Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
But for those lenses without integrated hoods there are solutions http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PDML_--_ipth.html :-) (I just wanted an excuse to post that). Rob Studdert wrote: On 15 Mar 2005 at 11:17, Tom C wrote: Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. And is really only designed to complement a full 35mm frame, integrated hoods on 35mm full frame lenses aren't really suitable for use with APS sized sensors. http://www.flexhood.com/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. Tom C.
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Tom C wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. Flower-petal lens hoods are a best comprimise solution. As you know, the image captured by a camera is not circular, it's some sort of rectangle, wider than it is high. By extending the portion at the top and bottom of the hood longer, you get more coverage where possible, without growing the hood to some unacceptably inconvenient size. And of course at the sides, where the film plane is literally capturing a wider portion of the lens's image, the hood, at its specific diameter, must be shorter to prevent vingetting. A round hood of constant length would either have to be of larger diameter, or shorter overall length to avoid causing vingetting in the corners and sides of an image. If it's larger diameter, it becomes both less convenient, and less effective. If it's shorter, it becomes much less effective. By using the petal design you get a narrow enough diameter to be effective at blocking a lot of ambient light, while at the same time remaining conveniently sized, and while avoiding contributing to vingetting.
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:07:03 -0800 Tom C wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. Flower-petal lens hoods are a best comprimise solution. As you know, the image captured by a camera is not circular, it's some sort of rectangle, wider than it is high. By extending the portion at the top and bottom of the hood longer, you get more coverage where possible, without growing the hood to some unacceptably inconvenient size. And of course at the sides, where the film plane is literally capturing a wider portion of the lens's image, the hood, at its specific diameter, must be shorter to prevent vingetting. A round hood of constant length would either have to be of larger diameter, or shorter overall length to avoid causing vingetting in the corners and sides of an image. If it's larger diameter, it becomes both less convenient, and less effective. If it's shorter, it becomes much less effective. By using the petal design you get a narrow enough diameter to be effective at blocking a lot of ambient light, while at the same time remaining conveniently sized, and while avoiding contributing to vingetting.
RE: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Funny, I was wondering about that too, and had come to the conclusion that it was a compromise to help in reaching circular polarizers. (is that why there's a cutout in the bottom of the 18-55 kit lens' hood?) And.. if there's anyone else out there with a 31 ltd (or even a fast 28 or 35) that they're thinking of parting with, I've been looking for some enablement myself. :) j -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:18 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:07:03 -0800 Tom C wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. Flower-petal lens hoods are a best comprimise solution. As you know, the image captured by a camera is not circular, it's some sort of rectangle, wider than it is high. By extending the portion at the top and bottom of the hood longer, you get more coverage where possible, without growing the hood to some unacceptably inconvenient size. And of course at the sides, where the film plane is literally capturing a wider portion of the lens's image, the hood, at its specific diameter, must be shorter to prevent vingetting. A round hood of constant length would either have to be of larger diameter, or shorter overall length to avoid causing vingetting in the corners and sides of an image. If it's larger diameter, it becomes both less convenient, and less effective. If it's shorter, it becomes much less effective. By using the petal design you get a narrow enough diameter to be effective at blocking a lot of ambient light, while at the same time remaining conveniently sized, and while avoiding contributing to vingetting.
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Man.. will you guys all cut out the discussions on the FA 31/1.8 Limited !! I'm doing everything in my power to NOT order one from BH or Adorama... wide angle goodness will be mine but not until later this year :) Currently envious of everyone who's got one, :-) Dave Original Message: - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:17:44 -0700 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:07:03 -0800 Tom C wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. I cannot believe what I just read. Someone getting out of Pentax? If not, why sell this? Well, Tom, congrats on getting it. Joe
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Well, for the seller, it was a lens that was not seeing that much use, so it was matter of getting a return on an idle piece of equipment that could be reinvested. Tom C. From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pdml pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:42:58 -0700 Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. I cannot believe what I just read. Someone getting out of Pentax? If not, why sell this? Well, Tom, congrats on getting it. Joe
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
On Mar 15, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. I cannot believe what I just read. Someone getting out of Pentax? If not, why sell this? No, not getting out of Pentax. It's a lovely lens, its performance is superb. But I found it to be larger and heavier than I wanted to carry very often and decided that it was too expensive an item to leave sitting in the closet. I find the A24/2.8, A28/2.8, and A35/2.8 cover this focal length range adequately for my needs, are more compact, and are smaller, lighter, for me they're more likely to be carried. They're not as sterling a performer as the 31 Ltd, but they work well. The DA16-45 covers this range well too, albeit it's a bit slower. Godfrey
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Tom C wrote: Yesterday I received my FA 31/1.8 Limited. Purchased from another list member who heard my pleas for help in finding one at a decent price. He had one in brand spanking new condition, which I was able to purchase at a reasonable price. A beautiful lens. I'm curious why it has a flower-shaped lens hood with only hooded sections at the top and bottoms, and is not a complete circle. Probably a foolish question to which the answer is obvious. The 35mm negative frame is not circular, it's rectangular. If you ray-trace the 35mm frame out thru the lens, and project it outward (the reverse of how light enters the lens, but for now, allow me that reversal...) you'll find that it projects an ever-widening rectangle as it heads outward, away from the front element. Starting from approximately the O.D. of the lens, where a lens shade might attach, project that cylindrical shape outward until it has intersected the pyramidal wedge which is the light path. You'll see that it cuts the light path in a double scallop shape, top and bottom, and on each side, just like the flower-shaped lens hoods you're asking about. If you had a perfectly cylindrical shape to the lens hood, it would interfere with the incoming light in all the corners, and make them very dark, or occlude the light rays entering there. If that makes no sense, I'll see what I can find to help clarify it... keith whaley
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
On 15 Mar 2005 at 11:17, Tom C wrote: Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. And is really only designed to complement a full 35mm frame, integrated hoods on 35mm full frame lenses aren't really suitable for use with APS sized sensors. http://www.flexhood.com/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Flexhoods for Pentax? (was: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled)
And is really only designed to complement a full 35mm frame, integrated hoods on 35mm full frame lenses aren't really suitable for use with APS sized sensors. http://www.flexhood.com/ Rob Studdert That's bad news for all of us who want to use some of the old lenses on the *istD. What about the A15/3.5 with its integrated hood for instance. There is not even a flexhood for Pentax. Peter
Re: Flexhoods for Pentax? (was: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled)
On 15 Mar 2005 at 23:06, Peter Smekal wrote: That's bad news for all of us who want to use some of the old lenses on the *istD. What about the A15/3.5 with its integrated hood for instance. There is not even a flexhood for Pentax. I guess the market for Pentax gear isn't too significant :-) It's the idea that counts, I've made some up myself using black card. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Rob Studdert mused: On 15 Mar 2005 at 11:17, Tom C wrote: Clear answer... Thanks. I figured it must have to due with possible vignetting, as many wide angle hoods are rectangular. I didn't put two and two together and realize that the petal shape was a deliberate compromise for size. And is really only designed to complement a full 35mm frame, integrated hoods on 35mm full frame lenses aren't really suitable for use with APS sized sensors. http://www.flexhood.com/ The work about as well as they do for the central portion of a 35mm frame. Sure, you could do better with a custom design for the APS-sized sensor. But it's not going to work any worse than it did on a 35mm film camera.
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Keith Waley wrote: The 35mm negative frame is not circular, it's rectangular. Gee Keith. Thanks for clueing me in on that! :) If you ray-trace the 35mm frame out thru the lens, and project it outward (the reverse of how light enters the lens, but for now, allow me that reversal...) you'll find that it projects an ever-widening rectangle as it heads outward, away from the front element. Starting from approximately the O.D. of the lens, where a lens shade might attach, project that cylindrical shape outward until it has intersected the pyramidal wedge which is the light path. You'll see that it cuts the light path in a double scallop shape, top and bottom, and on each side, just like the flower-shaped lens hoods you're asking about. If you had a perfectly cylindrical shape to the lens hood, it would interfere with the incoming light in all the corners, and make them very dark, or occlude the light rays entering there. If that makes no sense, I'll see what I can find to help clarify it... keith whaley Makes Sense. Thanks.
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
On 15 Mar 2005 at 17:24, John Francis wrote: The work about as well as they do for the central portion of a 35mm frame. How is that? Sure, you could do better with a custom design for the APS-sized sensor. But it's not going to work any worse than it did on a 35mm film camera. Extending the hood works much better in fact, saves me from having to hold my hand up to block out the sun even when it's out of frame when I'm using my A15/3.5 on the *ist D. The integrated hood is unquestionably useless. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Flexhoods for Pentax? (was: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled)
What's a flexhood? Thanks Frantisek
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: On 15 Mar 2005 at 17:24, John Francis wrote: The work about as well as they do for the central portion of a 35mm frame. How is that? Well, take the lens, stick it in front on a FF camera, take a picture and crop the centre portion so as to end up with the same result as when taking the picture with the APS-C sensor. The bult-in hood will give you the same protection in both cases, no? Except if we are starting from the premise that the hood was useless on FF anyway. Sure, a longer hood would have been better and is possible with the crop. Kostas
Re: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled
Tom C wrote: Keith Waley wrote: The 35mm negative frame is not circular, it's rectangular. Gee Keith. Thanks for clueing me in on that! :) Yeah, that was sort of stupid, wasn't it? g If you ray-trace the 35mm frame out thru the lens, and project it outward (the reverse of how light enters the lens, but for now, allow me that reversal...) you'll find that it projects an ever-widening rectangle as it heads outward, away from the front element. Starting from approximately the O.D. of the lens, where a lens shade might attach, project that cylindrical shape outward until it has intersected the pyramidal wedge which is the light path. You'll see that it cuts the light path in a double scallop shape, top and bottom, and on each side, just like the flower-shaped lens hoods you're asking about. If you had a perfectly cylindrical shape to the lens hood, it would interfere with the incoming light in all the corners, and make them very dark, or occlude the light rays entering there. If that makes no sense, I'll see what I can find to help clarify it... keith whaley Makes Sense. Thanks. Seriously, I hope it does! keith
Re: Flexhoods for Pentax? (was: FA 31/1.8 Limited Enabled)
Look here: http://www.flexhood.com/ Peter What's a flexhood? Thanks Frantisek
FA 31/1.8 Limited (WAS: 35-70mm f/2.8 and SMCP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited)
Bryan wrote: My second question is whether anyone has the SMCP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited? It seems like a very nice lens. I would be interested in any thoughts about the lens from anyone who owns it or has used it. I have the SMCP FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited and the SMCP FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited and like them both very much. I am wondering if I should add the 31mm. If you like the 43 and 77 Limited you'll love the 31 Limited. The 31 is perhaps the best of the Limited lenses and quite likely the best Pentax wide angle ever. It suffers(?) from quite visible light and sharpness fall-off at the corners wide-open but even so it's sharper at 1.8 than any other Pentax lens I've used at that aperture. It's amazing at F:2.8 and smaller apertures. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
31/1.8 limited and filter.
In a message dated 3/7/02 9:33:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How does the lens cap attach? I'm considering this lens, but looking at the front end design, I wonder if one can leave a filter on and still attach the lens cap. I always leave a skylight on each lens (each lens that takes a front filter, that is), and had planned to put an SMC Skylight on this. Hate to pay $850 for a lens if I can't protect the front element. The lenscap goes OVER the builtin hood/shade. Yes, a filter screws into the front end. I have a BW MC UV on all my lenses and this one is no exceptioin. Standard screwin filter goes on, in the regular manner and stays on. Cap goes over the built in hood. This lens is worth every penny. Probably the single lens I would take on a trip if limited to one prime. Burt NYC USA - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
Popular Photography changed the SQF system recently and scores from past tests are not comparable with the new system - I don't remember when the 35 f2 was tested, but I think that the scores from it and the 31 LTD are on two different scales. The new system was meant to be more stringent. - MCC At 05:20 PM 2/17/02 -0500, you wrote: OK, I looked it up. Just for kicks, here's a comparison by the numbers of their current review of the 31 vs. their review of the 35 F2.0. I'm only giving the numbers at the 20x24 end, since relatively speaking, they are the same in comparison at smaller sizes as well: 31 F1.8 List price = $1,415.00 Measured focal length = 31.81mm Distortion = .45% pincushion F1.8/76.8/C+ F2.8/79.3/B F4.0/81.4/B F5.6/83.9/B F8.0/83.5/B F11.0/81.8/B F16.0/78.1/C+ F22.0/73.5/C+ 35mm F2.0 List price = $498.00 Measured focal length = 33.77mm Distortion = .55% pincushion F2.0/63.6/C F2.8/65.9/C F4.0/91.5/A F5.6/95.3/A+ F8.0/93.2/A F11.0/90.2/A F16.0/89.2/B F22.0/79.2/C+ The 31 may be special, but is it really that special? I'd have to say the 35 compares pretty well to it. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
FA 35. Was: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
I have a scanned copy of their review of the 35mm F2.0 also, and it seems to me they said the same things about this lens. I'll have to compare the numbers and see what that yields. Thanks, Ed Pop Photo reviewed the FA 35 2.0 in Dec. 99. I made it a point to dig it out. It is apparently a very good lens. The MTF numbers are quite high (but, since Pop Photo just changed their testing equipment, current numbers are said to be 5-7% lower). It is slightly weak at f2.0 and 2.8, but that seems to be the main difference from the 31 in terms of sharpness. And even at those apertures, sharpness is probably adequate for moderate enlargements. My right brain is trying to convince my left brain that I can do just fine with the 35. So far the left brain is holding its own. Joe - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
Joseph wrote: There's no article, just reviews of the three prime lenses (including the 31 limited), plus a review of a zoom. And what exactly do they say about this lens? Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
And what exactly do they say about this lens? Just some pointless and meaningless comments, nothing haven't been said before. regards, Alan Chan _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
And what exactly do they say about this lens? Pål - Popular Photography never says that an advertiser's lenses are bad. Still, the writer seemed especially effusive in praising the 31. I go by the numbers in their MTF tests. According to these numbers, the lens is consistently sharp at all apertures from 1.8 to 22. One would have to go to very, very large print sizes to detect a difference by eye. The article also says: well-built, minimal distortion, accurate exposures, light fall-off gone by f2.8. And as we would expect from any Pentax lens, slides were sharp and contrasty, and flare was well-controlled. The article points out that the fixed hood prevents use of square filters. Joe - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
Ed, What does the number between the f/stop and the letter grade stand for? Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I looked it up. Just for kicks, here's a comparison by the numbers of their current review of the 31 vs. their review of the 35 F2.0. I'm only giving the numbers at the 20x24 end, since relatively speaking, they are the same in comparison at smaller sizes as well: 31 F1.8 List price = $1,415.00 Measured focal length = 31.81mm Distortion = .45% pincushion F1.8/76.8/C+ F2.8/79.3/B F4.0/81.4/B F5.6/83.9/B F8.0/83.5/B F11.0/81.8/B F16.0/78.1/C+ F22.0/73.5/C+ 35mm F2.0 List price = $498.00 Measured focal length = 33.77mm Distortion = .55% pincushion F2.0/63.6/C F2.8/65.9/C F4.0/91.5/A F5.6/95.3/A+ F8.0/93.2/A F11.0/90.2/A F16.0/89.2/B F22.0/79.2/C+ The 31 may be special, but is it really that special? I'd have to say the 35 compares pretty well to it. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
lpm Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: RE: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?) Ed, What does the number between the f/stop and the letter grade stand for? Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I looked it up. Just for kicks, here's a comparison by the numbers of their current review of the 31 vs. their review of the 35 F2.0. I'm only giving the numbers at the 20x24 end, since relatively speaking, they are the same in comparison at smaller sizes as well: 31 F1.8 List price = $1,415.00 Measured focal length = 31.81mm Distortion = .45% pincushion F1.8/76.8/C+ F2.8/79.3/B F4.0/81.4/B F5.6/83.9/B F8.0/83.5/B F11.0/81.8/B F16.0/78.1/C+ F22.0/73.5/C+ 35mm F2.0 List price = $498.00 Measured focal length = 33.77mm Distortion = .55% pincushion F2.0/63.6/C F2.8/65.9/C F4.0/91.5/A F5.6/95.3/A+ F8.0/93.2/A F11.0/90.2/A F16.0/89.2/B F22.0/79.2/C+ The 31 may be special, but is it really that special? I'd have to say the 35 compares pretty well to it. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?)
No, it's not lines per millimeter, it's their SQF numbers. SQF is Pop Photo's Subjective Quality Factor. It's a number based on MTF and converted to a system meant to show what you should expect in different size enlargements. It's like a grade in a class you take, where 90 + is an A, 80-89 is a B, etc. It's just meant to make it easier to see where the strengths and weaknesses are, and see how big an enlargement you can make before you lose grade A quality. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of T Rittenhouse Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 8:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?) lpm snip - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: RE: Popular Photography 31/1.8 Limited test (WAS: Re: Pentax a best ever prime lens at Pop?) Ed, What does the number between the f/stop and the letter grade stand for? snip - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
FA 31/1.8 Limited
If my sample of this lens is representative, then this lens will be a somewhat controversial performer. Here are some characteristics. It's very very sharp. It is indeed not that sharp wide open but still better than any other lens I've tried at apertures of 1.8 and faster. I did the test at a landscape focused at infinity. Therefore, there might be some focusing errors as I suspect that the lens focuses slightly past the infinity mark. I cranked the focusing ring ever so slightly away from where it stops at the infinity setting. Focusing bracketing is probably a good idea for more thorough testing. The lens sharpens up considerably half a stop from wide-open; at 2.4 yields a sharp image. At 2.8 the results are very very sharp; perhaps the best performance I've seen at this aperture. Its better than both the 43 and 77 Limited at 2.8. It reaches maximum performance from F: 4 to F:8. There might be an increase in quality from F: 4 to F: 8 but it is so small and inconsequential that I'm not sure I see it at all. Theres a small image degradation at F:11. A further one at F:16 and F: 22 but even at F: 22 it is sharp. However, the lens suffers from two problems: Severe light fall-off at the corners that doesn't really get away until F:4. In fact, this lens has the severest light fall-off I can remember seeing. Its very visible at wider apertures. In addition, it show reduced edge sharpness at apertures wider than F:4. This is also clearly visible; the lens does indeed have a sweet spot in the center in terms of sharpness. I have not tested out the bokeh but I expect it to be excellent. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited; (very) early impressions
Pal, Are you sure it cannot be removed? The Pentax USA site lists it's weight without the hood. When I first got my 43/f.19 I couldn't remove the hood. Pushing downwards on the edge of the lens hood, palm toward the lens, and twisting did the trick.Believe me, it felt like it was in there for good when I tried to twist from the side. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:42 AM Subject: Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited; (very) early impressions Just got the 31 Limited today. Not shot with it yet. It comes in a red leather case (the 43 and 77 comes in brown and green respectively; does the next Limited come in a blue case?). It is the most solid feeling Limited so far. That's says a lot. It's an extremely well finished and solid lens by any standards. The lens is utterly rattle-free. I think the lens is a good investment. Its destined to be a future collectable. Unfortunately the lens hood can NOT be removed. That's quite a suspect feature for a lens that's touted as the perfect landscape lens. It means that you can not use the Cokin system filters on this lens. Of course, you can hold filters like graduated ND's in front of the lens. You can, however, use regular screw-in filters. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 31/1.8 limited
Pål Jensen writes: This is going to ruin me! You want one too, eh? I think I need a second job :( Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: 31/1.8 limited
AAhh, these limiteds. IMO, this is one of the most peculiar lens series ever released. PDML'ers have speculated _a_lot_ over the focal lenghts; everything from complex mathematical models to marketing tricks has been suggested. Mathematically, the 43mm is the correct focal width for a normal lens covering a 36x24mm negative. If there's mathematical reasoning behind 77mm and 31mm, it's beyond me... Maybe it's just a new standard of naming accuracy. I often read lens tests where measured focal length differs from the number on the barrel. I know one thing for sure; just like Pål, the 31mm will ruin me... :-) Jostein -Original Message- From: Peter Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] What is it with these limited lenses? They are all unusual focal lengths. Almost gives the impression that they came across the focal length by accident having tried putting a few stock elements together. Can't imagine that a designer said Hmm there's a gap in the range; think I'll design a 31mm (43mm, 77mm) to fill it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: 31/1.8 limited: moulded glass?
Moulded glass means real asphericals, right? Not the hybrid glass-plus-resin? If what I am saying here is right, what an impressive beast ! Albano --- I think yes, but I know only that they wrote in press release... Den - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
31/1.8 limited
Press release now published: http://www.penta-club.org/penta/news/2001/pentax_lens35_lim_31_eng.shtml 8 moulded-glass aspherical lens elements! Den - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 31/1.8 limited
This is going to ruin me! - Original Message - From: Denis Klimovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:10 PM Subject: 31/1.8 limited Press release now published: http://www.penta-club.org/penta/news/2001/pentax_lens35_lim_31_eng.shtml 8 moulded-glass aspherical lens elements! Den - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
