Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Godfrey, As I was trying to say, following your advice would mean I'd have to get myself an *istDxxx or something like that. I'm still on film, there's only two PS digis around here (whereas one of them is an Oly C-5050, which isn't PS only). Thel lens arrived yesterday, I'll try it and if it's as good as expected I surely won't regret spending some money on an appropriate hood. Pancho Godfrey DiGiorgi schrieb: On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: A wideangle hood for 67mm filter thread might be quite bulky, and, as you say, of little use on the long end, but I think the original hood is a little better due to the tulip form. ... I wasn't thinking of a wideangle hood. A lens hood for a normal lens on a 35mm camera, which is what the standard hoods from Kalt are made for, will work fine for a 24mm lens on the DS. I use Kalt standard lens hoods for everything down to the FA20-35 with no vignetting. Same for the 28-105 ... it worked at least as well as the standard Pentax hood (designed for 35mm format again). For best results at the long end, a bit of a snoot would do well to extend it. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lenshood-lineup-1845.jpg Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Any lens hood is a compromise on a zoom lens at some point or another. A tulip shaped hood gives a little more coverage than a barrel shaped hood, but only in a four-pronged shape that has edges which must be oriented correctly or you get vignetting. And it's harder to fit a hood cap with a more complex lens hood shape. Sorry, I need to process your statement a bit: are you saying that a tulip hood in principle gives more protection than a barrel hood but is harder to design, so results in reality vary? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:25 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Any lens hood is a compromise on a zoom lens at some point or another. A tulip shaped hood gives a little more coverage than a barrel shaped hood, but only in a four-pronged shape that has edges which must be oriented correctly or you get vignetting. And it's harder to fit a hood cap with a more complex lens hood shape. Sorry, I need to process your statement a bit: are you saying that a tulip hood in principle gives more protection than a barrel hood but is harder to design, so results in reality vary? Yes. The degree of extra protection is often compromised by a less- than-efficient design to the point that it's a toss up between a short but effective at shorter focal length settings hood and a tulip shaped hood that does a slightly better job at longer focal lengths. I find that tulip shaped hoods tend to be a lot less convenient in use so usually just fit a decent short standard hood for good flare protection with short focal lengths and make do with a shorter than optimal hood at longer focal lengths. Of course, I'm only using one zoom lens at this point (the 20-35) so a standard hood works with reasonable effectiveness across the board. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
No question: for a film SLR, buy the Pentax standard hood. It's the most convenient in use. I tested the 24-90 briefly and bought the 28-105/3.2-4.5 instead due to the difference in price, but after a while I found that the 28-105's shortcomings when wide open at the longer tele settings would have been worth the price for the 24-90. (Not to say the 28-105 is a poor performer, it's just not at its best wide open past 70mm.) The 24-90's gain in field of view at the wide end would be useful, it's improved wide open performance at the long end gives it much more capability for me. I have since sold the 28-105/3.2-4.5 and have the 24-90 on my shopping list, but I don't really think I'll buy one because I'm finding that sticking with primes from 50mm and up works fine for me. Godfrey On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: Godfrey, As I was trying to say, following your advice would mean I'd have to get myself an *istDxxx or something like that. I'm still on film, there's only two PS digis around here (whereas one of them is an Oly C-5050, which isn't PS only). Thel lens arrived yesterday, I'll try it and if it's as good as expected I surely won't regret spending some money on an appropriate hood. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Godfrey DiGiorgi affirmed: No question: for a film SLR, buy the Pentax standard hood. It's the most convenient in use. That's what I'll do as soon as the test film returns. I tested the 24-90 briefly and bought the 28-105/3.2-4.5 instead due to the difference in price, but after a while I found that the 28-105's shortcomings when wide open at the longer tele settings would have been worth the price for the 24-90. (Not to say the 28-105 is a poor performer, it's just not at its best wide open past 70mm.) The 24-90's gain in field of view at the wide end would be useful, it's improved wide open performance at the long end gives it much more capability for me. I have since sold the 28-105/3.2-4.5 and have the 24-90 on my shopping list, but I don't really think I'll buy one because I'm finding that sticking with primes from 50mm and up works fine for me. Godfrey If a certain amount of primes was a reason against buying this zoom, I might not have bought it. I'm still pretending to be a photgrapher, not a collector, and use nearly every lens I own every now and then, some more, some less (Only one prime on the sale list at the moment, M 3.5/135, for being one of three 135 I own; jealous of your FA 135, BTW). For 180 EUR, with warranty from a regular dealer, I could not resist; this was the lowest price I've ever seen for this lens, and might be for a long time. I used the 24-90 today indoors at a little birthday party, and was very fond of the zoom range, especially on the wide end I could fit anything in the frame if necessary, which was not always possible with A35-105 or FA 4/28-70. As I don't think I will need very big enlargements of these social pictures a zoom is better to me to get the moment, than a prime (that I might have to change) to get the perfect frame. Anyway, as I've got lots of bodies, I might use zooms _and_ primes without changing lenses ;-) And sometimes it's challenging to get by with just one prime. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-) How? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-) How? Any lens hood is a compromise on a zoom lens at some point or another. A tulip shaped hood gives a little more coverage than a barrel shaped hood, but only in a four-pronged shape that has edges which must be oriented correctly or you get vignetting. And it's harder to fit a hood cap with a more complex lens hood shape. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: A simple Kalt or similar generic 67mm metal screw in lens hood will do a reasonable job. It won't be optimal for the lens at 90mm focal length, but it will be good enough for most purposes so as not to matter. I think one may struggle for a 24 @ 35mm. The Pentax round hood for the 28-80 is so wide and shallow I don't bother. I had tried a couple of other generic ones and they would vignette. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Aug 25, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: A simple Kalt or similar generic 67mm metal screw in lens hood will do a reasonable job. It won't be optimal for the lens at 90mm focal length, but it will be good enough for most purposes so as not to matter. I think one may struggle for a 24 @ 35mm. The Pentax round hood for the 28-80 is so wide and shallow I don't bother. I had tried a couple of other generic ones and they would vignette. I was thinking of a hood for the 24-90 to be used on the DSLRs only. For a 35mm film SLR, I'd just get the Pentax hood as that is what it's designed for. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Godfrey DiGiorgi schrieb: On Aug 25, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: A simple Kalt or similar generic 67mm metal screw in lens hood will do a reasonable job. It won't be optimal for the lens at 90mm focal length, but it will be good enough for most purposes so as not to matter. I think one may struggle for a 24 @ 35mm. The Pentax round hood for the 28-80 is so wide and shallow I don't bother. I had tried a couple of other generic ones and they would vignette. I was thinking of a hood for the 24-90 to be used on the DSLRs only. For a 35mm film SLR, I'd just get the Pentax hood as that is what it's designed for. Godfrey A wideangle hood for 67mm filter thread might be quite bulky, and, as you say, of little use on the long end, but I think the original hood is a little better due to the tulip form. There's a german dealer offering gneric tulip hoods on eekbay, maybe worth a consideration if the price for the original one should really be that high. Anyway, I suppose it's cheaper getting the original hood than going digital, although temptation cannot be denied. My local dealer had a K100D today, which felt quite good, and the shutter seemed so quiet to me. Of course it's smaller than on a film body. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: A wideangle hood for 67mm filter thread might be quite bulky, and, as you say, of little use on the long end, but I think the original hood is a little better due to the tulip form. ... I wasn't thinking of a wideangle hood. A lens hood for a normal lens on a 35mm camera, which is what the standard hoods from Kalt are made for, will work fine for a 24mm lens on the DS. I use Kalt standard lens hoods for everything down to the FA20-35 with no vignetting. Same for the 28-105 ... it worked at least as well as the standard Pentax hood (designed for 35mm format again). For best results at the long end, a bit of a snoot would do well to extend it. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/lenshood-lineup-1845.jpg Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: Of course, Joe made the point by telling how good the lens is in it's own zoom range. No scary details that make me lie awake all night, or such. So I bought it from a dealer who, the hood unfortunately being not included, sold it to me for 180 EUR, shipping included. IIRC ebay prices, a real bargain. Excellent, well done. But you need the hood; the lens flares reasonably gracefully, but it flares. I bought mine from Pentax UK for 25 GBP; after waiting for 2 months, it arrived one day before a BIN turned up on eBay for a tenner... Enjoy your new lens; I love the pictures on film and I like the way it looks, certainly on the MZ-S. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Thanks Kostas, I guess the hood will do a good job around that big front lens. I looked into an older Pentax pricelist, where the hood alone was listed for 69,- EUR. I'll see what my local dealer can do, I just want to wait for the lens to arrive and to be OK, before I spend more money. I think that with the 24mm any other hood solution wouldn't be but mediocre. Pancho Kostas Kavoussanakis schrieb: On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: Of course, Joe made the point by telling how good the lens is in it's own zoom range. No scary details that make me lie awake all night, or such. So I bought it from a dealer who, the hood unfortunately being not included, sold it to me for 180 EUR, shipping included. IIRC ebay prices, a real bargain. Excellent, well done. But you need the hood; the lens flares reasonably gracefully, but it flares. I bought mine from Pentax UK for 25 GBP; after waiting for 2 months, it arrived one day before a BIN turned up on eBay for a tenner... Enjoy your new lens; I love the pictures on film and I like the way it looks, certainly on the MZ-S. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: I guess the hood will do a good job around that big front lens. I looked into an older Pentax pricelist, where the hood alone was listed for 69,- EUR. I'll see what my local dealer can do, I just want to wait for the lens to arrive and to be OK, before I spend more money. I think that with the 24mm any other hood solution wouldn't be but mediocre. However, if you have gone digital a deeper one may be better. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
A simple Kalt or similar generic 67mm metal screw in lens hood will do a reasonable job. It won't be optimal for the lens at 90mm focal length, but it will be good enough for most purposes so as not to matter. Such things are available in the US for about $10, less if found used in a swap meet bin. Godfrey On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Pancho Hasselbach wrote: I guess the hood will do a good job around that big front lens. I looked into an older Pentax pricelist, where the hood alone was listed for 69,- EUR. I'll see what my local dealer can do, I just want to wait for the lens to arrive and to be OK, before I spend more money. I think that with the 24mm any other hood solution wouldn't be but mediocre. Excellent, well done. But you need the hood; the lens flares reasonably gracefully, but it flares. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your advice. Of course, Joe made the point by telling how good the lens is in it's own zoom range. No scary details that make me lie awake all night, or such. So I bought it from a dealer who, the hood unfortunately being not included, sold it to me for 180 EUR, shipping included. IIRC ebay prices, a real bargain. Brendan, thank you very much for the sample picture. Rick, you were nearly about to cause me a dreadful headache with that terrific bunch of information. As I figured out that in your eyes it compares better against the FA 4/28-70, which I own and like, that unfortunately made my desire even stronger. It should arrive within a few days. Hopefully it's me who receives it, otherwise I'll have to answer silly questions from my lady :-) I'll report how results turn out. Cheers, Pancho Pancho Hasselbach schrieb: Hi gang, any comments available concerning the above-mentioned lens? I'm especially interested in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and bokeh wide open. AFAIK, it performs very well stopped down, but I'd hope that it's good (and noticeably better than my FA 4/28-70) wide open, too, as I primarily am a prime user, used to shallow DOF and that kind of things. What about distortion, and vignetting? Anybody used it on BW film? I'd use it on my film bodies, but probably I'll add a digital body in the future. At least, Petax have given up those ridiculous names. Now, to justify the K in the names of the new bodies, they must only add one thing, muahahaha... Oops, I'm getting off topic. Thank you very much for your answers. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Pancho, Very, very nice lens. I bought the 28-70/4 and the 24-90 simultaneously a few years ago, and exposed one roll of slide film with each using my PZ-1p. +NO+ contest. The 24-90 was sharper and contrastier, with similar distortion and bokeh. The extra 4mm on the wide end and 20mm on the tele end make a big difference in my shooting. I'm mostly using an ist D now, but the 24-90 is still frequently on the front. Somehow I find it more enjoyable than the 16-45, despite the loss of the wide angle. Rick --- Pancho Hasselbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang, any comments available concerning the above-mentioned lens? I'm especially interested in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and bokeh wide open. AFAIK, it performs very well stopped down, but I'd hope that it's good (and noticeably better than my FA 4/28-70) wide open, too, as I primarily am a prime user, used to shallow DOF and that kind of things. What about distortion, and vignetting? Anybody used it on BW film? I'd use it on my film bodies, but probably I'll add a digital body in the future. At least, Petax have given up those ridiculous names. Now, to justify the K in the names of the new bodies, they must only add one thing, muahahaha... Oops, I'm getting off topic. Thank you very much for your answers. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Comments on FA 24-90, please
Hi gang, any comments available concerning the above-mentioned lens? I'm especially interested in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and bokeh wide open. AFAIK, it performs very well stopped down, but I'd hope that it's good (and noticeably better than my FA 4/28-70) wide open, too, as I primarily am a prime user, used to shallow DOF and that kind of things. What about distortion, and vignetting? Anybody used it on BW film? I'd use it on my film bodies, but probably I'll add a digital body in the future. At least, Petax have given up those ridiculous names. Now, to justify the K in the names of the new bodies, they must only add one thing, muahahaha... Oops, I'm getting off topic. Thank you very much for your answers. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
Pancho, I picked one up recently on eBay and I quite like it. Here's a sample low-res pic taken with this lens. INFO: MZ-S, 540FGZ flash (bounced 90 degrees with catchlight panel) not sure what focal length maybe 40-50mm, probably f5.6 or 8, Kodak HD400 consumer film. http://www.members.aol.com/bmacrae/family.jpg I think it's quite sharp, at least in the middle f-range. Nice and contrasty. Good for color (have not used it for any b/w work yet). Build quality is pretty good but not a home run. Lightweight. Autofocus is a tad noisy but not terribly so. Hope this helps. -Brendan --- Pancho Hasselbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang, any comments available concerning the above-mentioned lens? I'm especially interested in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and bokeh wide open. AFAIK, it performs very well stopped down, but I'd hope that it's good (and noticeably better than my FA 4/28-70) wide open, too, as I primarily am a prime user, used to shallow DOF and that kind of things. What about distortion, and vignetting? Anybody used it on BW film? I'd use it on my film bodies, but probably I'll add a digital body in the future. At least, Petax have given up those ridiculous names. Now, to justify the K in the names of the new bodies, they must only add one thing, muahahaha... Oops, I'm getting off topic. Thank you very much for your answers. Pancho -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comments on FA 24-90, please
A very good lens in this zoom range. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
