FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Hi, I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany (Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder - what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller case and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New anti-fungus unguent? -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Perhaps they finally noticed it didn't sell after so many years? Personally, I am not that optimiztic. Remember the A70-210/4 was replaced by F70-210/4-5.6? Perhaps Pentax will go the f4 route since Pentax f2.8 zooms don't sell. Or they might just make some DA f2.8 zooms to keep the cost down? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany (Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder - what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller case and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New anti-fungus unguent? _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
The FA*70-200/2.8 has been a special order item for quite some time already. Which is sad, because it's one of the best lenses in that zoom range regardless of brand. Now if they could make a new version where they just remove the autozoom motors and put in some gyro stuff...:-) Jostein Quoting Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany > (Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder > - what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller case > and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New anti-fungus > unguent? > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/24/04 03:28AM >>> Perhaps they finally noticed it didn't sell after so many years? Personally, I am not that optimiztic. Remember the A70-210/4 was replaced by F70-210/4-5.6? Perhaps Pentax will go the f4 route since Pentax f2.8 zooms don't sell. Or they might just make some DA f2.8 zooms to keep the cost down? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany >(Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder >- what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller >case >and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New anti-fungus >unguent? _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Steve Desjardins wrote: > I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly > superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a > lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow > zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that!
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
on 24.06.04 15:24, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly > superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a > lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow > zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. Exactly, I would gladly see and buy something small, light and not-so-expensive like DA 50-200/4 rather than big and heavy xx-200/2.8 zooms. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > Steve Desjardins wrote: > > I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly > > superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a > > lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow > > zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. > > How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as > a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Me three! I would love a 55-200/4 DA to go with the 16-45. Same image quality as the 16-45. That would be superb! Bruce Thursday, June 24, 2004, 8:53:24 AM, you wrote: aw> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: >> Steve Desjardins wrote: >> > I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly >> > superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a >> > lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow >> > zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. >> >> How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as >> a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! aw> Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. aw> I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller aw> lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their aw> current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. aw> alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I wrote: > > > > How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as > > a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! alex wetmore wrote: > > Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. > > I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller > lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their > current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. How about splitting the difference and having a f3.4 version - best of both worlds! Lighter, cheaper, more compact than a f2.8 and only 1/2 stop slower - but still 1/2 stop faster than a f4!
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > I wrote: > > > > > > How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same > as > > > a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! > > alex wetmore wrote: > > > > Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. > > > > I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller > > lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their > > current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. > > How about splitting the difference and having a f3.4 version - best of both > worlds! Lighter, cheaper, more compact than a f2.8 and only 1/2 stop > slower - but still 1/2 stop faster than a f4! It really depends on the size and weight. The DA 16-45/4 is large. I can give them that, because it is a very sharp lens and I understand that it is difficult to build sharp and high quality wide angle optics for SLRs due to the mirror getting in the way. I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. Compact size and weight are more important to me than lens speed, especially since the *ist D is pretty noise free up to ISO 800 and still very usable at ISO 1600. Compact size and weight, and quality are also more important for me than a lens which extends all the way to 200mm. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:21:36 +0200, Jostein wrote: > The FA*70-200/2.8 has been a special order item for quite some > time already. Which is sad, because it's one of the best lenses > in that zoom range regardless of brand. I'd give my eye teeth for an FA* 80-200/2.8 ... and one day hopefully I'll be able to. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I'd be hoping for the FA* to be replace with a New FA* w/o power zoom. Seems unlikely thought... Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: on 24.06.04 9:28, Alan Chan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps they finally noticed it didn't sell after so many years? Personally, I am not that optimiztic. Remember the A70-210/4 was replaced by F70-210/4-5.6? Perhaps Pentax will go the f4 route since Pentax f2.8 zooms don't sell. Or they might just make some DA f2.8 zooms to keep the cost down? Who knows? Indeed FA* 80-200/2.8 while great lens was heavy and big and expensive with unused extras like powerzoom... It was way outdated. Cheap DA zoom in this range with f2.8, tripod mount, QSF mechanism, weight under 1kg and 67mm filters would be great, of course only for DSLR users.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan The FA*70-200/2.8 has been a special order item for quite some time already. Which is sad, because it's one of the best lenses in that zoom range regardless of brand. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
The problem is Pentax seem to be happy with the "good optics average/poor built" strategy recently. But that's understandable when they must keep the cost down in order to compete, just hope they won't make the FA28-70/4 mistake again. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
AC> even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give AC> that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). Well, they didn't mine. Photodo is, by now, old, they do not explain enough how they test the lenses, and where did they get the lenses (some of them are discontinued). The worst is they claim to be scientific, by using MTF testing, but that's cr*p still untill you know precisely how they tested it. Lens testing is a bunch of cr*p, unless you do a real world test with your lenses, and still it doesn't tell so much about other sample of the lens, with some new lenses having quite loose tolerances. And some of the long discontinued lenses - how many samples did they test, anyway? Just one? etc. That to say, that was a comment made on photodo and lens testing, not at you :-) From all the past, I respect you quite a lot. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
the 24 is very sharp at the center but has chromatic abberation. that's the reason i don't use it, not sharpness. people usually don't distinguish the two factors. most of my other glass is Pentax A* and FA* prime lenses. what isn't, is still all Pentax glass. the FA* 80-200/2.8 is the sharpest of the lot except for my FA 50/2.8 macro, but i haven't tested against the FA 50/1.4. it's considerably sharper than the DA 16-45/4, noticeably better than the M* 300/4, FA* 400/5.6, and A* 400/2.8. the FA 24-90 isn't as good as the DA 16-45/4. i've tried a number of the older highly regarded lenses by people here and think they are merely adequate. i've not tried any of the Limiteds enough to have an opinion on relative sharpness. is it better than other brands of equivalent zooms? i'l let you know in about 5 months. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:03 AM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > From what I've heard of that lens, and what I've seen of other 24s > (especially f/2 versions) that is not saying much. Most ultrawides stink, > especially at wide apertures and towards the edges.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
"Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times more >money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference >between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference >between setting the ISO from 200 to 400 on the *istD) and the difference >optically is apparently minimal (3.3 and 3.5 according to www.photodo.com) Photodo is a joke. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Mark Roberts wrote: > Photodo is a joke. > It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I can only quote their ratings. ;-) Regards Nenad
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
- Original Message - From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Mark Roberts wrote: > > Photodo is a joke. > > > It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I > can only quote their ratings. ;-) Their ratings are meaningless, in that their test procedures are suspect and their results have been proven innacurate time and again. Quoting their ratings is like quoting the Cheese Shop sketch, good for a laugh, but not very useful on a photography list. William Robb
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get such shots, I want one. Jostein Quoting Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness > except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at > all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > > > > I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence > to > > prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, > but > > even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give > > that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Well, they are a lot better than your own "tests" - which are trully useless. On 25 Jun 2004, at 14:24, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Mark Roberts wrote: Photodo is a joke. It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I can only quote their ratings. ;-) Their ratings are meaningless, in that their test procedures are suspect and their results have been proven innacurate time and again. Quoting their ratings is like quoting the Cheese Shop sketch, good for a laugh, but not very useful on a photography list. William Robb
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective > evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't > want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable > results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results > seem to match my experience so far). Photodo just measures sharpness. A lot of list members seem to cherish Pentax lenses for the harder to quantify qualities such as smooth bokeh and good contrast. Photodo doesn't measure these things, so their numbers might not be so important if that is what you are looking for. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > alex wetmore wrote: > > I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than > > the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the > > length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, > > and I think that is feasable. > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. On the other hand it is cheap, so I'm picking one up from KEH to try it out. This lens was last made in 1989, and it seems like zoom optics have come a long way since then. Does it have a rotating front element? alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built > quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some > Sigma lenses do. In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about 5 years. The contact cement between two elements fails, leaving you with a low contrast and not very sharp 28-70/4. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Um. That should read "..taken with the FA*80-200/2.8", of course. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? > He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions > except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. > > Here are links to the ones with this lens: > http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html > > I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get > such shots, I want one. > > Jostein > > > Quoting Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness > > except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at > > all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. > > > > Herb > > - Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > > > > > > > I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence > > to > > > prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, > > but > > > even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give > > > that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). > > > > > > > > > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I wrote: > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. alex wrote: > It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of > F lenses. As far as build quality goes, I think a lot of the bad reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. > Does it have a rotating front element? Yes it does.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I wrote: > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. alex wrote: > It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of > F lenses. As far as build quality goes, I think a lot of the bad reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. > Does it have a rotating front element? Yes it does.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, > poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses > don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a > well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Since the lens in question hasn't been made in 15 years the chances of finding a like new speciman is low. I don't like the manual focus feel on the F lenses that I've tried. All have been consumer grade zooms, but this seems to be one too, so I'm not expecting much. A DA version of this lens could be made smaller, and the build quality of the DA 16-45 is better than any F lens that I've used and many of the FA lenses. I like the Quick Focus Clutch mechanism too. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
> the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A* > 400/2.8 Wow! Heresy Alert !!! Fred
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
> Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she > submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the > submissions except one were taken with the FA* [80]-200/2.8. > Here are links to the ones with this lens: > http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html And the AF Adapter 1.7X worked very well with that lens on a couple of those shots, too. Fred
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Dang. Those are beautiful shots. rg Jostein wrote: Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get such shots, I want one. Jostein Quoting Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. Herb - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Gosch - that's beautiful photographs! Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 19:13 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she > submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the > submissions except one were taken with the FA* [80]-200/2.8. > Here are links to the ones with this lens: > http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html > http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html And the AF Adapter 1.7X worked very well with that lens on a couple of those shots, too. Fred
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon and Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. -That Guy Alan Chan wrote: "That raises another question. Are the bokeh and contrast of Pentax lenses really that good as some might suggested in general? I personally feel the bokeh of most Pentax lenses that I have used are okay, but not that great except maybe a few. Many have the bright-ring bokeh chatacteristics. Contax Zeiss lenses, in general, have better colour, contrast and bokeh imho. But then this is not a Contax list. :-)"
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
using the *istD, lenses that were adequate on film (using Provia 100F) were no longer adequate for me. they were not sharp enough, even for 8x10 work prints. that's why i got rid of most of them and have been acquring mostly * lenses. the one inexpensive Pentax lens i have is the FA 80-320, but i barely use it. even on back country trips, i would rather take the FA* 80-200 than lose the quality it offers, even though it weighs a lot more and needs a bigger tripod. after buying the *istD, the entire bottom half of the Pentax line became mostly useless to me because of image quality. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued > My personal experiences with pentax and non-pentax lenses similar to > the ones you mention suggests that a lens could be better than they are > and still not as good as the best on the market. I'd expect the 80-200 to > outperform the longer glass and wide-tele zooms. I'm curious how it compares > to, say, K 85/1.8, A* 85/1.4, K105/2.8, any good K/M/F 135, K150/4 or > M150/3.5, A* or FA* 200/2.8. I've used most of those lenses and I > find newer 70-200s to be better, at least in terms of sharpness.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
it's what i see when i am making my 11x14 prints. of the long lenses mentioned, it is the closest to the FA* 80-200/2.8 though. the M* 300/4 was a disappointment. whenever i have these long lenses mounted, it's to shoot wide open, so wide open performance is what counts. being able to stop down to f5.6 or f8 for most shots is what makes the FA* 80-200/2.8 significantly better instead of just better. the FA* 400/5.6 is a touch softer than the A* 400/2.8 wide open and a bit less contrasty. Herb - Original Message - From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued > > the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A* > > 400/2.8 > > Wow! Heresy Alert !!! > > Fred > > >
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
If you need it yes, it is worth it. If you don't well that's another question. Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: alex wetmore wrote: Compact size and weight are more important to me than lens speed, especially since the *ist D is pretty noise free up to ISO 800 and still very usable at ISO 1600. Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times more money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference between setting the ISO from 200 to 400 on the *istD) and the difference optically is apparently minimal (3.3 and 3.5 according to www.photodo.com)
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I understand that bokeh is very hard to get right in many zoom designs. Leica and Zeiss don't seem to make many zooms, which might help with their above average bokeh. I don't think it's a zoom or prime issue (bright-ring bokeh at least), but I have primes only now if that's what you implied. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Canon & Sigma have more crappy bokeh do not make Pentax good, but relatively better only. But thanks for lecture. I feel sorry for myself that I can only afford so few and so low end non-finest Pentax lenses like FA*24/2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, FA*85/1.4, FA100/2.8, FA*200/2.8, F*300/4.5. I should be ashame of myself. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon and Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I guess I should lecture you a little more. First off, the bokeh on the 24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity. Second, the 3 limited lenses are known for having relatively harsh bokeh even by Pentax standards due to the other areas they excel in, such as 3 dimensionality. Third, 3 of those lenses are telephotos, with the 100 being a Macro lens. Presumably it has at least decent bokeh. The only lens there that I would expect to have superb bokeh is the FA* 85 1.4. So you tell me, does it suck in this regard, or is it excellent??? -That Guy -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Canon & Sigma have more crappy bokeh do not make Pentax good, but relatively better only. But thanks for lecture. I feel sorry for myself that I can only afford so few and so low end non-finest Pentax lenses like FA*24/2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, FA*85/1.4, FA100/2.8, FA*200/2.8, F*300/4.5. I should be ashame of myself. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of >the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. >On >close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, >seems >to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. >Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights >with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 >years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon >and >Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you >haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing >Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I guess I should lecture you a little more. Always nice to attend leatures when there is something to learn. First off, the bokeh on the 24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity. Completely disagree. There are time I like to shoot very chose to the subject for some interesting effect. The background will appear very out-of-focus. In situation like this, the bokeh shows, and ugly with the FA*24/2. I have seen many wide angle shots with similar style in Japanese magazines too so don't tell me it is a non-issue. Second, the 3 limited lenses are known for having relatively harsh bokeh even by Pentax standards due to the other areas they excel in, such as 3 dimensionality. It is unknown to me. FA31 & FA77 have good bokeh though still have very slight bright-ring effect. Third, 3 of those lenses are telephotos, with the 100 being a Macro lens. Presumably it has at least decent bokeh. The only lens there that I would expect to have superb bokeh is the FA* 85 1.4. So you tell me, does it suck in this regard, or is it excellent??? To surprise you, I feel the FA*85/1.4 has the worst bokeh in this bunch. It excels on certain portrait, but I like the bokeh of FA77 better. From what I can see, the FA*85 has slightly stronger bright-ring bokeh than the FA77. Sometimes the backgrounds just appeared a little odd with the FA*85, but not with the FA77. But you are correct that the FA100/2.8 macro does have very nice bokeh. It is a nice lens for both macro & portrait imho. Thanks for the extra lecture. It teaches me that you have never used most of these low quality Pentax lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
> Completely disagree. There are time I like to shoot very chose to the > subject for some interesting effect. The background will appear very > out-of-focus. Like this one, for example: http://anders.hultman.nu/album/en/pride-2003?13 anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Alan wrote: > To surprise you, I feel the FA*85/1.4 has the worst bokeh in this bunch. It excels on certain portrait, but I like the bokeh of FA77 better. > From what I can see, the FA*85 has slightly stronger bright-ring bokeh than the FA77. Sometimes the backgrounds just appeared a little odd with the FA*85, but not with the FA77. But you are correct that the FA100/2.8 macro does have very nice bokeh. It is a nice lens for both macro & portrait imho. > This bokeh issue is a never ending story. This term is highly subjective. If a bokeh is considered as "bad or good" depends o a lot of factors. The FA*85/1.4 and the 77/1.8 are indeed quite different in their bokeh characteristics. Which one is better depends on what you are shooting and how do you want the picture to look like. It appears to me that both lenses are designed with particular boheh characteristics in mind. > Thanks for the extra lecture. It teaches me that you have never used most of these low quality Pentax lenses. Don't get grouchy. I disagree with you as well (well, in some not all of your points ;-). Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
The only lens I said I had used in the first place was the SMC-F 50 1.7, and IMO it has superb bokeh. The best of all the lenses I own. Better even than my Tamron 90mm Macro. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 2:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? >I guess I should lecture you a little more. Always nice to attend leatures when there is something to learn. >First off, the bokeh on the >24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely >used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity. Completely disagree. There are time I like to shoot very chose to the subject for some interesting effect. The background will appear very out-of-focus. In situation like this, the bokeh shows, and ugly with the FA*24/2. I have seen many wide angle shots with similar style in Japanese magazines too so don't tell me it is a non-issue. >Second, the 3 limited >lenses are known for having relatively harsh bokeh even by Pentax standards >due to the other areas they excel in, such as 3 dimensionality. It is unknown to me. FA31 & FA77 have good bokeh though still have very slight bright-ring effect. >Third, 3 of those lenses are telephotos, with the 100 being a Macro lens. >Presumably it >has at least decent bokeh. The only lens there that I would expect to have >superb bokeh is the FA* 85 1.4. So you tell me, does it suck in this >regard, or is it excellent??? To surprise you, I feel the FA*85/1.4 has the worst bokeh in this bunch. It excels on certain portrait, but I like the bokeh of FA77 better. From what I can see, the FA*85 has slightly stronger bright-ring bokeh than the FA77. Sometimes the backgrounds just appeared a little odd with the FA*85, but not with the FA77. But you are correct that the FA100/2.8 macro does have very nice bokeh. It is a nice lens for both macro & portrait imho. Thanks for the extra lecture. It teaches me that you have never used most of these low quality Pentax lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Photodo is/was no joke. It was run with Hasselblad personnel and that company´s MTF equipment - I suppose the company did not approve of it in the end. The English magazine Practical Photography used their results a lot one time, though. But not knowing how they weighted the results adds a measure of uncertainty. But some of the much debated Photodo results like: which is best, the Pentax 28-200 of the original Tamron version of same, were verified by other tests - the Tamron is better. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:27 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times more > >money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference > >between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference > >between setting the ISO from 200 to 400 on the *istD) and the difference > >optically is apparently minimal (3.3 and 3.5 according to www.photodo.com) > > Photodo is a joke. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
