Re: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: throughts and comments and experiences on the following tamron 17mm= [sic]
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Mike Johnston wrote: It depends what you like. If you tend to like lenses with high large-structure contrast, you may not take to the 43mm particularly. If you like lenses with very high small-structure resolution, you will probably love the 43mm. I think it would look best to most people with slower-speed, fine-grain color film, whereas the 50mm seems better to my eye with Tri-X. --Mike Speak American Mike. What the heck did you just say? Dan Scott
RE: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: throughts and comments and experiences on the following tamron 17mm=
When Amateur photographer tested the 43mm 1.9 a couple of years ago against the likes of Leica, Contax and Nikon standard lenses the Pentax came top of the pile. The MTF curves were amazing and they said it set a new standard for standard lenses. I expect that it's therefore better than the 50mm 1.4. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 18:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: throughts and comments and experiences on the following tamron 17mm= ; 24mm adaptall; 180mm adaptall and 80-200mm 2.8 HELP?= Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: onet.poczta Hi Fred, How do you assess K200/2.5?Better/worse than present FA200/2.8 lens? Is there a problem with bokeh like you say it is with K105/2.8 lens? If it is it is probably when the lens is wide open. I own K135/2.5 and it is also very nice lens. Do you think 43 Limited is better than A/FA 50/1.4 lenses? Alek Użytkownik Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> The 180/2.5 is legendary and scarce. > >I saw a review once in Modern Photo that was (as I recall) quite >favorable. I've watched 2 or 3 of these go on eBay recently, which >was just for curiosity, since I have a K 200/2.5 that I'm very happy >with, but they did look interesting. > >> The 80-200/2.8 is a fine zoom. > >I think JCO just won one of these on eBay. He maybe doesn't have it >in his possession just yet, but perhaps he'll share his experiences >with it soon. (I'm personally curious as to just how it might >compare to the more common Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, which I can say >is a really nice fast zoom.) > >Fred > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: throughts and comments and experiences on the following tamron 17mm=
; 24mm adaptall; 180mm adaptall and 80-200mm 2.8 HELP?= Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: onet.poczta Hi Fred, How do you assess K200/2.5?Better/worse than present FA200/2.8 lens? Is there a problem with bokeh like you say it is with K105/2.8 lens? If it is it is probably when the lens is wide open. I own K135/2.5 and it is also very nice lens. Do you think 43 Limited is better than A/FA 50/1.4 lenses? Alek Użytkownik Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> The 180/2.5 is legendary and scarce. > >I saw a review once in Modern Photo that was (as I recall) quite >favorable. I've watched 2 or 3 of these go on eBay recently, which >was just for curiosity, since I have a K 200/2.5 that I'm very happy >with, but they did look interesting. > >> The 80-200/2.8 is a fine zoom. > >I think JCO just won one of these on eBay. He maybe doesn't have it >in his possession just yet, but perhaps he'll share his experiences >with it soon. (I'm personally curious as to just how it might >compare to the more common Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, which I can say >is a really nice fast zoom.) > >Fred > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
