Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? You lucky bad! Paul She's a dish. Oh yeah, and she sings real nice :-) And somebody in her band handles a fine fiddle and I hear some outstanding banjo playing. Her web site has a few bars of MP3 music - a few songs from her latest album. It's said she left/transcended BlueGrass, but listening to these clips makes you wonder. Mighty fine stuff! keith Cheers, Cotty
Re: FA*24/2.0
>Cotty wrote: > >> Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple >> of weeks? > >You lucky bad! > >Paul She's a dish. Oh yeah, and she sings real nice :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? You lucky bad! Paul
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:17 PM, John Munro wrote: WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/ off (?). Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me. I'll be glad to provide the service. Ya never know when those benches will try to smack you in the knee. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 21/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: >Your camera still sucks, though. If you think that's bad, you should hear me playing my Weber Mando ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? Cheers, Cotty That'll be a great show. Since 'Brother, where art thou?', there certainly has been a resurgence in bluegrass. And there are some amazing virtuoso musicians amongst them, and Allison Krause and Union Station is perhaps the best of the bunch. She is an incredible musician, singer, and a multi-instrumentalist as well. I also love Ralph Stanley doing those a capella early gospel revival tunes; 'Oh, Death' and such. I hope he's there for you. Hauntingly beautiful. And it is interesting to note how close the old Southern white church music is to early black Gospel, work songs, and spiritual music, which is amazing considering the brutal racial divisions in the history of the American South. One would think they would have distanced themselves from it, rather than trying to embrace it as their own. Have a great trip and a great concert, Cotty. You almost singlehandedly keep this list collegial and friendly with your comical jibes. Some people are so freakin' serious; life's too short to be serious all the time. We lubs ya, baby. Your camera still sucks, though. Cameron
RE: FA*24/2.0
I have tried this lens for one shooting event (indoor) on the *ist D. I found it brilliantly sharp and haven't noticed any CA-problems. Regards Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. august 2005 17:56 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: FA*24/2.0 On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote: > John Munro wrote: > > >> Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. >> How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"? >> Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA [The attachment star.gif has been manually removed] 24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges. Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures. I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are almost indistinguishable. Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24 lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it, and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results. At least mine do. I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for it. > Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? > Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... > Do you? > I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A 24mm f/2.8. That's really all I have to say about it. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
LOL
On 8/21/05, John Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Godfrey wrote:
> "LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench
>
> press 250lbs easily. ;-)
>
> I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do
> with strength or age.
>
> Godfrey"
>
>
>
> WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of
> anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something
> I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/off (?).
> Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of
> town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me.
>
> As for large and heavy gear and the issue of age - fortunately and
> unfortunately, respectively - well, that's another story - I LOVE to
> pack LOTS of Pentax gear ("Be prepared," my scout leader said.) up steep
> mountains, into rugged canyons, and across desert dunes, and sometimes
> through urban developments; alas, as to age, Ill up you by over close to
> 20 years (enuff said about that).
>
> I enjoy and value your savory input to the List - thank you very much
> for contributing your thoughts and experiences and photographs!
>
>
Re: FA*24/2.0
Godfrey wrote:
"LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench
press 250lbs easily. ;-)
I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do
with strength or age.
Godfrey"
WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of
anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something
I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/off (?).
Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of
town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me.
As for large and heavy gear and the issue of age - fortunately and
unfortunately, respectively - well, that's another story - I LOVE to
pack LOTS of Pentax gear ("Be prepared," my scout leader said.) up steep
mountains, into rugged canyons, and across desert dunes, and sometimes
through urban developments; alas, as to age, Ill up you by over close to
20 years (enuff said about that).
I enjoy and value your savory input to the List - thank you very much
for contributing your thoughts and experiences and photographs!
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cameron, I'm one of those guys who saw great results from the FA*24 on film. I was worried about the lens until I saw Stan using it on his digital body in one of the photos posted to the list. That's good enough for me. And I have yet to see bad digital results from it. Perhaps I'll run some tests against the A24/2.8. At f2, it's easier to focus. Regards, Bob S. On 8/20/05, Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about > this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly > unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what > they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results > they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. > Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took > me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, > you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. > > I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA > 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the > sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The > results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use > proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone > PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. > Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - > in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you > jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can > correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at > 24"x36" with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso > 800 at 13x19", as well. > > One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even > less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of > the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - > you don't even have to focus. > > I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list > said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, > oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, > so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed > them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting > because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film > in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own > mind. I can only tell you my experience. > > When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was > stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium > format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always > wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to > posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain > of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my > experience. > > If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, > drop me a line. > > Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you > don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this > magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or > sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. > > Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some > lucky bastard in my will. > > Thanks, > > Cameron > >
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: >Seen this? > >http://www.guitarshredshow.com/ Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: >At least you've got some decent glass on your franken-thingy... too bad >you're too old to hold it steady! > >Nyuk, nyuk. LOL You got me there pal :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: > her Taj Mahal >shots look like the building was designed by Picasso. LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. -- Best regards, Bruce Present company excepted, Bruce. I always liked your shots, and respected your opinion, having been on (and off) this list since about 1996 or so. Thanks, Cameron
RE: FA*24/2.0
Yo Cam! Don't let the bastards grind you down Actually you made 2 mistakes, cos as well as not getting a DSLR for 2 years while you were hiding under a barrel, you then went and got a Pentax! Having played with my mother-in-law's Rebel XT, with her $85.00 battery packs (2 AA's stitched together with a piece of plastic) I'm glad I did. Even with her battery grip, she can only fit 6 AA's - the *ist D fits 8. And the distortion on her IS lenses is amazing - her Taj Mahal shots look like the building was designed by Picasso. Nice and sharp in the centre, though... If it doesn't FLARE! Oh, yeah, and did I mention that her camera crashes with the battery grip on - a lot! Even with a good card in it, and fresh batteries. Just plain locks up solid - have to reboot all the time; it'd drive me batty. My friend Gary bought a Nikon D70 and his battery packs are $100.00... no grip available... well! His new lens just died, as well... the 18-70 kit lens thing... grinding noises, won't zoom... 2 months old. Gone to Nikon for fixing. At least you've got some decent glass on your franken-thingy... too bad you're too old to hold it steady! Nyuk, nyuk. Seen this? http://www.guitarshredshow.com/ Turn up your speakers. I luv youse guyses'z's. Pentax rules! Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
Atta boy, Cameron, give them naysayers Hell!!! Viva FA*24! ===
Re: FA*24/2.0
Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Cameron, I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. Well, I'm going to keep mine, until/unless it's proven to be a consummate dog. Aren't I, Bruce? So far, the answer is NO! Absolutely not! I think the 24mm is a perfect f/l. All depends... It took me a long time to learn how to use my 19mm, and I expect a lot of that will rub off on using the 24. I've just started using it, altho' I bought it a full year ago... sighhh. keith
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Cameron Hood wrote: ... Get a 24, and make up your own mind. ... That's exactly what two friends of mine in the UK did. John (DS body) bought one, used it for a month, and sold it: didn't like the CA, the weight or the bulk. Richard (D body) bought one and finds it his standard lens, the one he uses most of the time. I find I tend to like what John likes more than what Richard likes. Both take good photographs and have credible opinions about things that we have both owned or used. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 9:28 AM, John Munro wrote: ... The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) "miniature", "lightweight" 35mm cameras among professional photographers. ... LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench press 250lbs easily. ;-) I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do with strength or age. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
Hello Cameron, I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, August 20, 2005, 11:05:06 AM, you wrote: CH> I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about CH> this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly CH> unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what CH> they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results CH> they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. CH> Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took CH> me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, CH> you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. CH> I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA CH> 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the CH> sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The CH> results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use CH> proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone CH> PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. CH> Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - CH> in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you CH> jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can CH> correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at CH> 24"x36" with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso CH> 800 at 13x19", as well. CH> One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even CH> less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of CH> the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - CH> you don't even have to focus. CH> I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list CH> said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, CH> oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, CH> so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed CH> them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting CH> because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film CH> in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own CH> mind. I can only tell you my experience. CH> When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was CH> stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium CH> format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always CH> wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to CH> posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain CH> of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my CH> experience. CH> If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, CH> drop me a line. CH> Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you CH> don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this CH> magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or CH> sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. CH> Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some CH> lucky bastard in my will. CH> Thanks, CH> Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: >I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list >said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, >oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, >so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed >them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting >because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film >in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own >mind. I can only tell you my experience. Yo Cam! Don't let the bastards grind you down Actually you made 2 mistakes, cos as well as not getting a DSLR for 2 years while you were hiding under a barrel, you then went and got a Pentax! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at 24"x36" with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso 800 at 13x19", as well. One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - you don't even have to focus. I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own mind. I can only tell you my experience. When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my experience. If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, drop me a line. Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some lucky bastard in my will. Thanks, Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
John Munro wrote: Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley === The plate on the side of my lens states, "SMC PENTAX-FA* 1:2 24mm -IF&AL-" I've never heard of an FA24 versus an FA*24; so, I checked Dimitrov's site and couldn't find a listing for an FA24 there, only an FA*24 is listed. Without naming names, because that's not what this discussion is all about, it happens that some people are not always sufficiently precise when stating what lens did what. Either they're shortening up the name, or forgot to add the *, or something like that. No doubt unintentional, but it happens. To answer your question, I have only used the FA*24 f/2 and the A24 f/2.8 - I prefer the FA*24 over the A24. The only aspect of the A24 I like over the FA*24 is the color of the lens' body - black vs. silver, respectively. The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) "miniature", "lightweight" 35mm cameras among professional photographers. It is beneficial to me having the extra f/stop speed and autofocus abilities of the FA*24, plus I think my FA*24 has superior optical qualities than my A24 - most of what I shoot is b&w film and the b&w tonal print qualities of the FA lens are not as harsh and contrasty as the A24 lens - i.e., the FA lens is more Leica-like - more sharpness with a pleasing, even, transitional blending of the gray scale. I realize this is VERY subjective, but it is my honest opinion and why I prefer the FA*24. Hope you have a good day, Keith. - JM Thanks for your evaluation. I do appreciate it. keith
Re: FA*24/2.0
Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley === The plate on the side of my lens states, "SMC PENTAX-FA* 1:2 24mm -IF&AL-" I've never heard of an FA24 versus an FA*24; so, I checked Dimitrov's site and couldn't find a listing for an FA24 there, only an FA*24 is listed. To answer your question, I have only used the FA*24 f/2 and the A24 f/2.8 - I prefer the FA*24 over the A24. The only aspect of the A24 I like over the FA*24 is the color of the lens' body - black vs. silver, respectively. The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) "miniature", "lightweight" 35mm cameras among professional photographers. It is beneficial to me having the extra f/stop speed and autofocus abilities of the FA*24, plus I think my FA*24 has superior optical qualities than my A24 - most of what I shoot is b&w film and the b&w tonal print qualities of the FA lens are not as harsh and contrasty as the A24 lens - i.e., the FA lens is more Leica-like - more sharpness with a pleasing, even, transitional blending of the gray scale. I realize this is VERY subjective, but it is my honest opinion and why I prefer the FA*24. Hope you have a good day, Keith. - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote: John Munro wrote: Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"? Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA [The attachment star.gif has been manually removed] 24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges. Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures. I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are almost indistinguishable. Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24 lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it, and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results. At least mine do. I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for it. Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A 24mm f/2.8. That's really all I have to say about it. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
shoot an image with tree branches in the upper corners and clear, sunny blue sky behind them. check to see that the branches are without color fringes. in PSCS RAW, it's easy to correct, so i am going to try shooting some more with it and see. in B&W mode, CA shows up as lack of sharpness more than anything else. Herb - Original Message - From: "John Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: FA*24/2.0 I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this!
Re: FA*24/2.0
it has too much CA on film too. however, that can be corrected fairly easily when shooting RAW and using PSCS Camera RAW. it's just not wide enough on a APS sensor body for most of my needs. Herb - Original Message - From: "Gonz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:00 PM Subject: Re: FA*24/2.0 I dont have it but I have heard complaints that it has too much CA on the digital. Supposedly fabulous on film.
Re: FA*24/2.0
John Munro wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"? I'm curious, for I have both lenses you speak of, namely the FA20~35 and FA24. I'd like to know your technique for detecting the chromatic aberration, so I can see if my lens(es) is(are) as poor as the FA24 you describe. Due to an assignment I had, I had some 40x60 inch ilfochrome prints made from Kodachrome 25 I had shot using the FA24 and the FA20~35. The prints were grainy, of course, but the FA24 prints were far sharper than the prints from the FA20~35. Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley (In fact the prints from the zoom were not acceptable to me or the customer at that degree of enlargement - they were acceptable as 20x30's.) My FA24 has made many, many 16x20 b&w prints that are tonally excellent and which exhibit very good sharpness in my opinion. I assume my standards may not be as high as others, but I've never received any criticism of my final prints that dealt with sharpness. I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this! - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"? I'm curious, for I have both lenses you speak of, namely the FA20~35 and FA24. I'd like to know your technique for detecting the chromatic aberration, so I can see if my lens(es) is(are) as poor as the FA24 you describe. Due to an assignment I had, I had some 40x60 inch ilfochrome prints made from Kodachrome 25 I had shot using the FA24 and the FA20~35. The prints were grainy, of course, but the FA24 prints were far sharper than the prints from the FA20~35. (In fact the prints from the zoom were not acceptable to me or the customer at that degree of enlargement - they were acceptable as 20x30's.) My FA24 has made many, many 16x20 b&w prints that are tonally excellent and which exhibit very good sharpness in my opinion. I assume my standards may not be as high as others, but I've never received any criticism of my final prints that dealt with sharpness. I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this! - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any comments on this lens? With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
I dont have it but I have heard complaints that it has too much CA on the digital. Supposedly fabulous on film. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any comments on this lens? Shel
RE: FA*24/2.0
Would like to add, especially in comparison to the K24/2.8 Shel > Any comments on this lens?
FA*24/2.0
Any comments on this lens? Shel
Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
That really is a strange case of flare. I too own that lens and have never seen anything like it, and I often tend to shoot straight into lights at times. I have a shot of a long exposure of a ferris wheel at night with two spotlights - one aimed directly at the camera - clearly visible in the picture and it exhibits very little to no flare at all. I concur with the others that it must have been a lens hood issue. Sherwin Abesamis mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Familie Scheffler) >Subject: Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for >flare > > >> The actual link is: > >> http://www.bienenbernd.de > >> isn't it? > >> (there is a 'n' less than the one you said) > >> It doesn't work well with Netscape. > >Sorry for that. I will install Netscape to test it and to work on that. (The >first version of my homepage was made by my son. Now I am trying to loosen >from his help. I regret, he has no intention to think of people using >Netscape.) > > >> Were you using the big hood supplied with the lens? Where was the sun? > >Well, before you asked I was sure I used the big lenshood. But now ... >The pictures was taken on the old cementory in Salzburg/Austria, and the sun >came from the left from above the trees. - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
Bernd, I have used the lens. It's got my vote for favorite lens. I've never seen that flare. The front element is bigger than the K24/2.8 or A24/2.8, and I've got to believe you just got a odd spot of sunlight on the front element thru the leaves on the trees. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I have the FA 24/2 and haven't run across the flare yours (not Jaume's) shows. But I haven't run all that many rolls through it, yet. Nice pictures, aside from the flare. >> - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
I have the FA 24/2 and haven't run across the flare yours (not Jaume's) shows. But I haven't run all that many rolls through it, yet. Nice pictures, aside from the flare. Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The actual link is: >http://www.bienenbernd.de >isn't it? >(there is a 'n' less than the one you said) >It doesn't work well with Netscape. > >I agree that the flare shown there is a little bit >strange. I have the SMC-A 24/2.8 and I have never seen >anything like this... > >Regards, >Jaume - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
>EWW, Flare >I dont ever recall getting any with my 24mm F3.5 SMCT. Perhaps it's due to the large number of elements, or plastic AL, I don't know. regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
EWW, Flare I dont ever recall getting any with my 24mm F3.5 SMCT. JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Chan > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example > for flare > > > >Well, before you asked I was sure I used the big lenshood. But now ... > >The pictures was taken on the old cementory in Salzburg/Austria, and the > >sun > >came from the left from above the trees. > > I have a picture which shows similar flare too, and the hood was used. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
>Well, before you asked I was sure I used the big lenshood. But now ... >The pictures was taken on the old cementory in Salzburg/Austria, and the >sun >came from the left from above the trees. I have a picture which shows similar flare too, and the hood was used. regards, Alan Chan _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
>> The actual link is: >> http://www.bienenbernd.de >> isn't it? >> (there is a 'n' less than the one you said) >> It doesn't work well with Netscape. Sorry for that. I will install Netscape to test it and to work on that. (The first version of my homepage was made by my son. Now I am trying to loosen from his help. I regret, he has no intention to think of people using Netscape.) >> Were you using the big hood supplied with the lens? Where was the sun? Well, before you asked I was sure I used the big lenshood. But now ... The pictures was taken on the old cementory in Salzburg/Austria, and the sun came from the left from above the trees. Regards, Bernd - 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: Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one examplefor flare
I had this happen on a shot using a 35-80 f4.5-5.6 Pentax zoom(no hood) shooting southerly,into a hazy sun light wood scene last fall.I attributed this to not having my hood on.Could be the same at your end. Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:58:00 EST To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one examplefor flare Bernd, I thought the flare was strange, very unusual. Could it be a spot of sunlight or reflection hitting the lens front? Looks like you have an initial spot plus a reflection on an inner element. Were you using the big hood supplied with the lens? Where was the sun? Regards, Bob S. >> Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
The actual link is: http://www.bienenbernd.de isn't it? (there is a 'n' less than the one you said) It doesn't work well with Netscape. I agree that the flare shown there is a little bit strange. I have the SMC-A 24/2.8 and I have never seen anything like this... Regards, Jaume --- Familie Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I mounted ten pictures made with the FA*24/2.0 on my > homepage in a new > gallery > www.bienenbnernd.de --->>"Galerie" --->> 4th and > least gallery > > The pictures No 5 (with red frame) shows some > unexpected flare. In the > moment I took this shot I didn't mention it. Who > would think of flare when > the sun doesn't appear in the picture?! Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 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 .
wide-angle: pictures made with FA*24/2.0 and one example for flare
Hello, I mounted ten pictures made with the FA*24/2.0 on my homepage in a new gallery www.bienenbnernd.de --->>"Galerie" --->> 4th and least gallery The pictures No 5 (with red frame) shows some unexpected flare. In the moment I took this shot I didn't mention it. Who would think of flare when the sun doesn't appear in the picture?! By the way: concerning 'Subject: This List Should Have Warning Labels...': I never thought so much on cameras, lenses, and so on for the last 20 years (when I gave up my own dark-room) since I began looking at the PUG and homepages of its members and at least reading the PDML. Thanks god my wife has her own intensive hobby in sports so she understands emotions in those things. best wishes Bernd - 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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Although I love the FA24/2, I have to say Yoshihiko has a good point. >The FA24/2 with hood attached is easily twice as big as anything else, >twice the diameter and twice the length. Check the specs on Boz's site. > >The tulip hood will store reversed on the front of the lens, making things >more compact, but this is still a 'fat' lens. I'm sure the FA28/2.8 is more >compact. Absolutely right. I just got back from picking up a 12 x 18 print I had mounted; it was shot with the FA 28/f2.8 because I was just walking around that day and didn't want to carry a lot around with me. I had the 28 on an MX, which made a very nice compact kit. BTW: The 12 x 18 looks very nice and could probably be enlarged even more. So even though the 24/2.0 is better, you shouldn't underrate the humble 28/2.8. - 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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
Hi David, Thanks for that great description. I dislike lenses that focus beyond infinity, but that wont stop me from buying the lense. I think i have to deside if the extra stop and slightly wider view are worth the extra money. Thanks - Original Message - From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0 > Paul Jones writes: > > > what is the build quality like? I dont actualy own any FA series lenses at > > the moment, only F. > > I quite like mine, even though I once accidentally whacked the hood into 6 > pieces (tulip bit, bayonet bit, metal locking ring and three screws) a couple of > months ago. Some 24 hour Araldite fixed that up nicely. It took a pretty > heavy whack to do that and a metal hood would certainly have bent. If the > plastic was stronger the damage could have been worse. > > Its a nice lens to use. I think my favourite feature is how you swap between > MF and AF by snapping the focus ring forwards or backwards. I wish my > macro lens did that. The MF "feel" isn't the best, but that's not a major > complaint. The focussing ring continues to turn beyond the focus limits, but > you can tell because it "drags" a bit harder. This definitely feels weird when > you're used to hard end-stops. > > I have also found that mine focusses a little beyond infinity which strikes me > as being very strange for a wide-angle, but I've heard a suggestion that AF > systems work better this way. > > Using a polariser with this lens could be inconvenient as the hood will get in > the way. Not a problem for me because I tend to avoid polarisers (especially > with wides) but you might need to consider this. > > I do find that fitting and removing the lens cap is a bit of a pain with the hood > mounted backwards, but I suspect that I don't have the "original" cap > because I bought the lens secondhand. > > 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 . > > - 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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
Hi Yoshihiko, I plan to use it mainly for landscapes, although it will surely get used for numerous occasions. I'm not sure how important the extra stop over the 28mm will be, but its always handy. I think it will make a good companion for the FA 28-70 f/4 AL i have. I do also have a 28mm F2.8 mf vivitar lense which is surprisingly sharp. Thanks From: "Yoshihiko Takinami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:27 PM Subject: Re: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0 > Hi Paul, > > At 3 Mar 2001 16:11:03 +1100, > "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote; > > > I think i'll buy the FA 24 2.0, it sounds much better :) > > I agree that FA*24/2 is better optically. But again I > must point out that the choice depends on what kind of > photos you want to take. > > > what is the build quality like? I dont actualy own any FA series > > lenses at the moment, only F. > > I prefer usual FA lenses to FA* lenses in point of built > quality, though both of them are better than F lenses, > IMHO. > > I do not like the clutch mechanisms of FA* lenses much, > because I doubt their durabilities. Though the idea of > clutch mechanism itself seems nice. > > Hope this helps. > -- > Yoshihiko Takinami > Osaka, Japan > [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 . > > - 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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
Hi Paul, At 3 Mar 2001 16:11:03 +1100, "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote; > I think i'll buy the FA 24 2.0, it sounds much better :) I agree that FA*24/2 is better optically. But again I must point out that the choice depends on what kind of photos you want to take. > what is the build quality like? I dont actualy own any FA series > lenses at the moment, only F. I prefer usual FA lenses to FA* lenses in point of built quality, though both of them are better than F lenses, IMHO. I do not like the clutch mechanisms of FA* lenses much, because I doubt their durabilities. Though the idea of clutch mechanism itself seems nice. Hope this helps. -- Yoshihiko Takinami Osaka, Japan [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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
Paul Jones writes: > what is the build quality like? I dont actualy own any FA series lenses at > the moment, only F. I quite like mine, even though I once accidentally whacked the hood into 6 pieces (tulip bit, bayonet bit, metal locking ring and three screws) a couple of months ago. Some 24 hour Araldite fixed that up nicely. It took a pretty heavy whack to do that and a metal hood would certainly have bent. If the plastic was stronger the damage could have been worse. Its a nice lens to use. I think my favourite feature is how you swap between MF and AF by snapping the focus ring forwards or backwards. I wish my macro lens did that. The MF "feel" isn't the best, but that's not a major complaint. The focussing ring continues to turn beyond the focus limits, but you can tell because it "drags" a bit harder. This definitely feels weird when you're used to hard end-stops. I have also found that mine focusses a little beyond infinity which strikes me as being very strange for a wide-angle, but I've heard a suggestion that AF systems work better this way. Using a polariser with this lens could be inconvenient as the hood will get in the way. Not a problem for me because I tend to avoid polarisers (especially with wides) but you might need to consider this. I do find that fitting and removing the lens cap is a bit of a pain with the hood mounted backwards, but I suspect that I don't have the "original" cap because I bought the lens secondhand. 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: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
I echo Bob's findings. I have both the FA 28 and the FA 24 and find that I almost never use the 28. The 24 is *much* better. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:36 PM Subject: Re: FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0 > Paul, > > Pentax 28mm lenses are nothing special. I don't like the M28/2.8 and don't > think the A28/2.8 is especially better. I can't say about the FA28/2.8. > > The A24/2.0 is truly special. It's wider and faster than the A28/2.8, but > it's also an especially sharp lens with an aspheric element. I have had > extraordinary pictures with this lens, outperforming everything else I owned > until I acquired some of the * star lenses. > > Regards, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
FA 28 2.8 versus FA 24 2.0
Hi, Has any one got any opinions on these two lenses and how they compare? I plan on buying one of them, not sure which yet. Do users of these lenses find the wider angle of the 24 much mure usefull? i havent looked through a 24mm and will probaly mail order the lense i choose. Thanks - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
SETH writes: > Ok I'll bite. Why do you need f/2.8 on 15 mm lens? I don't think I > ever used it at wider than f/8. Shooting handheld in low light. I've been shooting wide-open at 1/15th with that lens just after sunset a couple of times. In those cases I locked up the mirror since composition wasn't so critical. I don't like shooting handheld at 1/15 with any lens! > As far as hoods are concerned on 15 > mm lenses, they are pretty symbolic. At best, all they do is offer > some minimal protection for the front element. They can help when the sun is _just_ outside the frame. I've managed to get my fingers in the frame a couple of times when shielding the sun at the corner of the frame. A 100% viewfinder would be rather handy at times :) 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
On 30 Jan 2001, at 5:52, SETH wrote: > Ok I'll bite. Why do you need f/2.8 on 15 mm lens? I don't think I > ever used it at wider than f/8. As far as hoods are concerned on 15 > mm lenses, they are pretty symbolic. At best, all they do is offer > some minimal protection for the front element. When there is too little light to get a nice 1/15s shutter speed at f3.5 silly :-) Some of us shoot a lot of low light pics, sometimes using tripods is impossible (time, space, legal restrictions), I use mine open regularly, most often when it is coupled with 800+ ISO film. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.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.
Re: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
"David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan Chan writes: > > Few years back, I read in a UK magazine which rated the Nikkor and > > Contax(Zeiss) had the best sharpness while the Pentax was not so hot > > (vignetting and sharpness were problems until f8). The only thing great > > about the Pentax was flare control (as well as the Zeiss). The Nikkor had > > flare problem. > I can confirm that the Pentax 15mm is not terribly sharp wide-open. I > remember that the sharpness increased and light falloff reduced dramatically > at f/5.6 and by f/8 they weren't a problem. This lens holds a lot of detail > when stopped down, especially at high contrast due to SMC. My PUG pics > for Oct 2000 and Jan 2001 were shot with this lens. > > I sometimes wish that it had at least 6 aperture blades, and a slightly > deeper hood. And a more sensible choice of built-in filters (grumble). F/2.8 > and internal focussing would be nice, too (15mm limited, anyone?:) Ok I'll bite. Why do you need f/2.8 on 15 mm lens? I don't think I ever used it at wider than f/8. As far as hoods are concerned on 15 mm lenses, they are pretty symbolic. At best, all they do is offer some minimal protection for the front element. - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Alan Chan writes: > Few years back, I read in a UK magazine which rated the Nikkor and > Contax(Zeiss) had the best sharpness while the Pentax was not so hot > (vignetting and sharpness were problems until f8). The only thing great > about the Pentax was flare control (as well as the Zeiss). The Nikkor had > flare problem. I can confirm that the Pentax 15mm is not terribly sharp wide-open. I remember that the sharpness increased and light falloff reduced dramatically at f/5.6 and by f/8 they weren't a problem. This lens holds a lot of detail when stopped down, especially at high contrast due to SMC. My PUG pics for Oct 2000 and Jan 2001 were shot with this lens. I sometimes wish that it had at least 6 aperture blades, and a slightly deeper hood. And a more sensible choice of built-in filters (grumble). F/2.8 and internal focussing would be nice, too (15mm limited, anyone?:) 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
> If I remember right, Carl Zeiss' version of that lens was virtually >identical (I >think they licensed Pentax's design, or co-developed it) with a few changes >to get rid of the aspheric element, presumably to get around the >manufacturing difficulties and cost. I don't know how it performs in >comparison. Few years back, I read in a UK magazine which rated the Nikkor and Contax(Zeiss) had the best sharpness while the Pentax was not so hot (vignetting and sharpness were problems until f8). The only thing great about the Pentax was flare control (as well as the Zeiss). The Nikkor had flare problem. 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
>You are all evil. Here I am printing some images that I'm really happy >with from my Sigma 24mm f2.8, and ALL I CAN THINK ABOUT IS HOW MUCH I >WANT THAT FA* 24mm f2.0!!! Just happened I had the Sigma 24/2.8 (manual focus PKA) not long ago. The interesting thing is, I do not find the FA*24/2 sharper than the Sigma, nor the colour reproduction is better. However, the Sigma had flare problem. If you are looking for a huge jump in terms of image quality, you might be disappointed. I do not find the FA* all that better than this particular Sigma. 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:09:22 -0500, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > Okay, one question, since apparently EVERYONE BUT ME owns this lens... > What's the minimum focussing distance? Couldn't tell you, Aaron. I'm in the same "lens disadvantaged" boat you are! :-) TTYL, DougF - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Matjaz Osojnik wrote: > it focuses down to 0,3 m - or 1 foot, more or less. HA! My Sigma focuses down to 0.18m, so the FA*24mm f2.0 isn't the king of 24mm lenses after all! Oh, who am I kidding, I still want it. Aaron - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
At 18:58 29.1.2001 +0100, you wrote:
[...]
>By the way, there has been a thread in the list about aspherical lenses.
>In my Z-1 brochure says that the 24 mm. uses one of the composite
>acrilic-over-glass aspheric lenses. The FA 28-70 mm. 4.0 which I have
>has also got one of those composite lenses, and I think that my FA 35
>mm. too.
>I am not sure, but it seems that all modern aspherical Pentax lenses use
>the same construction. Perhaps the A 15 mm. is the exception of the
>rule, because it is an older design.
>
>--
>Carlos Royo
If I remember the lens diagram from KMP, the A 15mm's aspheric element was
one of the smallest ones, in the rear part of the assembly, and thus
propably able to be produced by the glass-only molding (?) method described
earlier in diff. thread, used for small diameter elements such as in
microscopes. Or perhaps not - this's jsut speculation on my side.
Damn you all! You are making me want to buy the lens too! Now I have to
choose: Either a Z1p or FA* 24/2 ;-{
Frantisek
-
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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Aaron, it focuses down to 0,3 m - or 1 foot, more or less. Ciao, Matjaz > > What's the minimum focussing distance? > > Aaron - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
dave o'brien wrote: > > > Argh! my willpower is going, I can feel it... > > >Lens Purchase Enabler > > Too right mate. So, what's a good price for one of these? I've seen > one on sale for about hkd 2800 (about USD 250). Son, is money really an issue? If you don't have enough, just save for a couple of months. Or maybe ask the wife to pick up a few more shifts. Having said that, if you found one for $US250 you should jump on it, and right quick mate! tv -Enabling Lens Purchases Since 1999- - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
>Too right mate. So, what's a good price for one of these? I've seen >one on sale for about hkd 2800 (about USD 250). > >dave If you are in HK, just go to Man Shing to ask the price. They are not the cheapest, but certainly the most trusted retailer in HK. 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
A scroll of mail from Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:01:38 -0600 Read it? y >Oh, but you *should* buy it. It's a superb lens, and, if you didn't _need_ >it for your work, then why would you _want_ it so much? Quod erat >demonstrandum. It's obviously the right lens for your work and it would be >just bordering on irresponsible of you not to have it in your arsenal. A >touch of fiscal irresponsibility can prevent a large hit of photographic >irresponsibility. Do you value art, or money? Certainly you would do good >work with it. It's one of Pentax's very best lenses, which, as you well >know, is really saying something. You, too, deserve to be the happy owner of >an FA 24mm f/2. Don't you? Argh! my willpower is going, I can feel it... >Lens Purchase Enabler Too right mate. So, what's a good price for one of these? I've seen one on sale for about hkd 2800 (about USD 250). dave - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Aaron Reynolds writes: > Enjoy it...let me know if you find any reasons that I shouldn't buy it, > okay? ;) I have one, but it's pretty minor. The [plastic] hood doesn't handle unreasonable abuse. Mine got a good vertical whack when I was on holiday and fell to bits. The tulip part let go from the bayonet fitting when the plastic anchoring the screws gave way. A bit of Araldite fixed it up nicely. I really didn't like the concept of having to order a new hood! I guess I should be thankful they used plastic: I'd never have been able to straighten a metal hood back to its original beauty. Now go out and buy one. While you're there, pick up a 15mm :) - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Mark wrote: > Mark Roberts > (Lens Purchase Enabler in training. How'm I doin?) You earn a star AND a check. That was good. A few more enabler messages and you are promoted to full-rank LPE. --Mike, LPE - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Mike "Lens Purchasing Enabler" ohnston wrote: You, too, deserve to be the happy owner of > an FA 24mm f/2. Don't you? > Well, gosh. Now that you put it that way... > > - > 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Aaron wrote: > Enjoy it...let me know if you find any reasons that I shouldn't buy it, > okay? ;) I'm afraid there *aren't* any reasons why you shouldn't buy it. (OK, it's larger and heavier than most wide angle primes. You're a real man, aren't you? I thought so.) I can still vividly remember the moment I looked at the first black & white print I shot with this lens. I remember standing there in the darkroom just stunned. You *owe* yourself this feeling! Mark Roberts (Lens Purchase Enabler in training. How'm I doin?) - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Aaron wrote: > Enjoy it...let me know if you find any reasons that I shouldn't buy it, > okay? ;) Aaron, Oh, but you *should* buy it. It's a superb lens, and, if you didn't _need_ it for your work, then why would you _want_ it so much? Quod erat demonstrandum. It's obviously the right lens for your work and it would be just bordering on irresponsible of you not to have it in your arsenal. A touch of fiscal irresponsibility can prevent a large hit of photographic irresponsibility. Do you value art, or money? Certainly you would do good work with it. It's one of Pentax's very best lenses, which, as you well know, is really saying something. You, too, deserve to be the happy owner of an FA 24mm f/2. Don't you? --Mike Lens Purchase Enabler - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
> Aaron wrote: > Matjaz, I am so jealous that I can TASTE it. :) > > Enjoy it...let me know if you find any reasons that I shouldn't buy it, > okay? ;) If I find one, I will, Aaron. But it will be damn hard. I just shot two rolls over the weekend (don't blame me, it was raining all the time, really - this european weather sucks more and more) and I enjoyed every frame taken. I'm anxious to see the results. And that clutch for manual focusing is really cool... :) Ciao, Matjaz P.S.: Thanks, Dan. - 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: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Matjaz, I am so jealous that I can TASTE it. :) Enjoy it...let me know if you find any reasons that I shouldn't buy it, okay? ;) Aaron - 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.
I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
Hi all, just have to let you know: yesterday evening I finally brought home shiny, brand new FA* 24 2.0 which I ordered before Christmas. Right now, beside me sits MZ-3 with 24 attached and it looks great. I'm quite impressed with the lens. Build quality seems very good, the clutch mechanism really makes manual focusing smooth and much much better than on other AF lenses that I tried before and autofocus is fast. Today it was raining here so I shot only few frames with it. Tomorrow I will shoot some more, especially in comparison with my old Sigma 24/2.8 (although it won't be a fair comparison since Sigma's lens coating is damaged). I'm happy today. :) Ciao, Matjaz P.S.: It is friday, too! - 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.
