Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Rüdiger, on 21 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: >The price is very good, the normal price would be 1550 Euro. Get it, >for this price you will not regred it. Yes, I will do so as soon as I have sold some stuff (here or on ebay). >The grip and the flash AF360 is also very nice and fits perfect to the >camera. I'm not much in flash photography, so my AF500FTZ will be sufficient for the first time. The grip seems to be a "must" and it will follow sooner or later... Bye, Heiko
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Tom Ivar Subject: Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > And wrong. :-) > > Once upon a time, it was common to use special sets of lenses for view > cameras. You mounted a primary lens, called the prime, on the lens > board, and then fixed one of a collection of different secondary (or > auxiliary) lenses to the front of the prime lens to select the wanted > focal length. They were designed as a kit to work reasonably well > this way, and were more cost effective than a collection of complete > lenses at the resulting focal lengths -- especially because you got > away with a single shutter, in the prime lens. It's sad you had to post that twice. Hopefully, you won't get argued with. William Robb
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be mildly interesting to find out how the word became > attached to 'single focal-length lens'. I suspect it would not have > been used before zoom lenses became common, and that its > photographic meaning was co-opted from 'of highest quality', but > this is just guessing. And wrong. :-) Once upon a time, it was common to use special sets of lenses for view cameras. You mounted a primary lens, called the prime, on the lens board, and then fixed one of a collection of different secondary (or auxiliary) lenses to the front of the prime lens to select the wanted focal length. They were designed as a kit to work reasonably well this way, and were more cost effective than a collection of complete lenses at the resulting focal lengths -- especially because you got away with a single shutter, in the prime lens. -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Alan Chan wrote: > Personally, I don't care much about the label, but the actually design > of the lens. They are just what I have been waiting for all these years > - M lens quality with AF. This is exactly how I felt when I was starting to get the AF bug. I wanted an AF "normal" lens and the build of the F/FA 50mm f/1.7's did not impress me at all, with my background of K-series glass. The NZ distributor had a 43mm in stock (surprisingly enough) which they let me borrow for a week. Just handling it and using it was enough to convince me that unless the optics were of Barbie-cam quality, I just had to buy it. Its the only lens I've ever bought new. Sometimes its hard to convince people that you paid double the price just for better build. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > Definitions eh? Where are you coming up with this stuff? Likely from a dictionary, not a thesaurus. I would assume that most of us here (though obviously not all) understand the difference. > Well, you're wrong in your email. Of course. A dictionary definition of a word is of course less accurate than a related term you found in a thesaurus. Tell me you're kidding. chris
Re: Re[2]: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 05:37 PM, Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, the general meaning of the word doesn't matter here because it's being used as photographic jargon. The whole point about jargon is that words take on different meanings to those in general use. The jargon can also find its way back into general use and alter the general meaning. This is one of the ways in which language changes. It's especially common during times of rapid change, particularly technological change when technocrats need to find words for new things, so co-opt existing words. There seems to be little chance of 'prime' as (most) photographers understand it creeping back into general use with the photographic meaning. It would be mildly interesting to find out how the word became attached to 'single focal-length lens'. I suspect it would not have been used before zoom lenses became common, and that its photographic meaning was co-opted from 'of highest quality', but this is just guessing. Shakespeare uses 'prime' (adj.) to mean sexually excited, which seems to be a common reaction of some people to their equipment. Perhaps they shouldn't be called prime lenses, but priapic. --- Bob He probably metaphorized from "priming the pump". Water pumps used to have leather innards that needed to be primed with water to form a good seal and create the suction that lifted water of a well, causing it to come "gushing" forth. Wish someone had told me when I was a kid. It would of made a really boring chore at least mildly interesting. Dan Scott
Re[2]: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi, > then why are we typing emails on a > board? Why are you out shooting, shopping, having sex, doing family things, > reading a good book, watching Seinfeld re-runs, getting drunk, hitting the > town, being with friends, etc, etc. what makes you think we're not doing all those things at the same time? Right now I'm being driven in the back of my limo to a nightclub in town with one of my best friends, a prostitute, whose services I've shopped for so we can make a family. She's watching Seinfeld on the limo's TV while I rest my wireless-internet-enabled laptop between her tattooed shoulder-blades. With my free hand I'm taking snaps of our engaging activities, and we're drinking absinthe while we do it. Now if only I had a good book to read. --- Bob
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hallo Heiko > >I have an offer to get an MZ-S incl. 24-90 for 1150,- Euro. Much money, >but it seems to be a good price for camera and lens, doesn't it? > >Regards, Heiko > The price is very good, the normal price would be 1550 Euro. Get it, for this price you will not regred it. The grip and the flash AF360 is also very nice and fits perfect to the camera. Is it from a privat person or from a shop? Regards Rüdiger
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: Terminology lesson. > > What prime means in linguistics is irrelevant. > > Whoa here! > > The meaning of words changes constantly, and dictionaries merely > reflect the more common usage of any parts of language spoken at the > time of the compiling and printing of that dictionary. As an example, the word "decimate" now seems to mean something entirely different from the original Roman habit of killing one person in ten to enforce their will. We also change the words we use to describe specific meanings, though usually this is politically motivated by soft brained pseudo-intellectuals. I refer specifically to the way that people with mental retardation problems have been referred to through the years. The people are just as damaged, we can't fix that, but it seems like we have to come up with a new word every few years to describe them. I suppose it is because as we become desensitized to one description, we need to come up with another to resensitize ourselves. It's hard to keep up with, though, when your tendency is to use accepted clinical terms rather than what the political sensitive types treat as a flavour of the week adjective. William Robb
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I'm seriously considering joining the long list of people who's left, >>threatened to leave, or left and come back because honestly, you pissy, >>childlike, and combative attitude is really ruining my enjoyment of a list >>otherwise wide open with knowledge. >> >>Shut up. Please. > >A newsreader with a killfile is a wonderful thing. erm...make that *mail* reader. (I'd just been reading rec.photo.equipment.35mm, where the need for a killfile is even greater.) -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Well, I haven't read the posts that have flooded in the past 30-60mins or so, but am I good at motivating the list, even with disagreements and all that, or what? I'll take Cdn money orders as 'gifts' for stimulating conversation on the list, feel free to contact me off-list (as some have) and I can give you the mailing address Anyhow, hope there isn't too much mail to handle, as I'm going out to see some friends (one is to practice interior decorating shots), watch some varsity hockey, maybe a major-junior A game later and have some brews, and I'll have my camera gear, so while you all discuss equipment and such, I'll be out using mine! Ok, check back in with you all later on, don't give me too much to respond to! ;-) How about those Mazda commercials? 'zoom zoom' :) (For the record, I'll take an old perfect condition Corvette or a brand new one over any Porsche or Jag :)) Almost all in good fun and discussion (even though some of you can be darned stubborn!!! (forgivable) Regards, Brad!
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
As well, you drive around in a Jag enough and it'll become as dull as a Chevy. If many Russians were to try out a Chevy instead of an old beat up Lada, they'd have the same feelings you did with the Jag. Brad. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > You are mixing up the joy of using it, the feel the fine tuning and the > beauty with the end resultâ getting from point A to point B. I doubt anyone > at point B could tell if you arrived in a Jag vs a Chevy. > In a message dated 11/21/02 11:27:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << If something is truly high quality, or really special, the > > difference between it, and the plebian is painfully obvious. > > > William Robb >> >
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Chalk another one up to enablement guys! Just promise to let us in on your answers to Brads eternal questions... > -Original Message- > From: Michael Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 21 November 2002 17:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > OK I'm sold. I'm getting a 77 Limited. > > William Robb wrote: > > >- Original Message ----- > >From: Rob Brigham > >Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > > > > >>Funny everyone who has doubts seems to be someone who hasn't > >> > >> > >tried it. > > > > > >>I am telling you from experience, the difference is clearly > >> > >> > >visible even > > > > > >>at that size. This is why when my wife shows photos I took of > >> > >> > >our > > > > > >>children playing with their friends to people, they > >> > >> > >unknowingly ask for > > > > > >>mainly shots taken with the 77 as reprints/enlargements. The > >> > >> > >ratio is > > > > > >>unbelievable and undeniably meaningful. They never asked for > >>enlargements before. > >> > >> > > > >Since I don't use zooms a whole lot, I can't comment on comparisons > >between zooms and the 77. I can comment on the difference > between the > >77 and the M85mm f/2 (not a highly regarded lens, but as > good as most > >zooms, I expect). > >The difference in quality is visible to the naked eye looking at > >slides on a light box. The difference is glaringly obvious in a > >4x6 print. > > > >William Robb > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
So who has the better definition? Can someone point me to a photographic history book and tell me how 'prime' in relation to lenses came into being? Definitions is really not what we are looking at here, but general usage, and words that can be substituted for them. What prime means in linguistics is irrelevant. My source was a top-notch one of general vocabulary. The authorities who researched and wrote and revised it felt the words I used were the most common substitutions for prime. What we really need here is a real good source of 'prime' in regards to photography. However, in my training, I cannot dismiss the psycho-social underpinnings of using the word to relate to a object that people prize. Brad. - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Thanks, Chris. > You've adequately summed it up. > And, saved me some time trying to explain it to Brad. > > It also means 'underived,' which is yet another good definition, as it > applies to fixed lenses. > > keith whaley > > Chris Stoddart wrote: > > > > Brad sez: > > > Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. > > > Like I said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, select, superior, > > > top, top-quality'. > > > > Brad, > > > > That is just one meaning of the word 'prime'. Another is an undivisable > > number, a 'prime number' in other words (it doesn't mean 'best number' > > :-) ). It's also used in linguistics to mean an undivisible unit. > > > > I suspect it's used in the undivisible sense here; i.e. fixed! > > > > Chris >
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> -Original Message- > From: Pentax Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Well, as I said later, I have a zoom to shoot at ~77mm. You > don't necessarily have to shoot the lens to have a good > informed opinion of it. Yeah but if, as you say, you get conflicting information from different sources, then you DO have to shoot for yourself before you can decide who is right. > Techs of different types know all > sorts of tidbit of information that can be made into an > informed opinion. Trouble is, none of your techs are from Japan. Everybody says how bad Pentax Canada/usa and UK are at knowing what the hell Pentax Japan are up to. Even the Pentax guys you talk to don't really work for Pentax proper - just a distributor in your country. They have no more idea that Pal of what really goes on in Japan ;-)
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
OK I'm sold. I'm getting a 77 Limited. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 Funny everyone who has doubts seems to be someone who hasn't tried it. I am telling you from experience, the difference is clearly visible even at that size. This is why when my wife shows photos I took of our children playing with their friends to people, they unknowingly ask for mainly shots taken with the 77 as reprints/enlargements. The ratio is unbelievable and undeniably meaningful. They never asked for enlargements before. Since I don't use zooms a whole lot, I can't comment on comparisons between zooms and the 77. I can comment on the difference between the 77 and the M85mm f/2 (not a highly regarded lens, but as good as most zooms, I expect). The difference in quality is visible to the naked eye looking at slides on a light box. The difference is glaringly obvious in a 4x6 print. William Robb
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Brad, > > That is really the problem. You have nothing to compare it with. Unless > your techs have shooting experience with the lens, they have the same > problem. If they give you any answer other than "I don't know (assuming > they don't use the lens in question), that should give you a lot of > pause in accepting their credibility on other issues as well. Same goes > for your Instructor. Well, as I said later, I have a zoom to shoot at ~77mm. You don't necessarily have to shoot the lens to have a good informed opinion of it. Techs of different types know all sorts of tidbit of information that can be made into an informed opinion. > Being an authority/expert can be intoxicating, and a common sign of > this intoxication is the willingness to act as an authority/expert even > when straying into unfamiliar territory. It's no sin, it's just human > nature. No kidding, that is a epidemic here. > My own experience with the 77/1.8 is that it is different than my other > good lenses (and I have good lenses). > http://pug.komkon.org/02jan/dad.html is one shot taken with the 77/1.8, > even if no one else can tell a difference between that an another lens, > I can. I use most of my lenses quite regularly and in similar > circumstances. I don't get that result from them when I use them the > same way. Looking through the viewfinder with the 77/1.8 is also a > slightly different experience from doing that with my other good lenses. > > I hope this doesn't sound like I worship the 77/1.8, because I > don't--its focal length isn't a great one for me. If I could get the > same results from my M135/3.5 or my FA 35/2 I'd ecstatic, but I > don't---and I still love them. Doesn't keep me from recognizing a > difference, though. Well, you can look back, but I'm pretty sure I never said it didn't take good pictures, in fact, I think I said it probably took good or superb pictures (that's when I was talking optics, not build quality) > Guess I'm starting to ramble. Rambling is always good! > Hope that makes sense, It did. > Dan Scott Brad
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
But wrong. Sorry guys. - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Good point. > > > -Original Message- > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 21 November 2002 16:16 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: Rob Brigham > > Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > > > > I think it may stem from another definition of prime. That of > > primary. > > > > If you read several definitions of the word prime, the common > > denominator is "one", or "singular". As in one focal length, > > or single focal length. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:27 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > - Original Message - > From: Rob Brigham > Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > I disagree. The Limited lenses are expesive because they are > hand built lenses with no compromises in the design. They use > machined metal where most lenses use injection molded plastic, > which is a much more expensive production method, but makes for > a lens that will maintain it's optical precision for far longer. > There are no compromises in the optical formulaes. They are > designed to give a particular, very high quality image, which is > both difficult and expensive to acheive. > There is no economy of scale with the Limited lenses. They > aren't churning them out by the thousand on a production line. > If you really think they could sell them cheap, but decided to > sell them expensive, thats your prerogative. > By the same token, Rolls Royce could sell their cars for under > 20,000 dollars, if they really wanted to. > > William Robb That is all just pure uniformed speculation William, nothing else.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> > I think it may stem from another definition of prime. That of > primary. > > If you read several definitions of the word prime, the common > denominator is "one", or "singular". > As in one focal length, or single focal length. > > William Robb Definitions eh? Where are you coming up with this stuff? Well, you're wrong in your email. By definition your emails and thought processes are a little off. Not to mention you have really no education and a general ignorance to the situation in Germany during and before WWII. I could see you in a white robe and white pointed hood and mask, or a nice brown shirt or a SS decal on your sleeve. I really wish I was being insulting, but there's too much truth there unfortunately.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Dan I happen to have a few Porsches and diamonds in my lens collection.. Vic In a message dated 11/21/02 11:09:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I think the real problem is one of "if I can't tell the difference between paste and diamonds, there is no difference". Which leads to other problems, of course... Dan Scott >>
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > You are mixing up the joy of using it, the feel the fine tuning and the > beauty with the end resultâ?" getting from point A to point B. I doubt anyone > at point B could tell if you arrived in a Jag vs a Chevy. Life isn't about getting to point B. Life is about the journey. I started at point A. I am still travelling, and have no real desire to get to point B for a good long while. To answer your question though, if they were standing on the driveway, they'd know. William Robb
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
-- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:14 AM -- -- 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 -- Vic, No doubt you bring up good points. I started out usually mostly zooms. Only had a 50mm as my only prime. Many praised me on my shots and I was very happy with the results. I would not hesitate to use any of my Pentax lenses. Especially with their excellent flare control. I have shot Nikon lenses in comparison and shot alongside friends with both Minolta and Canon gear. The one lens I am the least happy about is one where I noted the lack of sharpness on an enlargement I was having made. Noticeable on the slide if I inspect with a loupe, but who views them that way :') That lens is still used when shooting finish line for 'hire'. Nowadays I have been spoiled by using fast lenses and the bright viewfinder it gives me. I also tend to shoot a lot of available light. Probably a good reason why I use my LXen a lot. I will disagree with number 12 though. I own two Limited lenses. I also own an A*300/4. I recently picked up an FA*24/2. I rarely use a tripod. Many have marveled at the shots I have taken - especially sports shots with the A*. I find these lenses worth the cost. I have not thought about the 49 because it is not a focal length I tend to use much. And when I do I usually use the 50/1.2 for speed. But I do agree that as one becomes a better photographer - to whatever standard you wish to use - there is a leaning towards better 'more' gear, faster lens, better feel, specific focal lengths. Cesar Panama City, Florida in Dayton, Ohio
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
You are mixing up the joy of using it, the feel the fine tuning and the beauty with the end result— getting from point A to point B. I doubt anyone at point B could tell if you arrived in a Jag vs a Chevy. In a message dated 11/21/02 11:27:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << If something is truly high quality, or really special, the difference between it, and the plebian is painfully obvious. William Robb >>
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
on 21.11.02 17:47, Heiko Hamann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have an offer to get an MZ-S incl. 24-90 for 1150,- Euro. Much money, > but it seems to be a good price for camera and lens, doesn't it? > Very good price - my combo costed about 1350 Eur. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Rüdiger, on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: >I have both the MZ-S and the MZ-5n. The MZ-S is the far better camera, >the viewfinder is a bit better. (I were glasses) í like the data- >inprinting very much. At first - thank you for a posting that is ontopic ... >I have also both lenses. The new 3.2-4.5 28-105 >is smaller and it cost only about 300 Euro. The 24-90 is overpriced for >it's build quality. I think it specialy expensive in Germany, in Japan >it cost the same as the 28-200 or the old powerzoom 28-105 which mean >400 Euro. That would be a fair price. I got a used one for 350 Euro, so >a bought it. Up to now I could see any differences in the pictures >between this two lenses. at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ >ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=190#Pentax is a test of both. The price is really high. Especially as the build quality doens't appear to be better than that of other consumer zooms. But the 24-90 seems to be optically better. The tests on the webpage that you have mentioned (thanks - I didn't know that page) report better results for the 24-90: the distortion of the 28-105 is bigger and the corner sharpness is poor form 3.2-8 whereas the corner sharpness of the 24-90 is "acceptable" from 3.5-8. I will really have to compare them myself... I have an offer to get an MZ-S incl. 24-90 for 1150,- Euro. Much money, but it seems to be a good price for camera and lens, doesn't it? Regards, Heiko
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: "gfen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one > > calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that > > happening! > > Actually, Brad, I still love you down inside, I just wish you'd stop being > so purposely obnoxious. That is hardly something I'm doing at all gfen. > That said, I'll be glad to add "prime lens" to the list of phrases I added > into the FAQ awhile back. > > However, I'm afraid you'll forever have to deal with camera people of all > brands referring to fixed-focal-length lenses as prime lenses. For years, > I tried to paitently explain to people that what they called "industrial > music" was not, in fact, "industrial music" because it wasn't released on > a given record label. > > It was a losing fight, eventually I gave up, referred to it by a more > correct pigeon hole when I said something, and moved on. Eventually, your > prime-versus-fixed-focal-length crusade will reach this point, as well. > > And, finally, I don't care how advanced the world becomes, a prime lens > (thhpt!) will always be marginally better than a zoom lens based on the > sheer physics of it.. Less glass which can be specifically corrected for a > given length that doesn't need to be optimized for a range of lengths. > Will the difference be noticiable by mortal humans? Probably not, though. > > > -- > http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. > http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. >
Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Which you didn't Ed, and neither did I by responding to you. Brad - Original Message - From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > >I had a feeling we were headed here > >Hold on to your lenses this is going to get ugly.. > >Vic > > Not necessarily. All you need to do is drop the subject. > > Regards, > Ed > > _ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Ah, I shall attempt to do the same thing, Billy Robb really had to reach to keep up with me, and show's his true colours by the end anyhow. Anything long is bound to get caught up. Why are we here anyhow? Geez, it wouldn't be any fun if we couldn't argue and nit-pick. Anyhow, if some of us claim to know as much as we do and what not, then why are we typing emails on a board? Why are you out shooting, shopping, having sex, doing family things, reading a good book, watching Seinfeld re-runs, getting drunk, hitting the town, being with friends, etc, etc. Instead we all spend our time here on this board wasting time. Cause if your good, why do you need to be here so much? You're not going to learn much. Ok, another point here, is the 77Ltd. a cheap mans best lens? Not enough FA* talk for me here, I'm far more interested in that than the other. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Alan I won't respond. It was not based in fact. Just my opinion. People will > pick it apart. That's fine. I'll just sit back and enjoy it and maybe get out > and do some shooting... > Vic > > In a message dated 11/21/02 1:52:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << > >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. > > > > > > I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... > > > > > > >1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. > > > > > > Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best > > > Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? > > > > > > >3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good > > and > > > >sometimes better than Pentax lenses. > > > > > > Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw > > > this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular > > Photography > > > said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and > > colour. > > > Horrible flare control and materials. > > > > > > I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. > > I > > > say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it > > has > > > nothing special optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in > > > no time. > > > > > > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. > > > > > > Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this > > > conclusion? > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > Proof? > > > > > > >7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. > > > > > > Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do > > you > > > mean exactly? > > > > > > >8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as > > much > > > >as shooters. > > > > > > Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you > > > don't know many list members here. > > > > > > >9) The best lenses are the ones you use. > > > > > > That could means many things. > > > > > > >10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . > > > > > > I doubt it. > > > > > > >11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very > > > >expensive lenses. > > > > > > Sharpness is not everything. > > > > > > regards, > > > Alan Chan > > > >> >
Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I fart in your general direction! ;p But... you're mother was a hamster
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> I think it may stem from another definition of prime. That of primary. > I am seriously guessing here, but back in the old days a 50mm was THE > standard lens and could well be thought of as a photographers primary > lens. If course to landscape photographers this may have developed such > that their primary lens was a 28 or something. And sports photogs had a > 300mm primary lens. I agree it may be outdated these days as a standard > lens would be something more like a 28-80 therefore maybe these should > be referred to as prime lenses. However I use prime because it is > easier and fater to type, and is a generally accepted photography term. > Its not someone looking down on you, its just a word - big deal. Yes it's easy faster, but I think the issue behind it are still there, but I wasn't thinking someone was looking down on me, don't worry about that. I don't get into these things over issues such as that! I'm just debating the root or meaning of the word now. > > I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of > > course, the one calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me > > much anymore, so I don't see that happening! > > Many would probably vote for a non-brad clause in the FAQ ;-) But I > don't see either happenning as this is an open discussion board, and > particularly as so many members refer to lenses using this term it would > be unworkable. Personally I object to the use of the FAQ here - dos or > donts are not questions they are commands. Also, many of the questions > are not actually asked frequently, they are supposition based of what > information we wish to impart to all users. Perhaps we should have a > non-FAQ clause and rename the FAQ as SIR for Standard Information > Repository? ;-) Don't be giving anyone any ideas about the FAQ! ;-) That would be interesting, but then, what would anyone talk about? I go out, then come home, go to bed, sleep in, and come back here and there is a massive pile of subjects I started. This board makes me laugh! I think someone has to use a digest form in these cases, or give one reply that includes everyone's general idea! Well, the FAQ is actually useless as a real tool, because anyone established on this board or has just put in their years and have been to meets gets an automatic pass. The unfortunate part is that they represent a good amount of the posters.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one > calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that > happening! Actually, Brad, I still love you down inside, I just wish you'd stop being so purposely obnoxious. That said, I'll be glad to add "prime lens" to the list of phrases I added into the FAQ awhile back. However, I'm afraid you'll forever have to deal with camera people of all brands referring to fixed-focal-length lenses as prime lenses. For years, I tried to paitently explain to people that what they called "industrial music" was not, in fact, "industrial music" because it wasn't released on a given record label. It was a losing fight, eventually I gave up, referred to it by a more correct pigeon hole when I said something, and moved on. Eventually, your prime-versus-fixed-focal-length crusade will reach this point, as well. And, finally, I don't care how advanced the world becomes, a prime lens (thhpt!) will always be marginally better than a zoom lens based on the sheer physics of it.. Less glass which can be specifically corrected for a given length that doesn't need to be optimized for a range of lengths. Will the difference be noticiable by mortal humans? Probably not, though. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Oh ya, I've got a zoom, a SMCP-FA 28-105mm Zoom f/4-5.6 [IF], but is that a fair test (of course assuming I ever see a Ltd.) Brad - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:27 AM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > I havent used them, but both the 50 and the 100 you mention are also > well regarded. You should be able to see the difference clearly between > these and any consumer zoom. Do you have a zoom in the same range? Sat > a 28-70 or such? If so then why do you have the 50 if its not clearly > better? > > I know the problems of having no camera buddies, that's why I am always > on the internet... > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 21 November 2002 02:48 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > I agree Rob, and Rob > > > > I'm interested, I'm looking into the techs here to hear what > > they have to say about the Ltds., build, optics, looks, > > design, cost-relation. But of course after all this chat, > > I'd like to put one on my MZ-S and try it, shoot a roll of > > Provia 100 F. Other than the FA 50mm f/1.4 I have nothing > > similar to compare it to, unless you think the FA 100mm f/2.8 > > Macro as a normal lens would help? Thoughts? Of course, we > > could figure this all out and I'll never find a place that > > stocks one, and I have zero camera friends here to help. Any > > of my buddies ideas of photography is hire a pro, borrow me, > > or buy a disposable. :/ > > > > Brad. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:39 PM > > Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > > On 21 Nov 2002 at 0:22, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > > > > > I don't know how to educate people that think like this. > > It is not > > > > a question of being demanding, but of seeing the proof of the > > > > pudding. Unfortunately Pentax marketing precludes this experience > > > > from many. > > > > > > Once you've spent a little time here (PDML) you learn to listen to > > > many > > posters > > > opinions, they are often far more valuable than any > > published review > > > or independent MTF tests. IOW the closest thing to hands on testing > > > with out > > the > > > feel of cold metal in your hands. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > > > > > > >
Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I fart in your general direction! ;p - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:48 AM Subject: Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > - Original Message - > From: Pentax Guy Subject: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: > Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > So where did you look that up William? I myself used a rather > heavy Oxford > > Thesaurus, larger than most big dictionaries. We know Oxford > is where it's > > at if you using real English English. I wonder, what did you > leave out of > > yours? I did not edit mine at all, it was there, word for > word, thesaurus > > to mail. > > Mirriam's online. You aren't worth more effort than that. > > > > > Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several > > > million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one > > > person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. > > > > Uhh...right, so because of that, it must be true. So during > WWII the major > > of German people were correct in their support and action > towards other > > minority or disabled people? > > Good one. A very logical jump from the definition of a word to > the Holocaust. I applaud you. > Seriously though, its pretty much been decided that the Nazi > atrocities were the acts of a small but very powerful section of > the population of Germany, which, at the time, was a fairly > small percentage of the total population of the planet. > > > > > Retarded people are now referred to as "challenged", though > they > > > used to get the label "dodo". > > > > William, really, look at the FAQ, go to a government website, > or the UN > > site, or any civil and human rights website. You should know > better, but > > perhaps you don't, but the disabled persons you mentioned, > officially (for > > the Canada 2001 Summer Games) are wrong. As a volunteer for > the event, she > > was given words not to use when addressing disabled persons, > and both were > > not to be said or tolerated. > > Really? They've changed the accepted adjective again? > It doesn't surprise me, but I think it a bit silly. > > > > I bet I know what you call African-Americans to your buddies. > > The "African-Americans" I know personally, I call Henry, and > Luther. I tend not to label people by race or skin colour. It's > never been my way to make an issue of it. > > > > > Herb was an angel compared to you. In photography, try and be > a little more > > open-minded and less rigid. In life, please seek to reform > your poor > > attitude, and try and be a little more sensitive to others, > and practice > > toleration. I really hope no one on this list that has a > child with > > developmental difficulties, that's something they shouldn't > see or hear at > > any time or place. > > You lack the credibility to be lecturing anyone. > > William Robb > >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Fred, you obviously took it in the spirit it was intended. Hell, I don't even agree with everything if you take it to the nth degree. Just generalizations worth pondering. I think a lot of people here feel they need to pick everything apart and come up with an example to prove someone wrong. I'm not going to respond to some of the responses that attack me and what I had to say. That's how the on-line battles begin... Vic In a message dated 11/21/02 8:22:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I also reacted in a basically positive manner to the summary, even publicly admitting to my guilt on several of the points (without ever being so forthright as to admit to which ones they are, though - ), and I've been a little surprised at some of the negative reactions to the summary. Oh sure, I disagree a bit with some of the points, too, but sometimes those of us who are immutable "gear junkies" still should have to hear an opposing viewpoint once in a while (even if it results in only some all-too-temporary guilt before we revert back to the dark pathway of rare glass addiction once again - . Ultimately, though, if there has to be a choice (and I would hope that such a choice would ~never~ have to be made) as to whether ~equipment~ or ~images~ are the more appropriate fodder for discussion here, I would have to come down on the side of the EQUIPMENT. After all, general photography fora are all over the internet, while the PDML (as in PENTAX DISCUSSION mailing list) is the main ~PENTAX~ forum available, and, as such, there should be no attempt ever to ban the seriously trivial pursuit of Pentax minutiae here. [Please pardon my lame use of a couple of Latin plural forms in a blatant but futile attempt to lend some false credibility to my argument.] But I digress... ;-) Fred >>
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I agree Paul. I wrote it tongue in cheek bacause I fear I've become a collector in the worst of ways Thank God I still find time to shoot once in a while... Vic In a message dated 11/21/02 6:31:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Amen. An excellent summary of what most of us know to be true. However, I still lust for expensive and rare glass. It's an addiction, but a pleasant one. Paul Stenquist >>
Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I had a feeling we were headed here Hold on to your lenses this is going to get ugly.. Vic
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I know, I read all about them. There are exceptions to any rule.. Vic In a message dated 11/21/02 1:53:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << My Lx's were pretty expensive too. Have I told you about my LX's? William Robb >>
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Alan I won't respond. It was not based in fact. Just my opinion. People will pick it apart. That's fine. I'll just sit back and enjoy it and maybe get out and do some shooting... Vic In a message dated 11/21/02 1:52:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > >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. > > I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... > > >1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. > > Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? > > >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. > > Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best > Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? > > >3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and > >sometimes better than Pentax lenses. > > Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw > this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. > > >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. > > I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography > said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. > > I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. > Horrible flare control and materials. > > I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I > say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. > > I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has > nothing special optically. > > I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in > no time. > > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. > > Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this > conclusion? > > >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. > > Proof? > > >7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. > > Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do you > mean exactly? > > >8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much > >as shooters. > > Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you > don't know many list members here. > > >9) The best lenses are the ones you use. > > That could means many things. > > >10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . > > I doubt it. > > >11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very > >expensive lenses. > > Sharpness is not everything. > > regards, > Alan Chan > >>
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Brad sez: > Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. > Like I said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, select, superior, > top, top-quality'. Brad, That is just one meaning of the word 'prime'. Another is an undivisable number, a 'prime number' in other words (it doesn't mean 'best number' :-) ). It's also used in linguistics to mean an undivisible unit. I suspect it's used in the undivisible sense here; i.e. fixed! Chris
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Funny everyone who has doubts seems to be someone who hasn't tried it. >I am telling you from experience, the difference is clearly visible even >at that size. This is why when my wife shows photos I took of our >children playing with their friends to people, they unknowingly ask for >mainly shots taken with the 77 as reprints/enlargements. The ratio is >unbelievable and undeniably meaningful. They never asked for >enlargements before. I don't have the 77 Limited but I do have the 43mm and I can often tell which shots on one roll of film were shot with this lens just looking at the slides on a light table. Obviously, I can't see the difference in sharpness at this level but the Limited shots do stand out because of the so-called "three dimensionality" and possibly the color rendition of the lens as well. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Amen. An excellent summary of what most of us know to be true. > However, I still lust for expensive and rare glass. It's an > addiction, but a pleasant one. I also reacted in a basically positive manner to the summary, even publicly admitting to my guilt on several of the points (without ever being so forthright as to admit to which ones they are, though - ), and I've been a little surprised at some of the negative reactions to the summary. Oh sure, I disagree a bit with some of the points, too, but sometimes those of us who are immutable "gear junkies" still should have to hear an opposing viewpoint once in a while (even if it results in only some all-too-temporary guilt before we revert back to the dark pathway of rare glass addiction once again - . Ultimately, though, if there has to be a choice (and I would hope that such a choice would ~never~ have to be made) as to whether ~equipment~ or ~images~ are the more appropriate fodder for discussion here, I would have to come down on the side of the EQUIPMENT. After all, general photography fora are all over the internet, while the PDML (as in PENTAX DISCUSSION mailing list) is the main ~PENTAX~ forum available, and, as such, there should be no attempt ever to ban the seriously trivial pursuit of Pentax minutiae here. [Please pardon my lame use of a couple of Latin plural forms in a blatant but futile attempt to lend some false credibility to my argument.] But I digress... ;-) Fred
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I have a friend in London who steadfastly refuses to learn even the most basic of computer terminology. The result is that when he asks for help, often, its difficult if not impossible to understand his problem. If often takes half a dozen emails to discover what he means. Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. Like > I > said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, > select, superior, top, top-quality'.< > > we still talk about glass when many lenses don't use glass in some of their > elements. prime means something to you that it doesn't mean to anyone else > who bothers to learn about photography and communicating with other > photographers instead of trying to fit photography into their preconceived > ideas. you are arguing for the sake of arguing. > > Herb... >
Re: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Pentax Guy Subject: Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > So where did you look that up William? I myself used a rather heavy Oxford > Thesaurus, larger than most big dictionaries. We know Oxford is where it's > at if you using real English English. I wonder, what did you leave out of > yours? I did not edit mine at all, it was there, word for word, thesaurus > to mail. Mirriam's online. You aren't worth more effort than that. > > > Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several > > million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one > > person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. > > Uhh...right, so because of that, it must be true. So during WWII the major > of German people were correct in their support and action towards other > minority or disabled people? Good one. A very logical jump from the definition of a word to the Holocaust. I applaud you. Seriously though, its pretty much been decided that the Nazi atrocities were the acts of a small but very powerful section of the population of Germany, which, at the time, was a fairly small percentage of the total population of the planet. > > > Retarded people are now referred to as "challenged", though they > > used to get the label "dodo". > > William, really, look at the FAQ, go to a government website, or the UN > site, or any civil and human rights website. You should know better, but > perhaps you don't, but the disabled persons you mentioned, officially (for > the Canada 2001 Summer Games) are wrong. As a volunteer for the event, she > was given words not to use when addressing disabled persons, and both were > not to be said or tolerated. Really? They've changed the accepted adjective again? It doesn't surprise me, but I think it a bit silly. > > I bet I know what you call African-Americans to your buddies. The "African-Americans" I know personally, I call Henry, and Luther. I tend not to label people by race or skin colour. It's never been my way to make an issue of it. > > Herb was an angel compared to you. In photography, try and be a little more > open-minded and less rigid. In life, please seek to reform your poor > attitude, and try and be a little more sensitive to others, and practice > toleration. I really hope no one on this list that has a child with > developmental difficulties, that's something they shouldn't see or hear at > any time or place. You lack the credibility to be lecturing anyone. William Robb
Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Bwhahaha! Love the email. You know, children tend to be cruel, and I got all sorts of variations on my name as a kid, now, my friends call me all sorts of even worse ones. You picked one used before here, not very original and not the best one if you want to act like a child. > Hey Dodo > Prime also means: > " YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, > pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness So where did you look that up William? I myself used a rather heavy Oxford Thesaurus, larger than most big dictionaries. We know Oxford is where it's at if you using real English English. I wonder, what did you leave out of yours? I did not edit mine at all, it was there, word for word, thesaurus to mail. > Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several > million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one > person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. Uhh...right, so because of that, it must be true. So during WWII the major of German people were correct in their support and action towards other minority or disabled people? > Retarded people are now referred to as "challenged", though they > used to get the label "dodo". William, really, look at the FAQ, go to a government website, or the UN site, or any civil and human rights website. You should know better, but perhaps you don't, but the disabled persons you mentioned, officially (for the Canada 2001 Summer Games) are wrong. As a volunteer for the event, she was given words not to use when addressing disabled persons, and both were not to be said or tolerated. I bet I know what you call African-Americans to your buddies. Herb was an angel compared to you. In photography, try and be a little more open-minded and less rigid. In life, please seek to reform your poor attitude, and try and be a little more sensitive to others, and practice toleration. I really hope no one on this list that has a child with developmental difficulties, that's something they shouldn't see or hear at any time or place. Brad. > > Hey Robb, > > Hey Dodo > Prime also means: > " YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, > pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness > > I see you in there somewhere, after adolescence, but before > puberty. > Just an observation from someone who knows goats. > > Like I said, it's just a word that got applied to a specific > lens type. > Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several > million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one > person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. > > A prime lens will meet the narrow minded criteria you have > selected as the one true meaning of the word far more often than > any other lens type (I guess that would be zoom, but could also > be varifocal, or even convertable). > Why would the term get changed? Its just a word. > Perhaps you are right, sometimes we arbitrarily start to use new > words to describe the same old thing. > Retarded people are now referred to as "challenged", though they > used to get the label "dodo". > Cheers > > William Robb >
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> we still talk about glass when many lenses don't use glass in some of their > elements. prime means something to you that it doesn't mean to anyone else > who bothers to learn about photography and communicating with other > photographers instead of trying to fit photography into their preconceived > ideas. you are arguing for the sake of arguing. > > Herb... What a rude post! The truth hurts sometimes Herb? I never argued, I discussed and so did the others. Sorry Herb, but you are wrong, and you are just speculating on my preconceived ideas, funny, I didn't think I had any on the issue or thought of it until you wrote it.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > London, ON is great!!! You can also say that rare and selling to a smaller > amount of buyers will make anything, lens or a speciality kite of wood and > nylon, expensive, completely dropping the quality issue. You can, but thats beside the point. You have already indicated you wouldn't recognize a good lens if it bit your eyes out, so how you can make such a specious arguement with people who are demanding to the point of zealotry is beyond me. William Robb
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Despite the remarks against the post, it was a very good common sense post *and* a nice fresh approach in an email that none of us has come up with to date. Brad - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:16 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > >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. > > I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... > > >1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. > > Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? > > >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. > > Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best > Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? > > >3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and > >sometimes better than Pentax lenses. > > Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw > this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. > > >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. > > I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography > said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. > > I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. > Horrible flare control and materials. > > I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I > say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. > > I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has > nothing special optically. > > I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in > no time. > > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. > > Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this > conclusion? > > >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. > > Proof? > > >7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. > > Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do you > mean exactly? > > >8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much > >as shooters. > > Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you > don't know many list members here. > > >9) The best lenses are the ones you use. > > That could means many things. > > >10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . > > I doubt it. > > >11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very > >expensive lenses. > > Sharpness is not everything. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
That all makes sense. Two comments. One, the bulk of this list doesn't post, correct? Lurkers? So they are just watching and learning, and I would suspect, but have no proof, that they are beginners as well and would profit by this information. Second comment: To add lucky 13 to Vic's list. A $10 filter you may not know how to use/when to use, can turn a $300 or $3000 lens into a $10 lens. (Or so has been drilled into me by everyone I talk to, personally or Internet) Brad - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:14 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > 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 >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Alan Chan Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > >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. > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. My Lx's were pretty expensive too. Have I told you about my LX's? William Robb
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. Like I said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, select, superior, top, top-quality'.< we still talk about glass when many lenses don't use glass in some of their elements. prime means something to you that it doesn't mean to anyone else who bothers to learn about photography and communicating with other photographers instead of trying to fit photography into their preconceived ideas. you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Herb...
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Hey Robb, Hey Dodo Prime also means: " YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness I see you in there somewhere, after adolescence, but before puberty. Just an observation from someone who knows goats. Like I said, it's just a word that got applied to a specific lens type. Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. A prime lens will meet the narrow minded criteria you have selected as the one true meaning of the word far more often than any other lens type (I guess that would be zoom, but could also be varifocal, or even convertable). Why would the term get changed? Its just a word. Perhaps you are right, sometimes we arbitrarily start to use new words to describe the same old thing. Retarded people are now referred to as "challenged", though they used to get the label "dodo". Cheers William Robb > > Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. Like I > said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, > select, superior, top, top-quality'. A fixed-focused/prime lens does not > always meet the criteria. It's antiquated, perhaps like the illusion of > metal beats plastic. Hopefully in our ever expanding digital world (not > limited to cameras), and with the increasing plastics coming online to > replace metal that is hundreds, thousands of years old, people will drop the > 'prime' business. It may very well be a accepted term in photography, but > 1) it doesn't make it correct 2) I bet there are underlying psycho-social > elements in using such a term. For instance, how did it originate in > photography? Prime is quite pretentious. > > I grant the fact that the majority of sales are not to professionals, but to > people who just want a camera or are amateurs. Most do not understand much > about photography, and like the Auto or Program settings. A 'zoom' lens > would of course be appealing to them, and in the entry-level, they do tend > to be inferior, even to many 35mm PnS cameras with good optics and power > zooming. > > Regards, > > Brad > - Original Message - > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:49 PM > Subject: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > - 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. > > > > The accepted 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 > > > > > >
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. Well, but for the one, it's hard to say if the other 2 are experts. > 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 London, ON is great!!! You can also say that rare and selling to a smaller amount of buyers will make anything, lens or a speciality kite of wood and nylon, expensive, completely dropping the quality issue. Brad
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
>> [snip] These are all my opinion---not bothering with any facts. [snip] > Vic, > Very well said! > Michael Cross (new list member) Indeed. Fred (guilty on most counts - )
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
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. I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... 1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? 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. Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? 3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and sometimes better than Pentax lenses. Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. 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. I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. Horrible flare control and materials. I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has nothing special optically. I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in no time. I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this conclusion? 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. Proof? 7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do you mean exactly? 8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much as shooters. Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you don't know many list members here. 9) The best lenses are the ones you use. That could means many things. 10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . I doubt it. 11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very expensive lenses. Sharpness is not everything. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hey Robb, Well, then there is something lacking in the photographic community. Like I said prime means 'best, first-class, foremost, select, superior, top, top-quality'. A fixed-focused/prime lens does not always meet the criteria. It's antiquated, perhaps like the illusion of metal beats plastic. Hopefully in our ever expanding digital world (not limited to cameras), and with the increasing plastics coming online to replace metal that is hundreds, thousands of years old, people will drop the 'prime' business. It may very well be a accepted term in photography, but 1) it doesn't make it correct 2) I bet there are underlying psycho-social elements in using such a term. For instance, how did it originate in photography? Prime is quite pretentious. I grant the fact that the majority of sales are not to professionals, but to people who just want a camera or are amateurs. Most do not understand much about photography, and like the Auto or Program settings. A 'zoom' lens would of course be appealing to them, and in the entry-level, they do tend to be inferior, even to many 35mm PnS cameras with good optics and power zooming. Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > ----- 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. > > The accepted 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 > >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Vic, Very well said! Michael Cross (new list member) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
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
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- 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 > > > > >
Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- 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. The accepted 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
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
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 >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> I would say if you hadn't used any high quality primes but still decided to > pass some quick conclusion. There is not much to discuss really. I am not > saying whether your point is correct or not, just the lack of experience or > proof. > > regards, > Alan Chan Hey Alan, Well, yes, we can have our opinions yes, ill-informed or informed. Wish I could try one to be more informed, but I fear I'd have to fly to Japan? 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. It seems be almost be a 'label'. If you want to impress me, talk about FA* lenses and such. Anyone want to argue that a fixed-focal length automatically classes it as superior? Hope not, or wouldn't think so. It's an antiquated word or phrase when zooms first came out and really were *bad*. Hey, we've come a long way baby! I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that happening! Anticipating a response, please no word games with Alan's use of 'high quality primes'. He said that here, but it is not generally said, just assumed, and is incorrect. Anyhow Alan, perhaps there is now more to discuss with this email than what a Limited really is/isn't until I get to try one out. Regards, Brad Dobo
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I agree Rob, and Rob I'm interested, I'm looking into the techs here to hear what they have to say about the Ltds., build, optics, looks, design, cost-relation. But of course after all this chat, I'd like to put one on my MZ-S and try it, shoot a roll of Provia 100 F. Other than the FA 50mm f/1.4 I have nothing similar to compare it to, unless you think the FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro as a normal lens would help? Thoughts? Of course, we could figure this all out and I'll never find a place that stocks one, and I have zero camera friends here to help. Any of my buddies ideas of photography is hire a pro, borrow me, or buy a disposable. :/ Brad. - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > On 21 Nov 2002 at 0:22, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > I don't know how to educate people that think like this. It is not a > > question of being demanding, but of seeing the proof of the pudding. > > Unfortunately Pentax marketing precludes this experience from many. > > Once you've spent a little time here (PDML) you learn to listen to many posters > opinions, they are often far more valuable than any published review or > independent MTF tests. IOW the closest thing to hands on testing with out the > feel of cold metal in your hands. > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
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
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Rob, a good fair email. No attacks or insults. You disagreed a lot. Well that's all fine with me, I don't expect everyone to say 'Ya, you're right'. If someone can post in a friendly adversarial manner (that make sense?) I like that. It's only the emails that some send that tell you how bad you are and how good they are and toss in little insults or similar, those are bad. I wish I had the time to address your email more on a point by point basis. Maybe later tonight, little busy now. 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. Just this quickly: > No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total > so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. I meant the reasons why they are what they are, you'd point to this and that with build, and this and that with optics. That's the 'couple dozen' things. Hope that clears that up. > > If I get a chance to try > > a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but > > don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens > > performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are > > silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm > > Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found > > in the bottom of a box). > > Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its > cover? This part I'm lost on. I have not a clue as to whether that camera is good or bad in it's day or now, just that the limited lens looks very similar to the lens on it. Does this help? If not, explain further please! Regards, Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Can I get into this without any trouble? > area> Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it > > from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a > > hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal > > length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. > > No trouble from me (hopefully). Don't worry about my toes, but 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! You can see every eyelash and hair on someone's face. Its not > being extreme critical, it hits you like a truck its so obvious. > Likewise with the 24, when you can see rocks in the sea below some > cliffs with that, but with another lens its just a blur on the sealine > its pretty obvious. The first time you see it REALLY awakens you, and > you re-evaluate all your kit. > > I dont care about what terminology you wish to use, and pride doesn't > come into it. I have always loved zooms and to this day they are still > my most used lenses. Since the 24-90 first came out in the UK it has > been my number 1 lens and takes between half and 2/3rds of my photos. > Until may(ish) of this year the only prime I had was an old Centon 500mm > mirror which hardly holds any pride for me. When I got the 77ltd I was > absolutely gobsmacked. That's not to say I now look down on my zooms, > and I still use the 24-90 and my Sigma 17-35 for much of my shooting as > it means I don't have to keep changing lenses. However when I get the > chance and can cope with the discipline, I will use the 24 and 77 as > much as possible as they REALLY are in another league. Now this may be > partly due to the fact that the primes I have chosen are top of the > league and I have no doubt that many of the standard primes wouldn't > hold as much appeal for me. > > > Have I used all of > > these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at > > comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My > > eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. > > Know what I mean? > > If/when you use the 77 you will change your view - guaranteed. As I > said above its not a question of being critical - when you see the > difference you will be hit by it. > > > So there is that point and then the > > Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly > > representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love > > with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
I would say if you hadn't used any high quality primes but still decided to pass some quick conclusion. There is not much to discuss really. I am not saying whether your point is correct or not, just the lack of experience or proof. regards, Alan Chan Can I get into this without any trouble? Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. Have I used all of these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. Know what I mean? So there is that point and then the Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I have never owned one or tried one. If I get a chance to try a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found in the bottom of a box). I can see there are times where you want to go 'back-to-basics' and pull out the old mechanical camera and it's old lenses or your Ltds. I can't do that myself, but I like the appeal as a time to time thing. But anyone stupid enough to break a cheap build lens is wealthy enough to buy another one no problems. It's the optics that count anyhow right? (talking 24-90 You wouldn't get those without a case of some sort around it, and I don't think it's duct tape, so it must be good enough.) I think a fair email. If you look where I'm coming from. I don't tow the party line here, I know. Some of you would give your life for your Ltds., so consider me a check and balance, you US folks will like that! :) I don't consider myself expert or have used all the lens, but I believe if you placed them all in my hands, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. Just a speculation! Some are not so critical, some don't need to be. Some don't care. Well, I hope I'm not opening up for an attack against me personally. Just my view, my take. Perhaps looking that others that aren't so demanding but dare not speak out like I do. Maybe they don't want to blow up the shots? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
On 21 Nov 2002 at 0:22, Rob Brigham wrote: > I don't know how to educate people that think like this. It is not a > question of being demanding, but of seeing the proof of the pudding. > Unfortunately Pentax marketing precludes this experience from many. Once you've spent a little time here (PDML) you learn to listen to many posters opinions, they are often far more valuable than any published review or independent MTF tests. IOW the closest thing to hands on testing with out the feel of cold metal in your hands. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> -Original Message- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Can I get into this without any trouble? area> Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it > from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a > hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal > length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. No trouble from me (hopefully). Don't worry about my toes, but 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! You can see every eyelash and hair on someone's face. Its not being extreme critical, it hits you like a truck its so obvious. Likewise with the 24, when you can see rocks in the sea below some cliffs with that, but with another lens its just a blur on the sealine its pretty obvious. The first time you see it REALLY awakens you, and you re-evaluate all your kit. I dont care about what terminology you wish to use, and pride doesn't come into it. I have always loved zooms and to this day they are still my most used lenses. Since the 24-90 first came out in the UK it has been my number 1 lens and takes between half and 2/3rds of my photos. Until may(ish) of this year the only prime I had was an old Centon 500mm mirror which hardly holds any pride for me. When I got the 77ltd I was absolutely gobsmacked. That's not to say I now look down on my zooms, and I still use the 24-90 and my Sigma 17-35 for much of my shooting as it means I don't have to keep changing lenses. However when I get the chance and can cope with the discipline, I will use the 24 and 77 as much as possible as they REALLY are in another league. Now this may be partly due to the fact that the primes I have chosen are top of the league and I have no doubt that many of the standard primes wouldn't hold as much appeal for me. > Have I used all of > these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at > comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My > eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. > Know what I mean? If/when you use the 77 you will change your view - guaranteed. As I said above its not a question of being critical - when you see the difference you will be hit by it. > So there is that point and then the > Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly > representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love > with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two > quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses > of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I > have never owned one or tried one. For myself, it not blind love or ego love or status love. I don't have and am not interested in the 31 or 43 as I don't shoot much at those lengths. They are not wide enough for most of my landscapes and not long enough for my portraits. When I used a zoom, I found I wanted my portaits around 70-90, so I don't care about the 'odd' lengths, as long as its about right. I am truly not caught in some marketing gimmick, and this is more than just an ugly fixed lens - mine is black anyway btw. No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. > If I get a chance to try > a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but > don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens > performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are > silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm > Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found > in the bottom of a box). Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its cover? > I can see there are times where you > want to go 'back-to-basics' and pull out the old mechanical > camera and it's old lenses or your Ltds. I can't do that > myself, but I like the appeal as a time to time thing. Believe me, that's not me. I think you got me all wrong. I am not into old mechanical anything. I am not an LX lover. I like my AF, and get far more good shots using it than I used to without. I am not interested in nostalgia or back to basics or optical theory when it comes to equipment choice - just results and ease of use. > But > anyone stupid enough to break a cheap build lens is wealthy > enough to buy another one no problems. It's the optics that > count anyhow right? That's why I love the 24-90. Some say its overpriced, but that's because the ratio of your money used for optics tversus build is totally out of the norm. The optics are worth every penny and more. > I think a fair email. If you look where I'm coming from. Yes, fair for someone who hasn't seen the light! I was coming from the same place (although perhaps a little more open-mindedly acknowledging where everyone else was coming from too) until a few months ago. > I > don't tow the party line here, I know. Me either,
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hey Rob, Can I get into this without any trouble? Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. Have I used all of these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. Know what I mean? So there is that point and then the Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I have never owned one or tried one. If I get a chance to try a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found in the bottom of a box). I can see there are times where you want to go 'back-to-basics' and pull out the old mechanical camera and it's old lenses or your Ltds. I can't do that myself, but I like the appeal as a time to time thing. But anyone stupid enough to break a cheap build lens is wealthy enough to buy another one no problems. It's the optics that count anyhow right? (talking 24-90 You wouldn't get those without a case of some sort around it, and I don't think it's duct tape, so it must be good enough.) I think a fair email. If you look where I'm coming from. I don't tow the party line here, I know. Some of you would give your life for your Ltds., so consider me a check and balance, you US folks will like that! :) I don't consider myself expert or have used all the lens, but I believe if you placed them all in my hands, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. Just a speculation! Some are not so critical, some don't need to be. Some don't care. Well, I hope I'm not opening up for an attack against me personally. Just my view, my take. Perhaps looking that others that aren't so demanding but dare not speak out like I do. Maybe they don't want to blow up the shots? Brad. - Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > >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. > > Sorry, but this is just a joke. I truly believe the 24-90 to be THE > BEST zoom lens in that range short of the ultra expensive pro f2.8 > models. However, it does not even come close to the 24/2 and not even > in the same city, never mind the same ball park as the 77ltd which is > supposedly neck and neck with the 85/1.4. The difference is clearly > visible even under small enlargements, both in sharpness, contrast and > distortion - all of which it IS truly superb at, just not even close to > these lenses. Whoever said that either needs their eyes tested or they > never used the lenses. > > > > > Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm > > eager to > > read your comment on your first 24-90 results. > > It certainly is worth the money. Not if you look at the build quality - > no money has been spent here. All the money went on the optics which > are stunning. > >
RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> >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. Sorry, but this is just a joke. I truly believe the 24-90 to be THE BEST zoom lens in that range short of the ultra expensive pro f2.8 models. However, it does not even come close to the 24/2 and not even in the same city, never mind the same ball park as the 77ltd which is supposedly neck and neck with the 85/1.4. The difference is clearly visible even under small enlargements, both in sharpness, contrast and distortion - all of which it IS truly superb at, just not even close to these lenses. Whoever said that either needs their eyes tested or they never used the lenses. > > Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm > eager to > read your comment on your first 24-90 results. It certainly is worth the money. Not if you look at the build quality - no money has been spent here. All the money went on the optics which are stunning.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hallo, I have both the MZ-S and the MZ-5n. The MZ-S is the far better camera, the viewfinder is a bit better. (I were glasses) Í like the data-inprinting very much. I have also both lenses. The new 3.2-4.5 28-105 is smaller and it cost only about 300 Euro. The 24-90 is overpriced for it's build quality. I think it specialy expensive in Germany, in Japan it cost the same as the 28-200 or the old powerzoom 28-105 which mean 400 Euro. That would be a fair price. I got a used one for 350 Euro, so a bought it. Up to now I could see any differences in the pictures between this two lenses. at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=190#Pentax is a test of both. Regards Rüdiger -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Heiko Hamann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 20:31 Betreff: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 >Hi Bojidar, > >on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: > >>Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the >>question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For >>example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does >>not suppert. > >You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, >second the lens and after that the camera itself. > >>The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I· see no reason >>at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash· user, >>however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or· less >>irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more· >>important than having an MZ-S.· > >I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm >wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual >focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate >on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want >to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you >could review my posting "Some personal thoughts and speculations over my >Pentax future...", where I've made an extensive explanation of my >intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion > >>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. > >Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to >read your comment on your first 24-90 results. > >Regards, Heiko >
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Bojidar, on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: >Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the >question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For >example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does >not suppert. You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, second the lens and after that the camera itself. >The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I· see no reason >at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash· user, >however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or· less >irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more· >important than having an MZ-S.· I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you could review my posting "Some personal thoughts and speculations over my Pentax future...", where I've made an extensive explanation of my intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion >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. Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to read your comment on your first 24-90 results. Regards, Heiko
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Heiko, > Actually I'm owning the Tamron-built 28-105 in silver which fits > nicely to my MZ-5n. I was just wondering, if it makes sense to > buy a MZ-S with a 24-90 or to use a cheaper 28-105 with the MZ-S. Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash user, however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more important than having an MZ-S. > Please let me know, how you judge the lenses in comparison. BTW - the > old 28-105 Powerzoom is told to be very good. Did you use one and can > you compare it to the other 28-105? 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
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> Both lenses passed the "looks" test. 28-105 looks good on a MZ-5n, 24-90 > looks good on an MZ-S. That's all there is to it! I found that. The SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] in silver, looked great on the MZ-5n and not great on my MZ-S. And the rest of what Wendy said was true about the 24-90. But back to the other... Terrible to focus manually, and it was easier to 'zoom' by just pushing or pulling out the barrel instead of the zoom ring, it was sloppy that way...heh...poor mechanics?
