passport if it means I miss
>> meeting the man with the Pentax proctoscope. (Given the
>> relative dimensions of the MZ-S and the F5, can you imagine what
>> a Nikon proctoscope would be like? [shudder])
>>
>> mike
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:49:19 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 01:25 PM, gfen wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but it looses something without the hood and loupe.
>>
>> I was never able to focus clearly off the plain matte glass of the
>> ZX-5n,
>> however, when I got the 645 I suddenly realized that if the glass were
>> big
>> enough, it were indeed possible.
>>
>
> gfen,
>
> Maybe you should see if an optometrist could give you a script for a
> custom diopter? I wear glasses, but don't like to shoot wearing them.
> Fortunately, with the ZX-5n's diopter adjustment shoved all the way
> over to the right, I don't need to wear my glasses. Focussing sharp is
> easy (for me), holding the whole thing steady is the hard part. <g>
>
> Dan Scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:50:37 -0500
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HELP: Monitor/Printer color matching
> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> Chet wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm presently using an Epson 3000 myself (a few years old), and one
>> point to note is that Epson printers enjoy a factor of 240 dpi.
>> You'll get better results if your image is at 240 dpi or 360 dpi than
>> you would, say, at 300 dpi.
>
> My Epson 1200 doesn't seem to like 240 dpi, although it does okay at 360
> dpi. Yesterday, I made a small print of a 6x7 neg scan at 1200 dpi. It
> loved that. I've found that with my Epson, the higher the resolution the
> better the print.
> Paul Stenqui
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:55:44 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 10:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Guessing, a 50mm can be reversed with a bellows to do macro work? Is
>> that right?
>>
>> Is there an advantage to doing that, versus just getting a macro lens?
>> Are bellows cheaper? Is the picture clearer?
>>
>> Doe aka Marnie Parker
>
>
> Doe,
>
> You can buy a "reversing ring" for your M 50/2 that will make it into a
> very sharp macro lens. Lots cheaper than a decent macro (though a
> little more hassle). Adding a 50 to a bellows can give huge
> magnifications.
>
> Dan scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:21:11 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 11/20/02 12:03:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read
> a long commentary from Dario in a recent "Spotmatic" where he concluded
> that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the
> FA85/1,4. The older 28-105 was also tested, and it was "respectable"
> but the other lenses were noticeably better, especially at wider
> apertures.
>
> Cheers,
> Boz >>
>
> I now have two of the older style 28-105s. It is my most used lens. I
> consider it very good, very useful and while not my favourite lens, certainly
> my most used lens...
> Vic
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:10:29 -0500
> From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 10:32 PM 20/11/2002 -0500, Brad wrote:
>> I really hate that word 'prime(s)', it means 'best, first-class, foremost,
>> select, superior, top, top-quality'. Yet so many here toss it around as a
>> fixed-focal length which it is.
>
> You know, something just ocurred to me.
> 31 and 43 are prime numbers. Rather apt, don't you think.
> Humph. they blew it with 77 though. Why couldn't they have made it 79 instead?
>
>
> Wendy Beard,
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.beard-redfern.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:10:00 -0600
> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited lenses.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Cesar Matamoros II wrote:
>
>> As promised earlier, if anyone is keeping score, I just put up some
>> shots
>> of the battle scars of my Limited lenses.
>>
>> I was in error earlier. The 31 is still spotless, but its cap isn't.
>> The
>> 77 though has not been as lucky. I did gasp when it hit the floor and
>> rolled at the Shrimp and Oyster Festival this year.
>>
>> Look at the shots here:
>> http://cesar_abdul.home.mindspring.com/limwear.html
>>
>> C?sar
>> Panama City, Florida
>> in Dayton, Ohio
>>
>>
>
>> C?sar,
>
> I think some of your slashes are backwards.
>
> Dan Scott
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:20:25 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-ID: <028001c2911d$b29fee60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marnie Parker
>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
>
>
>> You know looking through the lens the view finder appears
> brighter with the Pentax 50mm than with the Albinar zoom. Now, I
> am looking through it right now at night with incandescant
> light, but it does look brighter. Going to have to check that
> out in daylight.
>
> Thats cause the prime lens lets a lot more light in than the
> zoom. two to three stops more, depending on the optical
> efficiency of it. Thats 4 to 8 times more light.
>
>>
>> Guessing, a 50mm can be reversed with a bellows to do macro
> work? Is that right?
>
> Yup.
>>
>> Is there an advantage to doing that, versus just getting a
> macro lens? Are bellows cheaper? Is the picture clearer?
>
> Reversing the lens allows the lens to operate the way the
> designer meant it to work, with the rear closest to one point of
> focus, and the front farthest from the other.
> Macro lenses are relative newcomers to the field of photography,
> and generally are limited to 1:1 reproduction or less. A
> reversed lens on a bellows actually makes the image on the film
> larger than the object being photographed. In the case of that
> dime picture, you are looking at a full frame image from a 6x7
> cm negative. The letters in the word "LIBERTY" are nearly 3/8 of
> an inch on the negative. I don't have a US dime handy, but I
> suspect that it is a 10x magnification.
> I like doing high magnification photography.
> Here is another PUG image that I did last year:
> http://pug.komkon.org/01feb/pixels.html
> Combining lenses can increas magnification.
>
>>
>> Not sure what flat field means, either, actually.
>
> Lets see if I can describe it with a silly drawing.
>
> If you take a picture with a flat field lens, the point of focus
> will be a plane, parallel to the film
>
> If you take a picture with a curved field lens, the point of
> focus will be a curve, with the in focus area all the same
> distance from the film.
>
> In the top drawing, I am showing a flat field lens's plane of
> focus.
> In the bottom. a curved filed lens.
>
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/focusfield.jpg
>>
>> Your dime is like really, really close up. Impressive.
>
> Shucks, it nothing. Just a little shot I tossed off out of
> desperation.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:21:58 -0500
> From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up & Q
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:20:25 -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
>> If you take a picture with a curved field lens, the point of
>> focus will be a curve, with the in focus area all the same
>> distance from the film.
>
> Won't the curve be a specific distance from the rear element of the
> lens (or the rear nodal point) regardless of the position of the film?
> And intersect with the film as a circle or ellipsis (if at all)?
>
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:19:50 -0500
> From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited lenses.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:10:00 -0600, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>>> http://cesar_abdul.home.mindspring.com/limwear.html
>
>> I think some of your slashes are backwards.
>
> Nope, they're all correct for a URL. Pretty much only Internet
> Exploder will understand using backslash ("\") in a URL, and
> backslashes aren't legal within a URL according to the standard
> document.
>
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:14:11 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> You know I can't help reading all these posts and shake my head. I know we
> need something to talk about here and this is as good a topic as any but I
> fear that some new photographer is going to read this discussion and think
> that if they don't have a ltd lens, a prime lens of every focal length, FA*
> lenses ... they can never hope to get good pictures.
> At the risk of ticking off many on this list, let me say this (especially to
> new list members)
> These are all my opinion--- not bothering with any facts.
>
> 1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent.
> 2) You, I and 90 per cent of the people on this list could not tell the
> difference between a picture taken with the worst Pentax lens and the best
> when viewing a 4X6 inch print. That figure goes to 95 percent if the picture
> is viewed on the Web and 100 per cent if proper technique is not used.
> 3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and
> sometimes better than Pentax lenses.
> 4) People who own a particular lens will rarely speak poorly about it. The
> amount of praise is directly related to how much they paid for it.
> 5) The best lenses in the world are no better than the worst lenses in the
> world without the proper technique.
> 6) People who talk ad-nauseum about lenses (And we all fall into this at
> times) are more likely to be collectors rather than shooters.
> 7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector.
> 8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much
> as shooters.
> 9) The best lenses are the ones you use.
> 10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens .
> 11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very
> expensive lenses.
> 12) If you are just starting out and are shooting for the fun of it, spend
> your money on film not gadgets and lenses. There's lots of time to become a
> collector.
>
> Vic
>
> --------------------------------
> End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V02 Issue #34
> ********************************************
>
