PESO: 43mm Limited as "Macro" (Part 1)
I tripped across my Olympus IS/L A-Life Size Macro H.Q. Converter f=13cm last night. I haven't done a lot with it since getting it with an Olympus film kit (purchased for around $25 just to get the Olympus converters). This is one of the most sought after and hard-to-find acchromats and is made up of three optical elements that provide +7.7 diopters of correction (while reducing CA and spherical aberations) Anyway, I realized that its 49mm filter thread would make it perfect to try on my Limiteds. So here is a quick set showing the close focusing/shallow DOF of it on the 43mm f1.9 Limited. I've got one image in there also showing the DOF difference between f/1.9 and f/11. https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/sets/72157648726869113/ More info on the Olympus IS/L A-Life Size Macro H.Q. Converter f=13cm (and achromats, in general) for those interested http://www.angelfire.com/planet/seemolf/achromats.html https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/7129383309/ http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html https://ohse.de/uwe/articles/oly-converters.html Plan to try it on the 77mm f1.8 also, and then the Uniplus-25 extension tube with both as well. I'm sort of looking forward to spring and the greenhouses opening up so I can give these concepts a workout with more aestethically pleasing subjects. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
steve harley wrote: On 2015-02-08 20:02 , Darren Addy wrote: Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. one of my favorite beers over a decade or more; stop by when you're in Denver sometime and i'll take you to a few excellent hyperlocal breweries with strong Belgian influences Damn, I thought that was hyperfocal breweries. (curious that you let go of the 35mm Ltd Macro — it's almost always on my camera, but it's not silver) I nearly bought one off of craigslist, but it didn't seem to quite get me enough over my DA40/2.8 ltd, and with the 43 my camera would not fit in my pocket the way it did with the 40 so I passed up the opportunity. There have been several occasions since where I have regretted the decision. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:42 PM, steve harley wrote: > On 2015-02-08 20:02 , Darren Addy wrote: >> >> Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. > > > one of my favorite beers over a decade or more; stop by when you're in > Denver sometime and i'll take you to a few excellent hyperlocal breweries > with strong Belgian influences > > (curious that you let go of the 35mm Ltd Macro — it's almost always on my > camera, but it's not silver) Careful, I may just take you up on that one, Steve! In fact, except for a miscommunication I was supposed to be doing photos at my employer's plastics plant in Hudson, CO today. I understand that New Belgium gives tours up in Ft. Collins (by appointment). That would be fun to do sometime also. Regarding the 35mm Macro Limited, it just didn't blow me away as much as I thought it would and (plus) I usually need a longer working distance for the macro I do. I seem to recall that some other lens came along that I just had to have and pay for (it might have been the Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 Macro with 1:1 converter in PK/A mount, but I'm not sure). -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
On 9 Feb 2015, at 20:42, steve harley wrote: > >> On 2015-02-08 20:02 , Darren Addy wrote: >> Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. > > one of my favorite beers over a decade or more; stop by when you're in Denver > sometime and i'll take you to a few excellent hyperlocal breweries with > strong Belgian influences > http://unhappyhipsters.com/post/97114574846/i-try-my-best-to-only-drink-beer-that-has-been B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
On 2015-02-08 20:02 , Darren Addy wrote: Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. one of my favorite beers over a decade or more; stop by when you're in Denver sometime and i'll take you to a few excellent hyperlocal breweries with strong Belgian influences (curious that you let go of the 35mm Ltd Macro — it's almost always on my camera, but it's not silver) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
Congrats, Darren! I have 77/1.8 and 31/1.8 Limiteds. I am very happy with both of them (although in different ways: they have very different characters). While those are obviously faster lenses compared to what I have for that focal length, the rendering I get from both is much better than what I get from the other lenses. I've never had the 43mm, as it happens to be in less useful range of the focal length. (My 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 are much less used on APS-C bodies, especially since I've got 31 and 77mm.) If that's a good focal length for you, I would guess you'd enjoy that lens. I don't have any strong opinion about black vs. silver. I might have preferred a silver one for the 77, but for no particular reason. I remember that when those lenses just came on the market, everybody seemed wanting the black ones, and then the trend reversed. Both of mine are black and made in Vietnam, and I don't know if MIJ are better, but I am happy with mine. The only thing I wish they had is the quick-shift focus. Igor On 2/8/2015 10:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. :) I know that this group would gladly push a fellow down the slippery slope, but I just took the plunge and snagged my first "Made in Japan" silver Limited, the 43m f/1.9, serial no. 0003290 with hood and original caps. Good Lord is it beautiful. I had a 35mm macro limited (briefly) but fairly quickly sold it. So this will be my first Silver Limited ever and is in a focal length that fills a gap that is only covered (now) by my Pentax DA 16-45mm zoom. I'm curious to see if it will be a keeper. Given that is is a MIJ early serial no. I don't think I will have any trouble recouping my investment if for some reason I wish to turn it. Most of my "good" AF lenses are Sigma EX (not Pentax) so I'm curious to see how much I fall in love with this lens. The other Limited that would be on my "want list" is the 77mm f1.8. In any event, with the FF Pentax coming, this is probably not a bad time to snag good deals on FA Limiteds. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
Thanks for the encouragement, P.J. ! Now I just need to bide my time while it crosses the sea from Japan. There are certainly plenty of drool-worthy example produced with this lens on PentaxPhotoGallery: http://pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=1120 and Flickriver: http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/pentax/smcpfa43mmf19/ Cue Carly Simon's "Anticipation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NwP3wes4M8 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:11 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > Mine's got the serial number 3914 and I lost the original front cap > somewhere about 5 years ago. I do have the original soft pouch somewhere. > It makes a nearly perfect longish normalish lens on the K-5II. I think that > anyone who doesn't love this lens simply doesn't understand it. > > > On 2/8/2015 10:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: >> >> Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. >> :) >> I know that this group would gladly push a fellow down the slippery >> slope, but I just took the plunge and snagged my first "Made in Japan" >> silver Limited, the 43m f/1.9, serial no. 0003290 with hood and >> original caps. Good Lord is it beautiful. >> >> I had a 35mm macro limited (briefly) but fairly quickly sold it. So >> this will be my first Silver Limited ever and is in a focal length >> that fills a gap that is only covered (now) by my Pentax DA 16-45mm >> zoom. I'm curious to see if it will be a keeper. Given that is is a >> MIJ early serial no. I don't think I will have any trouble recouping >> my investment if for some reason I wish to turn it. >> >> Most of my "good" AF lenses are Sigma EX (not Pentax) so I'm curious >> to see how much I fall in love with this lens. The other Limited that >> would be on my "want list" is the 77mm f1.8. >> >> In any event, with the FF Pentax coming, this is probably not a bad >> time to snag good deals on FA Limiteds. >> > > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
Mine's got the serial number 3914 and I lost the original front cap somewhere about 5 years ago. I do have the original soft pouch somewhere. It makes a nearly perfect longish normalish lens on the K-5II. I think that anyone who doesn't love this lens simply doesn't understand it. On 2/8/2015 10:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. :) I know that this group would gladly push a fellow down the slippery slope, but I just took the plunge and snagged my first "Made in Japan" silver Limited, the 43m f/1.9, serial no. 0003290 with hood and original caps. Good Lord is it beautiful. I had a 35mm macro limited (briefly) but fairly quickly sold it. So this will be my first Silver Limited ever and is in a focal length that fills a gap that is only covered (now) by my Pentax DA 16-45mm zoom. I'm curious to see if it will be a keeper. Given that is is a MIJ early serial no. I don't think I will have any trouble recouping my investment if for some reason I wish to turn it. Most of my "good" AF lenses are Sigma EX (not Pentax) so I'm curious to see how much I fall in love with this lens. The other Limited that would be on my "want list" is the 77mm f1.8. In any event, with the FF Pentax coming, this is probably not a bad time to snag good deals on FA Limiteds. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Enablement: Bottom feeder purchases 43mm Limited SILVER (MIJ)
Friends don't let friend drink New Belgium Trippels and surf eBay. :) I know that this group would gladly push a fellow down the slippery slope, but I just took the plunge and snagged my first "Made in Japan" silver Limited, the 43m f/1.9, serial no. 0003290 with hood and original caps. Good Lord is it beautiful. I had a 35mm macro limited (briefly) but fairly quickly sold it. So this will be my first Silver Limited ever and is in a focal length that fills a gap that is only covered (now) by my Pentax DA 16-45mm zoom. I'm curious to see if it will be a keeper. Given that is is a MIJ early serial no. I don't think I will have any trouble recouping my investment if for some reason I wish to turn it. Most of my "good" AF lenses are Sigma EX (not Pentax) so I'm curious to see how much I fall in love with this lens. The other Limited that would be on my "want list" is the 77mm f1.8. In any event, with the FF Pentax coming, this is probably not a bad time to snag good deals on FA Limiteds. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > On 12/14/2011 10:54 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> ... went for an M-Rokkor >> 40mm f/2 instead (identical to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 I had with my >> CL once upon a time). > > I'm lost here. It sounds like there is some interesting lens mount > compatibility issues going on here. Could someone please give me a brief > explanation? > > Rokkor is Minolta, did they make lenses for Leica? In the 1970s, Leica and Minolta collaborated on a smaller, less expensive M-bayonet rangefinder camera. The camera and lenses were a shared effort. The original body was designed by Leica, with Minolta assistance, and manufactured by Minolta. It was branded "Leica / Minolta CL" in some markets and in other markets was sold as "Leica CL". A 40mm f/2 and a 90mm f/4 lens were designed for it, both by Leica. The 40mm lens was named Summicron-C for the Leica branded packages and carried the Leica name and filter ring design; it was manufactured in Wetzlar. The same lens design was named "M-Rokkor" for the Leitz/Minolta packages and carried a JIS standard filter thread; it was manufactured by Minolta. The 90mm f/4 lens was built entirely in Wetzlar by Leica, with one bezel naming it the Elmar-C and with a Leica filter thread, the other bezel naming it "M-Rokkor" and a JIS filter thread. There were QA problems for Leica with the bodies which ultimately caused Leica to cease selling the camera, but Minolta had the rights to continue development and production of the camera. After Leica pulled out, Minolta introduced a re-designed body named the "Minolta CLE". They updated the 40mm f/2 lens design with multi-coating and continued to manufacture it as the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2, Leica continued production of the M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 for a time. Minolta also introduced an M-Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 which was entirely their own design and manufactured in Japan. IIRC, the Minolta CLE and its lenses were discontinued about 1981. See http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm and http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm for more detail. I had a Leica CL with the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 and the Elmar-C 90mm f/4 once upon a time. It was a great camera, I'm sure frank will concur. When I was acquiring lenses for the GXR-M, I immediately thought of the Summicron-C and Elmar-C lenses as they are the right focal lengths and are very compact. I bought one of the M-Rokkor 90mm lenses first because of the JIS filter (a standard 40.5mm filter thread is used, instead of the Leica DIN spec threads which are hard to get) and because it is identical to the Leica lens, built on the same production line. I went for one of the second series, multicoated M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 lenses later, mostly because I was curious how it compared both to the Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC which I already had and also to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 I had in the past, but also because I now have more than one M-bayonet body and this is a focal length I find very desirable on both. (That was about the same time as I was casting about looking for a Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limited...) Performance-wise, the M-Rokkor 40/2 matches the look and quality I see in my older Summicron-C 40/2 photos perfectly. Comparing to the Nokton 40/1.4, the Nokton's rendering is slightly harder-edged at f/1.4, they are almost identical at f/2, and by f/2.8 and smaller apertures they are so close as to be identical. The Summicron-C/M-Rokkor f/2 lenses are very small, having been purpose designed for the short mount register of the M-bayonet rangefinder cameras with no mirror to clear behind them. The Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limited is a transposition of the same optics in the FA43/1.9 Limited into an M-bayonet lens mount, as a result it's about twice the size and half again the weight of the 40mm lenses. I'd still like one anyway! :-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > I'm lost here. It sounds like there is some interesting lens mount > compatibility issues going on here. Could someone please give me a brief > explanation? > > Rokkor is Minolta, did they make lenses for Leica? > Minolta made a rangefinder (Minolta CLE) which had the M mount as part of some x-deal-something with Leica back in the 70s (Leica R3 SLR was based on Minolta XD). -- Bong Manayon http://bong.manayon.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
Pentax made a Leica-mount version of the 43/1.9 limited. On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:08 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > On 12/14/2011 10:54 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> Yeah, I saw that and thought it was pretty silly. >> >> I hunted and found two Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limiteds available on Ebay. >> One in the box as original from China at about $1000 and the other the >> lens only for about $800. I was very tempted, but went for an M-Rokkor >> 40mm f/2 instead (identical to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 I had with my >> CL once upon a time). Mostly because it's a LOT lighter and smaller, >> as well as being a bit less expensive ... and I know it very well. > > I'm lost here. It sounds like there is some interesting lens mount > compatibility issues going on here. Could someone please give me a brief > explanation? > > Rokkor is Minolta, did they make lenses for Leica? > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
On 12/14/2011 10:54 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yeah, I saw that and thought it was pretty silly. I hunted and found two Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limiteds available on Ebay. One in the box as original from China at about $1000 and the other the lens only for about $800. I was very tempted, but went for an M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 instead (identical to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 I had with my CL once upon a time). Mostly because it's a LOT lighter and smaller, as well as being a bit less expensive ... and I know it very well. I'm lost here. It sounds like there is some interesting lens mount compatibility issues going on here. Could someone please give me a brief explanation? Rokkor is Minolta, did they make lenses for Leica? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
Yeah, I saw that and thought it was pretty silly. I hunted and found two Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limiteds available on Ebay. One in the box as original from China at about $1000 and the other the lens only for about $800. I was very tempted, but went for an M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 instead (identical to the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 I had with my CL once upon a time). Mostly because it's a LOT lighter and smaller, as well as being a bit less expensive ... and I know it very well. G On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113676 > > But then they couldn't have posted that. > > -- > Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid > a lengthily search. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
They could have just looked for a 43mm limited in M mount...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113676 But then they couldn't have posted that. -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wanted 43mm limited lens cap.
Actually the cap, which on the 43mm limited, slides on over the front of the lens hood, is almost exactly the same size as the metal slip on hoods on lenses with 52mm filter threads. The caps that are almost the same size of a film cap are for the DA 40mm lens. I don't happen to have one of those. On 11/21/2011 1:11 PM, George Sinos wrote: That cap is almost exactly the diameter of an old plastic 35mm film container. I bet some "crafty" person could make a cap. GS George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jim King wrote: P. J. Alling wrote on Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:54:35 -0800 Yes, I lost the damned thing. Anyone with a spare that they're willing to sell, barter, trade, or give away outright, can contact me off or on for the amusement of the kiddies, on list. B&H has this lens cap listed: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161976-REG/Pentax_31703_49mm_Metal_Lens_Cap.html At $44.00 it ain't cheap, but what can you do? Regards, Jim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wanted 43mm limited lens cap.
That cap is almost exactly the diameter of an old plastic 35mm film container. I bet some "crafty" person could make a cap. GS George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jim King wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote on Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:54:35 -0800 > >> Yes, I lost the damned thing. Anyone with a spare that they're willing to >> sell, barter, trade, or give away outright, can contact me off or on for the >> amusement of the kiddies, on list. > > B&H has this lens cap listed: > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161976-REG/Pentax_31703_49mm_Metal_Lens_Cap.html > > At $44.00 it ain't cheap, but what can you do? > > Regards, Jim > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wanted 43mm limited lens cap.
P. J. Alling wrote on Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:54:35 -0800 > Yes, I lost the damned thing. Anyone with a spare that they're willing to > sell, barter, trade, or give away outright, can contact me off or on for the > amusement of the kiddies, on list. B&H has this lens cap listed: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161976-REG/Pentax_31703_49mm_Metal_Lens_Cap.html At $44.00 it ain't cheap, but what can you do? Regards, Jim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Wanted 43mm limited lens cap.
Yes, I lost the damned thing. Anyone with a spare that they're willing to sell, barter, trade, or give away outright, can contact me off or on for the amusement of the kiddies, on list. -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
43mm limited back from repair.
Just got my 43mm limited back from Eric Hendrickson, it works nearly as good as new. Now just a bit of testing to see if focus is as good as before, but once again I am mightily pleased by his repair skills. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
No other editing done he says. It's been "Becky Carter'ed" :-) Dave On 8/20/06, Bertil Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could not resist this beauty, even if I already had the pancake > 40mm. My SMC PENTAX-FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited is new, and it's black :-) > > The example below is not a great photo, but a decent snapshot, I > think. It is the first photo I took with the new lens. I have only > downsized it a bit, no other editing done. > > It was taken by free hand in natural light when my DS happend to be > set at f/5.6, which gave 1/60 and ISO 800 (auto). > > Needless to say, I'm very happy with this lens. > > http://web.telia.com/~u40913062/A&B/Bambi/BambiSuperSmall.jpg > > Regards, Bertil -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
On 20/8/06, Bertil Holmberg, discombobulated, unleashed: > >Needless to say, I'm very happy with this lens. > >http://web.telia.com/~u40913062/A&B/Bambi/BambiSuperSmall.jpg She needs more time under the sun-lamp. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
On 20/08/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > She looks a bit over made up... Yes, I think it's the seams :-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
- Original Message - From: "Bertil Holmberg" Subject: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited > > > Needless to say, I'm very happy with this lens. > > http://web.telia.com/~u40913062/A&B/Bambi/BambiSuperSmall.jpg > She looks a bit over made up... William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
Looks quite sharp and nicely rendered. BTW, she's a real doll! Thanks for the mammaries! Paul On Aug 19, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Bertil Holmberg wrote: > I could not resist this beauty, even if I already had the pancake > 40mm. My SMC PENTAX-FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited is new, and it's black :-) > > The example below is not a great photo, but a decent snapshot, I > think. It is the first photo I took with the new lens. I have only > downsized it a bit, no other editing done. > > It was taken by free hand in natural light when my DS happend to be > set at f/5.6, which gave 1/60 and ISO 800 (auto). > > Needless to say, I'm very happy with this lens. > > http://web.telia.com/~u40913062/A&B/Bambi/BambiSuperSmall.jpg > > Regards, Bertil > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Enablement: FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited
I could not resist this beauty, even if I already had the pancake 40mm. My SMC PENTAX-FA 1:1.9 43mm Limited is new, and it's black :-) The example below is not a great photo, but a decent snapshot, I think. It is the first photo I took with the new lens. I have only downsized it a bit, no other editing done. It was taken by free hand in natural light when my DS happend to be set at f/5.6, which gave 1/60 and ISO 800 (auto). Needless to say, I'm very happy with this lens. http://web.telia.com/~u40913062/A&B/Bambi/BambiSuperSmall.jpg Regards, Bertil -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: FA 50mm 1.4 or 43mm limited?
Amita wrote: I'm thinking ahead about my next lens purchase, which I hope to make in the next month or two. I already know I like the output of the FA 50mm 1.4, but is the 43mm significantly better? What's the main advantage of the 43mm, besides the fact that it looks cool? REPLY: It has a different angle of view that make quite a lot of difference in my opinion. A 43mm is far more usable than a 50mm in my opinion. It also give images a more 3D look something that might or might not be important to you. Both are typical Pentax lenses that is they are not that sharp wide open but great from F4 - F8. My guess is that the FA 50/1.4 will be replaced relatively soon with a D FA version that sports the mew AF mechanism. Pål
Re: FA 50mm 1.4 or 43mm limited?
I've use A & F lenses, but not the FA, so I'll compare to the F. Color correction between the two is very similar. The 43 is not a significant improvement. The barrel problem makes it less desirable, though that depends on what you shoot & at what distances & at what f-stops. These results can affect your decision and so a test is in order to compare images. I shot some coke cans close-up and found no issues, liking the 43 in that regard. Might be nice for portraits. But I also shot some trees from a ways off and, though contrast and colors were outstanding, the barrel issues made for a non-linear image. For general use I'd recommend you get the F or FA50/1.4 or 1.7 and couple it with the FA35/2. You'll be much better off in the long run. The Fs are ugly but that makes them cheaper, allowing you to get the FA35/2. (I really, really like my A35/2, so the K30/2.8 is FS on eBay via dpconsult.com) I shoot manual focus only and alternate between manual- and auto-exposure solutions. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl - 'Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.' --- Adam Smith, 'The Wealth of Nations' ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: FS: 43mm Limited
Turns out it's an m39. Mind you, I bet it would look nice on Paul Stenquiist's IIIf! (or anyone else's LTM body...). Comes with a finder, btw. cheers, frank frank theriault wrote: > This was recently posted on Leica Users Group, and I received the > author's permission to post it here, as some might be interested: > > "[Sorry to break the Friday-posting rule, this is a one-time thing] > > I was wandering around some used camera stores in Osaka today and found > two lenses that are of interested to the LUG and CVUG folks: > > * Pentax 43mm f/1.9 (new in box w/warrantee) - $600 > * Cosina Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 (new in box w/ warrantee) - $1000 > > If you're interested in either of the two, please let me know. The > store had two of the Pentaxes and two of the CV 35mm f1/.2s . I'm going > to the store again on Saturday, so please let me know if you're > interested. > > I'll be returning to the U.S. on July 16th and you can pay me then by > Paypal, check, MO, bidpay, etc. Shipping would be around $8 since I > live in St. Paul (Minnesota). > > Please e-mail me privately ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you're interested. > > Cheers! > > Karen Nakamura > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to > make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself! > :-)" > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: 43mm Limited
> Cheers! > > Karen Nakamura > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to > make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself! > :-)" FWIW - I remember that woman from a RF List, and she seems an honest person. Regards, Lukasz
FS: 43mm Limited
This was recently posted on Leica Users Group, and I received the author's permission to post it here, as some might be interested: "[Sorry to break the Friday-posting rule, this is a one-time thing] I was wandering around some used camera stores in Osaka today and found two lenses that are of interested to the LUG and CVUG folks: * Pentax 43mm f/1.9 (new in box w/warrantee) - $600 * Cosina Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 (new in box w/ warrantee) - $1000 If you're interested in either of the two, please let me know. The store had two of the Pentaxes and two of the CV 35mm f1/.2s . I'm going to the store again on Saturday, so please let me know if you're interested. I'll be returning to the U.S. on July 16th and you can pay me then by Paypal, check, MO, bidpay, etc. Shipping would be around $8 since I live in St. Paul (Minnesota). Please e-mail me privately ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you're interested. Cheers! Karen Nakamura [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself! :-)" cheers, frank -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Noctilux and 43mm Limited
> Is it just me, or does the bokeh on this Noctilux pic remind you of the 43 Limited? > http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/images/noctilux/mimi4.htm > > R I am not sure. Unlike those those seen on this picture (maybe an effect of scanning?) out of focus highlights produced by the 43 mm ltd. lens seem to show quite well defined edges, are evenly illuminated and not look smeared out. At least this is my impression. Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Noctilux and 43mm Limited
Is it just me, or does the bokeh on this Noctilux pic remind you of the 43 Limited? http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/images/noctilux/mimi4.htm R
Ebay - MZ-3 & 43mm Limited Black
FYI... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1341128816 - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Bruce, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Martin, > > One other thing to consider is that the mirror is out of alignment on > the body. This could account for the discrepency between manual and > auto focus. Have you tried manual focus shots and autofocus shots and > compared them on film or just through the viewfinder? Yes, this was my first thought but as soon as I tried it on the MZ-5N, that seemed a less likely possibility. I have not as yet processed any film taken with the camera so all of this is from what I see in the viewfinder. However, I will repeat that this lens will not autofocus to infinity while the 28-70 will on the same body. This suggests that the fault lies with the lens or at least with the way that the bodies interact with this particular lens. Regards Martin - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Ed, Ed Mathews wrote: > In short, yes I've noticed your exact problem, and sold most of my > Pentax gear because of it me now>. The problem is more noticeable at further distances, and it > varies from lens to lens and camera to camera. This is very helpful, thanks. I will add that I was not initially conscious of the problem when playing with the camera in the shop until I compared it with a second body (a demo they were offering at a substantial discount). I ended up not buying either because I was able to negotiate a good price in another shop for a new body. I can easily see how it might not be noticeable unless you routinely swap between auto- and manual focus when composing the same scene. > So I got sick of this and frustrated with it, and went and bought a > Nikon F100. It focuses perfectly every time. But I don't like the > Nikon AF glass nearly as much as the Pentax glass, and the weight, > handling, and bulk of the system is far less to my liking than Pentax > 35mm system. This is my quandary also. My route to Contax came via Minolta, then Canon EOS and having experienced the colour saturation and contrast of Zeiss lenses, I could never go back to the lower contrast and somewhat cold presentation of Canon (and I presume Nikon). I have moved into Pentax because I wanted a compact, high quality camera (with AF) and fine lenses offering similar optical qualities of Zeiss (I am aware that the SMC multi coating on Pentax lenses is the equal if not superior to the T* coating on Zeiss lenses). I am keeping my Contax kit but the AX is large and heavy and the MZ-S offers, what I thought was the perfect, no compromise, go anywhere camera. For the moment I remain open minded. I will return the lens first, try a second and see what's what! There really are no alternatives left for me. I do not like Nikon, won't go back to Canon or Minolta (both too large and heavy and gizmo laden) and Contax offer nothing else that is as good value as the Pentax. Leica is way too expensive for me and in any case the R8 is too big and the R7 basically a Minolta XG-M in disguise. I would even be prepared to accept the AF shortcomings of the MZ-S if it becomes clear that it is a generic design issue and not simply a fault in either camera or lens and use it just as a manual focus camera. I'll keep you posted on progress. Best regards Martin - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Hi, On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Paris, Leonard wrote: > I'd rather think that the problems are being caused by unfamiliarity with > cameras using more than a central area for autofocussing. I got so used to > locking focus on my subject and then recomposing for the shot that, when I > got to use a Canon D30, it was not focussing where I thought it should be. No. As I said earlier, I switched to single sensor as well as disabling the custom function which diverts to one of the other sensors should the camera have difficulty locking on. Although I have been using manual focus cameras for the past 5 years (with a recent partial relapse to AF with the Contax AX), I had previous long time experience with AF and multipoint AF in the Canon EOS system, and prior to that with Minoltas earlier attempts at AF. I know from experience that the more gizmos you have switched on, the more likely it is that the camera will screw up. What I know for sure is that my difficulties do not derive either from my incompetance or from inexperience. The clinchers for me are: 1) That the 43mm will not autofocus to infinity (other than when it sweeps through the whole focussing range when, for example, the lens hood is on). 2) That there is an obvious differential between perceived sharpness when autofocussing compared to manual focus - this is particularly noticeable in the mid and far field 3) It behaves the same way on an MZ-5N. 4) A 28-70 f4 WILL focus to infinity and gives no perceived focus inaccuracies on either camera body. Best regards Martin - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Nope - it's not that. The central sensor is all I ever use on my ZX-5N because the outer ones suck at locking on to most things I shoot. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paris, Leonard > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:12 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Misfocussing with 43mm limited? > > > I'd rather think that the problems are being caused by > unfamiliarity with cameras using more than a central area for > autofocussing. I got so used to locking focus on my subject - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
No, I've never even heald a PZ-1 or PZ-1N. I used to own an SF-1 and an SF-1N, and don't remember any problem with them. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Misfocussing with 43mm limited? > > > Ed, > Maybe it's time for the MZ-Sn? In any case this is very bad. > Do you have any experience with the PZ-1p or the PZ-1? > I haven't used the 43mm or 77mm much on these bodies. I > guess that I'll have to check it out. - 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Monday, February 11, 2002, 9:01:09 PM, Mick wrote: MM> Alan Chan wrote: >>I found out by using the split image screen from the MZ-M MM> Which in itself has the potential for upsetting an AF mechanism, (according MM> to Pentax). That's strange... Pentax repair techs told me so much nonsense already... AF works tru the mirror, not tru screen. Therefore, AF cannot be affected by foc.screen. BTW, where did Pentax say/write this? Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
Was: Misfocussing with 43mm limited? Now New Topic
* From: wendy beard >* Subject: Re: Misfocussing with 43mm limited? >* Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:19:16 -0800 > > > I took my MZ-S / 43mm combo out shooting on Saturday. > What I found was that it was particularly difficult for me to get the focus > on the part of the scene that I wanted, something I hadn't noticed when > using my other lens, the 28-105/3.2-4.5. So the new 28-105/3.2-4.5 is available in Canada? Apparently it's not yet in the U.S. Wendy, I'd love to hear of your appraisal of the lens. Thanks, 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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
> >I found out by using the split image screen from the MZ-M > >Which in itself has the potential for upsetting an AF mechanism, (according >to Pentax). But then the AF sensor is below the mirror and I fail to see why? regards, Alan Chan _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
At 06:45 11-2-2002 -0500, you wrote: >Since returning home to York yesterday I have >had the opportunity to try my wife's 28-70 f4 from her MZ-5N on the MZ-S >and the 43 mm lens on her camera. My immediate impression is that the >focus with the zoom on the MZ-S was bang on (not to mention very rapid >and unhesitant) and the 43mm seemed to have the same focussing offset as >on my camera. My question then is, has anyone else experienced >focussing accuracy problems with this, or any other Pentax lens? I feel >fairly sure that this is not related to the issue of how accurate >autofocus cameras are as a breed - but I cannot think of why a >particular lens would misfocus given that presumably the camera is >simply sending instructions to turn one way or the other until the >sensor deems that focus is achieved. I am going to return the lens but >it would be useful to hear any thoughts on this. I would add that I >wonder whether this might be the source of perceived disatisfaction from >at least one member of this group (I have been lurking for some time) >with this lens and perhaps might explain the rather poor rating it >achieved at Photodo. I took my MZ-S / 43mm combo out shooting on Saturday. What I found was that it was particularly difficult for me to get the focus on the part of the scene that I wanted, something I hadn't noticed when using my other lens, the 28-105/3.2-4.5. I put it down to the larger aperture allowing me to see the scene better and notice that certain parts weren't in focus whereas before luck and depth of field had rendered the reults acceptably in focus with the other lens. Also unfamiliarity with the handling of the camera played a big part of it with me. So much so, that I put the camera into MF in the end to get the result I wanted! Methinks I should spend more time with it and the manual. Wendy BTW I had a fantastic day on Saturday. Beautiful blue skies, lots of white snow. Discovered a lovely (deserted) covered bridge in a picturesque village, a water mill with a part frozen lodge and to cap it all got to see lots of ice sculptures early evening in downtown Ottawa. And I got some skiing in too! (photos came out pretty good too!) --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.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: Misfocussing with 43mm limited?
Hi Pål, Pål Audun Jensen wrote: > I've not noticed similar behavior with the MZ-S and the 43 Limited, but > then I never use AF with the 43mm. > Is this problem constant? Pretty much - occasionally it appears to focus correctly, but only in the near field. It is always quite noticeable off in the far distance. > That is, is it always off? The MZ-S may plays > tricks on you dependent on how it's programmed; if AF fails it may use > the AF sensor beside the one you're using to achieve focus. Then it > ficuses on something else than you assume. Do a test where you lock a > sensor. I have tried the camera with only the central, lower sensor activated, and selectively with some of the other sensors but get the same behaviour consistenly. I have also switched off the custom function which switches to another sensor when focus cannot be achieved. > The lens do communicate with the camera telling it where it is on the > helicoid and the camera use this information to achieve correct focus. > If the lens is off somehow, it's possible that AF will not work as > intended. This is what I suspect in this case, but I observed the same thing with the second 43mm lens I tried in another shop which prompted my concern that this might be a general issue with this lens. > BTW I'm really not sure any AF system is precise enough to focus 1,9 + > lenses accurately. At least manual focusing is more precise. Well, I have a Contax AX which has this back-focussing mechanism and it has no trouble focussing with pin-sharp accuracy with my 50mm f1.4 Planar. This camera is equipped with split image and microprism focussing screen so it is very easy to see how precisely it can do its job. The AF on the Contax is not by any stretch of the imagination state-of-the art and although it achieves focus by a very different route I would expect a modern AF camera to be able to do as good a job in terms of accuracy and substantially better in terms of sensitivity and speed (in these latter two areas the MZ-S certainly excels). I do not buy into the philosophy that AF SLR cameras cannot focus accurately enough. If this is true then the whole concept of AF is a massive con. Why do Canon market a 50mm f1.0 lens if an EOS is incapable of focussing it accurately? Why does Pentax market 50mm f1.4 AF lenses if you can only focus them with any precision manually? Why market the Limited series of AF lenses, widely lauded as some of the finest 35mm lenses in production, if the cameras on which you mount them are incapable of focussing them correctly. It has occured to me that the reason the 28-70 zoom appears to be spot on is the f4 maximum aperture disguising the fact that the focus is off. But I have looked very carefully to see whether I can correct the focus by switching to manual but so far it always seems to get it right. And more importantly, it will focus to infinity, unlike the 43 which never goes much beyond the 8m mark. I would be very interested to try out my new camera with a selection of other fast Pentax AF lenses but unfortunately do not have these at my disposal (and neither do any of the camera shops within a 50 mile radius of York!!) which is why I had to travel to London to buy the camera in the first place. Thanks for your thoughts! Best regards Martin - 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 .
Fw: Pentax 43mm Limited - worth it?
- Original Message - From: Pat White To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Pentax 43mm Limited - worth it? Rob, the 43's worth it if you use it a lot. I have an F50/1.7 that I mostly use for low-light or copy work. It's great when I need it, but it's not that often. I'm happy to have the 50 and the 20-35, which I do use frequently. Decide according to your shooting habits. Pat White - 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: 43mm Limited on Ebay...
Very true. And why should we expect anyone to settle for less than the best price he can get for his stuff? Personally, I know the max price I can afford to offer for the stuff I want to buy, and that's as high as I will go. That's why I don't have a whole lot of items behind my eBay ID. I don't win very often. Len --- - Original Message - From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 3:00 PM Subject: Re: 43mm Limited on Ebay... > Why should you appologise? Actually, I like to think that we at least have a > chance to get it cheaper off of ebay than if we gave you an honest price for > it . No matter what one does, someone is going to not like it. > > Ciao, > graywolf > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: 43mm Limited on Ebay...
Why should you appologise? Actually, I like to think that we at least have a chance to get it cheaper off of ebay than if we gave you an honest price for it . No matter what one does, someone is going to not like it. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bob Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 9:35 AM Subject: Re: 43mm Limited on Ebay... > As the seller of this lens, I assure you that there > was no communicationbetween gabriel and myself...etc, > etc... > I have been away from the list for a couple of weeks, > so when I got back and read the posts concerning the > availability of future ebay auction items prior to > their being listed, I felt compelled to apologize for > not posting them here first. However, the time > constraints involving my holiday travels away from the > computer, and the necessity for scheduling the items > listing on ebay so that I could "tend-the-ebay-garden" > didn't leave me any room to offer them to this list > first, as I have done in the past, if you will > remember the 105K lens back in Oct. > So, again I apologize for not being more thoughtful > and fully recognize the error of my ways, and hereby > humbly swear on my LX that it will never happen again. > Happy New Year! > Bob > --- gabriel bovino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Sorry people... > > > > I wasn't trying to sell my own lens here or help out > > a friend... it was > > just an FYI in case someone was looking for a 43 > > limited and could not find > > it through the search engine on EBay since I search > > using "Pentax FA" > > tuples. > > > > Happy 2002 > > > > Gabe > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "gabriel bovino" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:30 PM > > Subject: 43mm Limited on Ebay... > > > > > > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1315747702 > > > > > > Gabe > > > - > > > 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 . > > > > > = > What boots up must come down. > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.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: 43mm Limited on Ebay...
As the seller of this lens, I assure you that there was no communicationbetween gabriel and myself...etc, etc... I have been away from the list for a couple of weeks, so when I got back and read the posts concerning the availability of future ebay auction items prior to their being listed, I felt compelled to apologize for not posting them here first. However, the time constraints involving my holiday travels away from the computer, and the necessity for scheduling the items listing on ebay so that I could "tend-the-ebay-garden" didn't leave me any room to offer them to this list first, as I have done in the past, if you will remember the 105K lens back in Oct. So, again I apologize for not being more thoughtful and fully recognize the error of my ways, and hereby humbly swear on my LX that it will never happen again. Happy New Year! Bob --- gabriel bovino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry people... > > I wasn't trying to sell my own lens here or help out > a friend... it was > just an FYI in case someone was looking for a 43 > limited and could not find > it through the search engine on EBay since I search > using "Pentax FA" > tuples. > > Happy 2002 > > Gabe > > - Original Message - > From: "gabriel bovino" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:30 PM > Subject: 43mm Limited on Ebay... > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1315747702 > > > > Gabe > > - > > 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 . > = What boots up must come down. Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.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: Price for Pentax 43mm Limited
At 07:53 13-11-2001 -0500, you wrote: >From: "Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Price for Pentax 43mm Limited > >If you are interested, I'm selling mine. I was going to list it on ebay >soon. I was hoping to get $300.00 + shipping. W/box and all >accessories, and most couldn't tell it from new. > >Thanks, >Ed >http://lightandsilver.com At that price, I reckon I should buy another one! Don't suppose you're selling a 24-90 as well are you?!?! Wendy --- Wendy & Paul Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Price for Pentax 43mm Limited
That's a very fair price for a LN sample of this lens. I paid $325.00 for mine with box, pouch, caps, and warranty card, although it was previously owned. Anyone got a 77mm they want to sell for a similar price? Ed wrote: > > If you are interested, I'm selling mine. I was going to list it on ebay > soon. I was hoping to get $300.00 + shipping. W/box and all > accessories, and most couldn't tell it from new. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 .
Price for Pentax 43mm Limited
I just got a price of US$450 on a Pentax 43mm Limited. I think that's a reasonable price? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.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: 43mm Limited, 1st impressions
>It is always a trade off. I don't want an humungous item and I think >it is doing a good job. My camera lens combination is very unintrusive >which I prefer. Holding it right into the sun, I get flare which is >clearly visible in the finder. This could improve when stopping >down. (I use HOYA SHMC UV if that matters) I used to rely on HOYA HMC 1B filters heavily, and found flare was a problem with this particular filters even though they were multicoated. Not sure about SHMC. >I guess there was just no place on this short lens to place a lens >mount index. I think of it as a pancake. Surprisingly, my sister was not too happy when she realized the lens that I used was that "short" yesterday. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 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: 43mm Limited, 1st impressions
J. Hein writes: > I use it with a MZ-5n. When holding the camera with both hands, I can > MF the lens with my index finger. This works amasingly well. I am sure > it is meant to be used like that. This was not possible with my 50/1.4. I've noticed that the light weight, low damping (compared to a K-series lens) and the knurled metal ring all contribute to the easy focussing you describe. The focussing certainly feels better than my macro lens, and is as close an AF lens as I've felt to a real manual focus lens. I also find it easy to put a fingernail into the ridges for really good control. > I also like the extremely neutral perspective of the 43. It definitely > makes a difference in my view. However I also miss the speed of the > FA50/1.4. I just got a K50/1.2 so I have the ultimate in speed when I need it, but it isn't AF. If I like the 43mm Limited enough, I won't need to buy an AF 50mm lens (at half the price:). > I agree on that. Handling of a MZ-5n with 43/1.9 or a FA50/1.4 is > quite different. The 43 is better balance in my view without the 50 > handling badly. Try a 15mm f/3.5, that's really front-heavy even on a heavy camera like the K2. I've had to use that combo one-handed before (using the other hand to shade from the sun) and it's not easy! > It is always a trade off. I don't want an humungous item and I think > it is doing a good job. My camera lens combination is very unintrusive > which I prefer. Holding it right into the sun, I get flare which is > clearly visible in the finder. This could improve when stopping > down. (I use HOYA SHMC UV if that matters) I try to avoid fitting filters to my lenses; multicoated filters are pretty hard to come by down here (they'd have to be ordered specially and are not cheap). I would be doing flare tests today but the weather is cloudy. > I guess there was just no place on this short lens to place a lens > mount index. I think of it as a pancake. You may be right here. I could have sworn that last time I played with the lens (at a local camera "expo") that it had a green index tab. Perhaps I'm thinking of the 77mm which I've only seen pictures of. [distortion] > You judged that in the finder? I would be careful if so. The finder > optics usually adds a lot to the distortion. If the finder optics distorts the image, wouldn't it distort the edge of the focussing screen as well? I look at distortion by comparing a straight edge with the edge of the screen. I can also look at distortion closer to the centre with the panorama lines on the Z-1p's screen. I will be taking pictures to highlight distortion as part of my test. I'm hoping to do some testing today but it's looking unlikely :( > I don't think this is correct. A camera company should also value > those who buy their produces used. I agree with you, but what I was saying is that it'll feel good for me to finally give something back to Pentax. I just need a pay rise to do so more often :) > You often read as an argument against Pentax > that selling used stuff is not easy enough in comparison especially to > N. Secondhand Pentax gear sells reasonably well here, but once the students have finished their courses they go out and buy C* and N* gear so they can look like a pro :) I have been lucky enough to pick up some real gems on the secondhand market, how they got there I have no idea. There are only a couple of lenses I want at the moment, and I don't have an urgent need for them. 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: 43mm Limited, 1st impressions
> > >* From: David A. Mann > * Subject: 43mm Limited, 1st impressions >* Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:01:47 -0800 > > > Hi David, I recently got a 43/1.9 limited as well (to replace my stolen FA50/1.4). I am still in the testing as well and don't like to comment on its performance, however I like to do some comments on your posting. > Sweeet... the camera shop had my 43mm Limited today (S/N 00053**). I > have it on loan for 7 days to play with it as much as I like. If I'm home from > work tomorrow (I have a cold in the middle of summer! ugh!) I'll take it out for > a good test-drive. Since the Pentax TTL adaptor for my Sunpak flash arrived > yesterday, I'm going to have lots of fun. > > This lens is small, I find it almost too short for comfortable manual > focussing. My long fingers naturally rest on the lens hood so I have to bend > them back a little to focus. > I use it with a MZ-5n. When holding the camera with both hands, I can MF the lens with my index finger. This works amasingly well. I am sure it is meant to be used like that. This was not possible with my 50/1.4. > The field of view is good, slightly wider than 50mm (as you might expect:). > 43mm works out roughly the same as 90mm for 6x7 which is a focal length I > have found to be incredibly versatile (aside from the fact that it was the only > 6x7 lens I had for a year or more). > I also like the extremely neutral perspective of the 43. It definitely makes a difference in my view. However I also miss the speed of the FA50/1.4. I still stand by my comments, I did on the frequent 50/1.7 vs 50/1.4 lens. This makes a difference in low light and applies even more on the speed difference 1.9 vs 1.4. I might get a inexpensive M or K 50/1.4 at some point to fill the gap. > It is also incredibly light. My "new" 50/1.2 feels like a brick in comparison. > This lens would suit an M- or MZ-/ZX- series body pretty well for a really nice, > lightweight combo. I think Pentax would do well to release a compact, > lightweight "limited" body to suit the lenses. > I agree on that. Handling of a MZ-5n with 43/1.9 or a FA50/1.4 is quite different. The 43 is better balance in my view without the 50 handling badly. > I'll repeat my earlier statements that I think the lens hood is too small. I like > my hoods to provide as much shade as possible (for example, I use a 50mm > square hood on my 35mm lens) but with the ghostless SMC coating I'm > probably just being a bit paranoid. > It is always a trade off. I don't want an humungous item and I think it is doing a good job. My camera lens combination is very unintrusive which I prefer. Holding it right into the sun, I get flare which is clearly visible in the finder. This could improve when stopping down. (I use HOYA SHMC UV if that matters) > The manual focussing feel is really nice. I don't mind the whirring of the > gears and I definitely like the knurled metal focussing ring (which I would > have preferred to be a little longer). I don't think there's any plastic in this > lens - it's just metal and glass, all that a lens should be :) I am surprised > that there is no lens-mount index like every other Pentax lens has :( How > are we supposed to mount it in the dark? > I guess there was just no place on this short lens to place a lens mount index. I think of it as a pancake. > The AF (on a Z-1p) is pretty fast but not as fast as I expected it to be. I guess that goes with the damping. They have to use a slow set of gears to overcome the friction of the damping without putting to much strain on the AF motor. I perceive my lens as very responsive with respect to AF. Clearely less hunting than my 50/1.4. I expect the AF is less fuzzy with a 1.9 lens than a 1.4. My Tamron 28-80/3.5-5.6 still beats them all. > However, the only other AF glass I have is the FA 100/2.8 macro and the > FA*24/2.0, both of which don't have to move very much to focus at "normal" > distances (the macro lens is _really_ fast to AF at non-macro distances). > > This lens just looks too weird on the Z-1p but it suits my chrome K2 pretty > well. I've seen a 75th anniversary chrome Z-1 and I'm wondering how it'd look > on that, or even on an MZ-5n (no, please don't make me buy any more > bodies!). Adding filters makes it look even stranger (my filters have black > rims). Then again, as far as I'm concerned, the view from behind the camera > is more important :) You get used to this black rim. It becomes part of the look of the lens very quickly. > > I've
Re: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
Pentax Canada do not unfortunately import the black version, but I have seen one. A fellow who had purchased it abroad brought one into my store a couple of times. Darren -Original Message- From: K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: January 25, 2001 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package >I am sure you will be delighted with a black MZ-3. I first tried to buy a >black MZ-3 in Canada but it was impossible to find it. I am not even sure >that Pentax Canada import black versions. > >Cheers, > >Ken - 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: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
--- "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I first tried to buy a > black MZ-3 in Canada but it was impossible to find Were did you get yours from? Herbet. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.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: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
"K.Takeshita" wrote: > > I replaced my MZ-3/43mm Silver kit with > a black kit, so the set up is exactly the > same as before ... Oh, I didn't realize that you'd had an MZ-3 prior to the black one. How nice to know that the setup has been working well for you. > Black colour makes the MZ-3 look > that much more professional, i.e., a real > camera (not that MZ-3 is not :-), > thus my first impression of "baby LX" with > black shutter dial and compensation dial etc. I agree completely with your assessment of black bodies. Back in the old days I just taped over the shiny parts of the various Spotmatics that I owned with some black electrical tape. That afforded not only the black look, but gave the camera a degree of anonymity that sometimes came in handy. > This particular combination is very > light (just about 20oz w/lens) and very > small. Lens is very compact but its > filter and hood do not make the kit > quite pocketable. Hmmm ... my Pentax IQ Zoom 928 weighs bout 11.5-oz, and the MX and the ME-S each weigh somewhere around 450-grams without a lens. Add about 155-grams for the 43-ltd and we're at about 600- to 650-grams for the package, about six or seven ounces fore than the MZ-3. The MZ-3 has a great carry weight, then, as MX or ME-S aren't particularly cumbersome with small lenses. This is sounding better and better. I am. however, surprised that you don't find the setup pocketable, although I must admit to having several jackets and shirts with pockets large enough for a Spot-F, or an LX with lenses up K85/1.8 size. Have you thought about a collapsible rubber hood for the 43? I just put on on my 43 the other day, but haven't taken any pics with it to see if there's any vignetting. > I can see why you say you want to > use it in a P&S manner as it is ideal > for that purpose. If you set everything > auto, you can just literally point and > shoot, even with one hand. Absolutely. One of the things I want is a small, lightweight camera with good optics that offers automatic film advance. In fact, that's probably the main reason I'd like a newer body, just to have automatic advance feature in a light body without having to use a heavier and more cumbersome winder on the MX or the ME-S. > Yet the camera is very capable with > its 1/4000 max, 1/125 sync, AE lock, > DOF preview and popup flash, which > covers most shooting situations. Indeed! It's almost like a real camera in that regard . It can certainly do more, and with better quality, than the Pentax IQ Zoom 928, which I've essentially stopped using because of its slowness and poor imge quality. By ridding myself of that camera, I can carry but one, better quality body and aa couple of lenses when I want point nd shoot performance, but I won't be sacrificing image quality or speed, and since the camera can be used with both MF and AF lenses, it means that it's the perfect snapshot and quick shootin' camera one moment and a more conventional cameraa the next. I just love things that serve more thaan one purpose. > I have a penchant for smallish cameras > and the best part of the MZ-3 is its Pentax! > This kit makes it easy to just pick it up > and go. I do not quite feel like snatching > my z-1p so casually when I go to friend's house etc. Well there you haave it - we're in pretty much total agreement. Sometimes it's a hassle to grab an LX and shove it into my pocket, plus the camera sometimes intimidates people - it's so "professional" looking. > I love its size. With the legendary > 43mm/1.9, the angle is right and the > lens is fast enough for most situations. > So, it's good for a single lens walk-about. And with my bigger pockets, I caan carry the camera and the 77mm lens, and be happy as a clam in the "quick draw" of street shooting, or the fun filled follies of family photography. > Actually, I love the size and weight > of the MZ camera so much so that I > purchased an MZ-M and slapped an M40/2.8 > on it, which really makes it a great and > true "P&S" SLR if there is such a term. The ME-S seems to fit the bill for me there, especially with the smallish 50mm f/2.0 and now, perhaps, with the 43-ltd. However, having handled a ZX-5n once, and a ZX-7, I find their ergonomics a little better for quick shooting. Have you used the battery grip FG-something I think it is? I've only seen one once when i was helping a friend make his ZX-7 purchace, but I've never used it. It certainly seems small and light. > I do not quite "abuse" the black MZ-3 > kit but I treat the MZ-M/40mm kit > almost like a disposable camera without > worrying scratches and dents etc. I'll be nice to my MZ-3. > I am sure you will be delighted with a > black MZ-3. I first tried to buy a > black MZ-3 in Canada but it was impossible > to find it. I am not even sure that Pentax > Canada import black versions. Initial explorations have not yielded anything in Canada. I may have to use Mitsuba, alth
Re: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
on 1/24/01 10:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Ken, > > As you know, I'm interested in a similar setup as a walking > around, P&S type of camera. Please let us know how well the > setup works for you. Hi Shel, I replaced my MZ-3/43mm Silver kit with a black kit, so the set up is exactly the same as before and I use it in the same way as before. Black colour makes the MZ-3 look that much more professional, i.e., a real camera (not that MZ-3 is not :-), thus my first impression of "baby LX" with black shutter dial and compensation dial etc. This particular combination is very light (just about 20oz w/lens) and very small. Lens is very compact but its filter and hood do not make the kit quite pocketable. I can see why you say you want to use it in a P&S manner as it is ideal for that purpose. If you set everything auto, you can just literally point and shoot, even with one hand. Yet the camera is very capable with its 1/4000 max, 1/125 sync, AE lock, DOF preview and popup flash, which covers most shooting situations. I have a penchant for smallish cameras and the best part of the MZ-3 is its Pentax! This kit makes it easy to just pick it up and go. I do not quite feel like snatching my z-1p so casually when I go to friend's house etc. I used to be a z-1p shooter with the MZ-3 as sorta back up, but since acquiring MZ-3 and a pair of Limited lenses (43/77), I just snatch this up whenever I expect some shooting session, particularly indoor (for this reason, I usually load it with 400 film). In outdoor, you do not feel like lugging around a heavy behemoth, yet this kit takes as good pics as any other higher spec'd cameras do. I love its size. With the legendary 43mm/1.9, the angle is right and the lens is fast enough for most situations. So, it's good for a single lens walk-about. Actually, I love the size and weight of the MZ camera so much so that I purchased an MZ-M and slapped an M40/2.8 on it, which really makes it a great and true "P&S" SLR if there is such a term. I do not quite "abuse" the black MZ-3 kit but I treat the MZ-M/40mm kit almost like a disposable camera without worrying scratches and dents etc. I am sure you will be delighted with a black MZ-3. I first tried to buy a black MZ-3 in Canada but it was impossible to find it. I am not even sure that Pentax Canada import black versions. Cheers, Ken - 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: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > > Shel: The only person on earth who thinks It may be fine equipment - indeed, I feel it is - but it works just like my P&S camera in that I point it, and shoot it, and the camera handles all the other functions, like focusing, choosing the aperture or shutter speed. So, although it can do more than a typical P&S, it's also a very nice point and shoot camera, which is how I'd use most, if not all, of the time. I purchased a 43mm Ltd a while ago, and now I'm keeping an eye out for a good deal on ZX-5n (MZ-5n?) or the MZ-3. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "The difference between a good photograph and a great photograph is subtleties." - 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: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
Shel: The only person on earth who thinks of fine equipment in P&S terms. Collin From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As you know, I'm interested in a similar setup as a walking around, P&S type of camera. - -- Shel Belinkoff -- -- "They have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy." the Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov" -- - 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: Balck MZ-3/43mm Limited Package
Hi Ken, As you know, I'm interested in a similar setup as a walking around, P&S type of camera. Please let us know how well the setup works for you. -- Shel Belinkoff "The difference between a good photograph and a great photograph is subtleties." mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "K.Takeshita" wrote: > > Hi folks, > > The subject kit has just arrived. What a delight! > Black MZ-3 somehow looks and feels smaller and lighter than a silver > version. The best description is a "baby LX", except it is more > contemporary. I use this kit as my walk-about camera together with > 77mm/1.8. With a wide lens (31mm) coming, I can do a lot of nice things. > Ahh, can't wait for the spring to come (sometimes wonder if it really comes > :-( > > Cheers, > > Ken, the gadget freak playing with a new puppy - 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.
