Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Hi How about the performance of M100/2.8? -- __ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.asiamail.com Send and receive SMS through your mailbox. Powered by Outblaze
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
even with superb design, it doesn't go away completely. Herb - Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:21 AM Subject: Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D) Purple fringing is a problem associated with DSLR sensors, that can be kept in check with proper lens design.
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
I have the F 100/2.8 macro and use it frequently on the ist-D. No complaints whatsoever. It's very sharp. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Great! Thank you, Peter (did I get it right from P. J. ? :-) ) and Kostas! Those links are indeed very helpful! Again, many thanks to all who responded. Igor PS. As you might have guessed, I am considering some "enablement" :-) So, if you are considering selling any of Pentax SMC f/fa/d-fa 100/2.8 macro and/or f/fa 138/2.8, please contact me off the list. Well, I am also considering Sigma 100-300/4 - so if you want to get rid of one, - let me know. PPS. I hope this type of solicitation is ok on this list.
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
I have the FA135/2.8 IF. It's a fine performer. I don't see any of the purple fringing that someone mentioned with the DS. My other 135 is a Takumar (K-bayonet) 135/2.5, which isn't comparable at all unless stopped down to at least f/11. Godfrey On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:11 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: Thanks to everybody who responded to my question. I am still open to further comments, but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about: What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses used, in good condition? Also, can anybody comment on A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ? Thank you, Igor
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
You can find discussions culled from the PDML of most Pentax Lenses here: http://stans-photography.info/ not that we don't like answering questions but it may save you some time. Igor Roshchin wrote: Thanks to everybody who responded to my question. I am still open to further comments, but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about: What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses used, in good condition? Also, can anybody comment on A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ? Thank you, Igor -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Igor Roshchin wrote: Thanks to everybody who responded to my question. I am still open to further comments, but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about: What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses used, in good condition? Have you checked the splosdb http://www.jcolwell.ca/photo-gear/_SPLOSdb/ Also, can anybody comment on A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ? http://stans-photography.info/ has film-based comments. Kostas
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Igor, the F and FA Versions are by far better. The A is the worst of all 2.8 (2.5) Pentax 135mm. Best regards, Hans. > --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Igor Roshchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Betreff: Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D) > Datum: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:11:21 -0400 (EDT) > > > Thanks to everybody who responded to my question. > > I am still open to further comments, > but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about: > > What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these > lenses > > used, in good condition? > > > Also, can anybody comment on > A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ? > > Thank you, > > Igor > -- Hans Imglueck Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Thanks to everybody who responded to my question. I am still open to further comments, but I particularly interested to hear people's opinion about: > What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses > used, in good condition? Also, can anybody comment on A 135/2.8 lens compared to F and/or FA 135/2.8 ? Thank you, Igor
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Purple fringing is a problem associated with DSLR sensors, that can be kept in check with proper lens design. I should have said that the 100mm f/2.8 FA macro and the 135mm f/2.8 FA lenses can contribute to purple fringing on DSLRs, though at least in the case of the 135mm FA lens, I've had very good results on my *ist-DS, and only once noticed purple fringing. YMMV. Herb Chong wrote: purple fringing is a sensor problem on a DSLR, seldom a lens one. Herb - Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:20 PM Subject: Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D) D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro: Optimized for digital. Presumably less suceptible to purple fringing and the like than the FA version, though I've heard very few complaints about the FA.
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
purple fringing is a sensor problem on a DSLR, seldom a lens one. Herb - Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:20 PM Subject: Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D) D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro: Optimized for digital. Presumably less suceptible to purple fringing and the like than the FA version, though I've heard very few complaints about the FA.
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
the two 100/2.8 macros in that list are exceptional lenses. neither rotate the front when focusing. the FA 100/2.8 macro is very heavy, while the D-FA 100/2.8 is much lighter. Herb - Original Message - From: "Igor Roshchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:20 PM Subject: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D) Pentax SMC (AF): FA 100/2.8 D FA 100/2.8 FA 135/2.8 F 135/2.8 Any comments on comparative optical (and otherwise) quality of them? Any difference in AF speed and accuracy? Do D-FA and FA 100 have the front element rotating?
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Igor queried: FA 135/2.8 F 135/2.8 Any comments on comparative optical (and otherwise) quality of them? - I decided against the FA 135 for digital because I saw some severe purple fringing in the center of images at f2.8 and f4.0. The FA and F are supposed to be the same, but in Photodo's testing the F is much sharper at f2.8. If I was going to get one of these, it would be the F. But, some people who have it like it on digital SLRs. The purple fringing may only show up occasionally. - Does anybody know what type of issues (if any) of FA 100/2.8 with *istD(s) - I haven't found any. I've gotten stunning images using it on my D, and have no plans to replace it. Joe
Re: question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Igor Roshchin wrote: Hi All, I suspect this question had been discussed before, but I was not able to find direct comparison of these lenses, Pentax SMC (AF): FA 100/2.8 D FA 100/2.8 FA 135/2.8 F 135/2.8 FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro: Once called the best (or was it sharpest?) 100mm macro on the market. D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro: Optimized for digital. Presumably less suceptible to purple fringing and the like than the FA version, though I've heard very few complaints about the FA. FA 135mm f/2.8: A great lens. I've got one. Its focusing ring is a little more sloppy than 'A' version, but its optics are very good and it's a sharp lens. There has been some discussion of purple fringing. The only time I ever saw it was when I photographed a squirrel atop a telephone pole with a bright sky background. The telephone wires 'fringed' a little, but that was a pretty extreme test of high contrast. This lens has a built-in hood. F 135mm f/2.8: The discussion I've seen is that the focusing ring is a little better dampened, but the internal mechanism isn't as strong as with the FA. I don't know if this is true or not. From what I understand the optics are identical. Any comments on comparative optical (and otherwise) quality of them? Any difference in AF speed and accuracy? Do D-FA and FA 100 have the front element rotating? Does anybody know what type of issues (if any) of FA 100/2.8 with *istD(s) What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses used, in good condition? Thank you, Igor
question about primes: 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 FA (D)
Hi All, I suspect this question had been discussed before, but I was not able to find direct comparison of these lenses, (except for this response from Margus Mannik http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg231174.html no practical responses to a similar question from Joseph Tainter, and comparison of D-FA with F (not FA) on a German website http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=12835 ) Pentax SMC (AF): FA 100/2.8 D FA 100/2.8 FA 135/2.8 F 135/2.8 Any comments on comparative optical (and otherwise) quality of them? Any difference in AF speed and accuracy? Do D-FA and FA 100 have the front element rotating? Does anybody know what type of issues (if any) of FA 100/2.8 with *istD(s) (per Bruce Dayton: http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg225279.html )? What would be reasonable prices that one can find for any of these lenses used, in good condition? Thank you, Igor
