Re: Pentax F-series lenses - Contrarian
Two words here are professional standards. You wouldn't want to shoot a wedding without a 2.8 lens, in a church. With a fast lens you do not have to use flash (or can use it just to spicy up the photographs, not as a sole means of illumination). Of course many slower lenses are as good optically, some even mechanically (although an exception). It's always easier to design a slower lens to be good. But market thinking creeps here. Pros want 2.8 glass, so most other glass is not built for pros but for "amateurs". Thus expect lower build quality and (sometimes) worse performance. I shot with both 2.8 and 3.5-4.5 short zoom (20-35) and the faster lens made a whole lot of difference. No matter where I shoot, I mostly used the lens wide open inside. So the speed paid for itself. That to say, I liked Pentax for providing quality alternatives, for example for hiking - 2.8 zoom is to heavy to lug around when you hike, and Pentax always had high quality lenses for those people. 24-35 f/3.5, FA 20-35 f/4, and similar. To the mountains, I would not take a 2.8 zoom for issues of weight. For the occassions I need fast glass there, I would take a small fast prime. Frantisek
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
...the Tak K 135/2.5 was so inexpensive, I figured "Why not?" keith You saved the price of a few films but all your films will bear the mark of the cheaper lens. If you take a lot of photographs, used medium aperture lenses are cheap, film is expensive... Andre
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Hi Keith. I'll expand a bit my commentary... Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. I forgot who said that, but... what is meant by "bad construction?" This started out as a Pentax lens. I assume a Pentax design. Did they goof? I guess we'll never know, but it seems to me that an 11 element, constant aperture lens, with an 8 leaf shutter, is not an INexpensive method of putting a lens together! I'm sure they didn't set out to make a "cheap" lens... Most non-SMC zooms from Pentax I have taken in my hands had a focus/zoom ring soft enough that it wouln't stay in place unless you had your lens quite horizontal. The general ring feeling was really not as good as on the old M80-200 or even the A70-210. An old K or M zoom is a pleasure to use and won't wobble even if it becomes a bit soft with time. (Well... wobble may be too strong of a word some of the times.) The "post-M" zooms, beginning in 1984 with the "SMC 80-200 type 2" zoom which was later produced without SMC, won't hold on very well under regular use. A new SMC A70-210, as the one I had for a year, was doing great, but I have seen used ones that were not as good mechanically as the older K and M ones, but they are still better than non-SMC zooms (which, by the way, were, generally if not always, not made in Japan). All SMC gives you is freedom from flare and such... If you use an otherwise capable non-SMC lens in less demanding situations, you can still get excellent photographs. Yes, but contrast will probably still be lower in most situations. If they had made this lens with SMC coatings, would the category immediately switch to "a great lens?" No because optical and mechanical construction are as important. The SMC-A70-210, a good lens, has non non-SMC small brother. The non-SMC A70-200, a lower quality lens, has no SMC big brother. Their quality is related to optical & mechanical construction more than SMC I think. But a good lens deserves SMC. Non-SMC lenses were aimed at low budget customers. Unfortunately you usually get what you pay for. Andre
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith, I don't know about all the Takumar K-mount lenses, but I have used the Takumar K 135/2.5. In comparison to the M 135/3.5, I could see the difference on my 3x5 inch prints. The Takumar was fuzzier in a non-flare situation. This is why I avoid Takumar K-mount lenses. Regards, Bob S. Really...How interesting! I have a Tak K-mount 135/2.5 but have not used it. I will look for the differences. It's so easy to use my authentic Tak M42 135s (f/2.5 and f/3.5) on my K bodies, with the adapter, and I DO know how they record images! Still, the Tak K 135/2.5 was so inexpensive, I figured "Why not?" keith Keith writes: All SMC gives you is freedom from flare and such... If you use an otherwise capable non-SMC lens in less demanding situations, you can still get excellent photographs. If they had made this lens with SMC coatings, would the category immediately switch to "a great lens?" Curious so many denigrate it... keith whaley
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Keith, I don't know about all the Takumar K-mount lenses, but I have used the Takumar K 135/2.5. In comparison to the M 135/3.5, I could see the difference on my 3x5 inch prints. The Takumar was fuzzier in a non-flare situation. This is why I avoid Takumar K-mount lenses. Regards, Bob S. Keith writes: > All SMC gives you is freedom from flare and such... If you use an > otherwise capable non-SMC lens in less demanding situations, you can > still get excellent photographs. If they had made this lens with SMC > coatings, would the category immediately switch to "a great lens?" > > Curious so many denigrate it... > > keith whaley
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Peter J. Alling wrote: You seemed to me that you were, I just wished to correct what appeared to me to be a misapprehension. No other criticism implied. Okay. I did learn something from the conversation, however. I had confirmation that it was merely rebadged. Don't ask me why, but I need to know these things. keith Keith Whaley wrote: Peter J. Alling wrote: Pentax didn't stop making it, they just started selling it under their Takumar brand. I gathered as much. Sorry for the implication that it was otherwise. I'll be more careful around you in the future. Prior to K mount all Asahi lenses were Takumars. Yes, I'm aware of that. Did I imply otherwise? keith whaley
Re: Pentax F-series lenses - Contrarian
I have been following this thread with some interest waiting for the time to put my 2 cents in. I learned that my FA lenses are no good. It's been suggested that unless a lens is an f2.8, it does not measure up to professional standards. Puuuease! This is an elitist attitude based on having more money than common sense and thinking that the more you pay for something the better it has to be. When it comes to expensive photography lenses it is not ALWAYS the case. Now I like to consider myself a contrarian by nature. So, of course, few people will agree with me. That's ok, I don't expect them to. Let me start by saying something crazy like 80 per cent of the non-professional photographers sporting 80-200, 300 and 20-35 F2.8s don't neeed them. 90 per cent of the time they could get the exact same shots with "consumer grade" zooms. That's not to say that I don't want all these lenses in my arsenal. But it's not because the image quality is so much more superior to the more consumer grade lenses. Without getting too far into a debate about the value of fast lenses, IMHO the real value of these lenses is in their build quality and the bright image they give through the viefinder. This often translates into a lens that is a joy to use and that is, in many cases, reason enough to want one. The cost of that one extra stop is invaluable to photo journalists for example and other professionals who have to come home with a shot. But for the rest of us, it's a luxury that we could easily live without. In saying all this, where can I get a nice 800-200 f2.8? Vic
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Alan Chan wrote: It's very cheap. How can you go wrong? Was it "very cheap" when it was sold under the Pentax-A label? Just wondering, as I usually think of a Pentax labeled lens as having some minimum level of quality... And, for that matter, a Takumar lens was once an indicator of a superior lens, on the general lens market, so that's not meant to demean Takumar lenses... Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Okay, that's one opinion... Any others? Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. I forgot who said that, but... what is meant by "bad construction?" This started out as a Pentax lens. I assume a Pentax design. Did they goof? I guess we'll never know, but it seems to me that an 11 element, constant aperture lens, with an 8 leaf shutter, is not an INexpensive method of putting a lens together! I'm sure they didn't set out to make a "cheap" lens... All SMC gives you is freedom from flare and such... If you use an otherwise capable non-SMC lens in less demanding situations, you can still get excellent photographs. If they had made this lens with SMC coatings, would the category immediately switch to "a great lens?" Curious so many denigrate it... keith whaley
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Alan Chan wrote: It's very cheap. How can you go wrong? Since it was given to me, I can't! keith Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Okay, that's one opinion... Any others? Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Peter J. Alling wrote: Pentax didn't stop making it, they just started selling it under their Takumar brand. I gathered as much. Sorry for the implication that it was otherwise. I'll be more careful around you in the future. Prior to K mount all Asahi lenses were Takumars. Yes, I'm aware of that. Did I imply otherwise? keith whaley
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
It's very cheap. How can you go wrong? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Okay, that's one opinion... Any others? Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Pentax didn't stop making it, they just started selling it under their Takumar brand. Prior to K mount all Asahi lenses were Takumars. Keith Whaley wrote: Gonz wrote: Keith Whaley wrote: Fred wrote: I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - ). Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? I didn't know there was a "A 70-200/4". There is only the FA 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site. No, not quite. See below. A little over a year ago I got an Asahi [Ka mount] Takumar-A 70-200mm f/4.0 zoom Macro lens (catalog #2731) with one of my Pentax camera body purchases. In looking it up, I determined it was made from 1989-1993, and has the same specs as the Pentax-A that preceded it -- which had been manufactured in 1987: 11 elements in 9 groups, 8-blade aperture, 52mm filter ring. I was impressed with the fact that after Pentax stopped making (or marketing?) it's version, apparently the design was picked up, rebadged as a Takumar lens and sold for 4 more years. BTW - I just left Boz' site, and under non-SMC zoom lenses, there are indeed entries for both the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 and the Takumar-A 70-200mm f/4.0 Macro lenses. Comparing specs, you can see they are identical... keith whaley keith whaley However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket". Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" () 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
this sounds like the collimation effect that lens manufactures talk about. light from conventional lenses not designed for digital hit the film/sensor plane at too acute an angle and can cause this. Herb - Original Message - From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > I did try it on a DSLR, and found a peculiar thing, which exhibited > itself again with ATX 20-35 f/2.8 - in contrasty areas with blown-out > small highlights, the highlights had sharp blue edges all around, > which was quite nasty. Most pronounced it was in the 235 lens. I am > not sure now if I can find the pictures (it was just a quick test), > but other lenses of similar speed and focal length did not do this.
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
> I didn't know there was a "A 70-200/4". There is only the FA > 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site. Look for it under the non-SMC lenses page. Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Keith Whaley wrote: Fred wrote: I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - ). Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? I didn't know there was a "A 70-200/4". There is only the FA 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site. keith whaley However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket". Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" () 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Okay, that's one opinion... Any others? keith Andre Langevin wrote: Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? keith whaley Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. Andre
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? keith whaley Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. Andre
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Fred wrote: I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - ). Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? keith whaley However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket". Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" () 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
> I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good > performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because > this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for > just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - ). However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket". Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" () 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
> For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus > lenses. ...and if you're a lover of nice manual focus lenses, that's kinda sad... That's probably a pretty good analogy, though. Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. rg Alan Chan wrote: I had the "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" which I think is a great "zoom" lens. I did some outdoor test near infinity against the 3rd generation AF Nikkor 80-200/2.8 few years ago. To my surprised, their sharpness were so close I thought I did something wrong (Nikkor was sharper, but not by much). I even used one of those Pentax vibrators like "Super A" for trhe test, and Nikon F90X. I also owned the Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D and did some tests against the Pentax too between 2-3 metres with flash. The Nikkor was way softer and inferior than the Pentax at all focal lengths and apertures (though the Nikkor had more pleasing colour). It was like the Nikkor required 3 stops difference to achieve the same level of sharpness as the Pentax did. Since there are non-SMC variants which are similar to the "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4", I suspect photdo mixed them up and thought it was "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4". Afterall, there is no "SMC PENTAX-A 70-200/4" as they suggested. If the dog lens like Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D could achieve 2.8, no way the Pentax got 2.2 only. They must make some mistake along the way. Simply as that. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that the A70-210/4 was good for its time but has been eclipsed by better technology? _ 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: Pentax F-series lenses??
> While an "overall impression" can be delivered in a single number, > you'd need commentary to determine how that overall impression was > reached. ...and every user would want to determine his/her own method of "averaging" or "combining" ratings to come up with that number... Fred
RE: Pentax F-series lenses??
There will always be discussions about lens tests. However, measuring resolution in lp/mm is a good starting point - after all, we all want to know to which degree detail can be recorded on film. If you don't trust tests, I guess it's a good idea to test it your self. Or have someone photograph a test target or a newspaper page a various apertures/focal lengths at a given distance in daylight - then judge for your self. You are the final judge. If you think it's good enough, then it is. I know photodo gave - for instance the FA 70-200mm - bad grades. I have owned this lens - and it really WAS bad. The F 4-5.6/70-210 was rated quite high in German Fotomagazin as well as by photodo. And it really is quite good, although a little slow for some of my needs (concert shots etc.). I wish there was some kind of standard independent testing organisation, who could test all new (and some old) lenses. In the old days, Fotomagazine did a good job. After the death of the guy who invented the test, I don't know. I guess the problem is that photographic magazines are NOT independent, because their main source of income is the photographic manufacturers. We should actually form some kind of user organisation to provide the necessary tests. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 08:44 Til: Nenad Djurdjevic Emne: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? ND> I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood ND> opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By ND> comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from the archives probably. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Hello whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual focussing feel is at least as good as with the FA lenses. For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. Yes, there are holes in the F series primes line-up. However, that does not reduce the value of the F primes that exist. I own the F28/f2.8, F50/f1.4, F50/f1.7, F50/f2.8, F100/f2.8, F135/f2.8, F*300/f4.5, and I am happy with all of them. The only one that was updatet optically by an FA lens was the 28. Also, I do not agree with the statement "Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F." Which "cheesy" zooms do you mean? The F24-50 is optically identical to the A24-50 The F28-80 is optically identical to the A28-80 and way better than the FA28-80s. OK, the A28-135/f4 was not replaced by an F lens, however, the FA28-200 was not a replacemet, either. The F35-70 is optically identical to the A35-70/f3.5-4.5 The F35-105/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A35-105/f3.5, however, it is not a bad zoom at all The F35-135 is optically identical to the A35-135 The F70-210/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A70-210/f4, however, it is of the same quality. The F*250-600/f5.6 was an improvement over the K135-600/f6.7. Speeking of "cheesy zooms", the ones that come to my mind are the FA28-80/f3.5-4.5, FA70-200/F4-5.6, and the FA28-200. Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't run anything like a proper test, but so far I'd agree with you on the F* 300/4.5. I suspect it will test better than the other slow 300s I have to put against it. IMHO no 300/4.5 is going to work well on a 2x converter (too dark), and from what I've heard most 2x converters cause a loss of quality that most professionals find intolerable. F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Given the lens focal lengths and apertures that I would like to carry, there are almost no F versions (no wides wider than 28, no 28/2.0, no 35, only a soft-focus 85, no 200, only the 600/4 for big glass). There are A versions, and often FA versions. Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about. DJE
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
ND> I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood ND> opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By ND> comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from the archives probably. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. I believe their regular F primes were built well, certainly better than FA lenses. They may have plastic shells, but metal inside. Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about. You missed the macros, and the F*250-600/5.6 too. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. 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: Pentax F-series lenses??
The F* 300mm f/4.5 is pretty highly regarded, by me at least. Its so sharp you could cut yourself just looking at the slides. Unfortunately, it doesn't do well with A2X-S. :-( A lot of people choose this lens over the FA* version as it has a tripod mount. Optically the two lenses are identical. I just wish that the F* lens had the focussing clutch mechanism of the FA. A lot of people choose this lens over the FA* version as it has a tripod mount. Optically the two lenses are identical. I just wish that the F* lens had the focussing clutch mechanism of the FA. I did too, but ironically, after some tests I did for myself, I use the tripod mount no longer. However, the built-in hood is still much preferred. 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: Pentax F-series lenses??
On Jun 24, 2004, at 5:13 AM, That Guy wrote: I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. (snip) The F* 300mm f/4.5 is pretty highly regarded, by me at least. Its so sharp you could cut yourself just looking at the slides. A lot of people choose this lens over the FA* version as it has a tripod mount. Optically the two lenses are identical. I just wish that the F* lens had the focussing clutch mechanism of the FA. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
I think I saw one on ebay earlier today ... A. On 23 Jun 2004, at 22:33, Alan Chan wrote: I guess it's because most "good" F lenses are rare and hard to find now. I have been looking for a mint F50/1.4 for years but seen none so far. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of A, M, and FA talk of course. I've recently gotten 2 F series lenses, the 28 2.8 and the 50 1.7. The 28 2.8 gives nice results, with good sharpness even wide open, the 50 1.7 is extraordinary. I feel that it out resolves the A series 50 1.7 in all respects, regarding color contrast, sharpness, control of aberrations and ultimate resolution. And the A 50 1.7 is really, really good! Even using the F 50 1.7 on my istD there is very little vignetting wide open... Better than the A series. A very impressive lens, and available for very good prices on ebay. The AF is also good by Pentax standards. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. 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: Pentax F-series lenses??
I guess it's because most "good" F lenses are rare and hard to find now. I have been looking for a mint F50/1.4 for years but seen none so far. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of A, M, and FA talk of course. I've recently gotten 2 F series lenses, the 28 2.8 and the 50 1.7. The 28 2.8 gives nice results, with good sharpness even wide open, the 50 1.7 is extraordinary. I feel that it out resolves the A series 50 1.7 in all respects, regarding color contrast, sharpness, control of aberrations and ultimate resolution. And the A 50 1.7 is really, really good! Even using the F 50 1.7 on my istD there is very little vignetting wide open... Better than the A series. A very impressive lens, and available for very good prices on ebay. The AF is also good by Pentax standards. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. 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: Pentax F-series lenses??
Nah, looks are important. Performance is for nerds. A. On 23 Jun 2004, at 21:39, Kenneth Waller wrote: "Yes but ... F series lenses look silly" Yeah but their performance is what is important! Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the army or somethin? PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
"Yes but ... F series lenses look silly" Yeah but their performance is what is important! Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the army or somethin? PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Buid quality seems pretty good on the F 50mm 1.7 though, I've just bought one and it feels as if it's got.metal!!!...inside it somewhere, even the focusing is smooth and precise if a little light. John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:48:23 +0200 Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the > army or somethin? > > Antonio > > . Designed by someone who was heavily influenced by > > On 23 Jun 2004, at 19:13, That Guy wrote: > > > > > > > I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of > > A, M, > > and FA talk of course. I've recently gotten 2 F series lenses, the 28 > > 2.8 > > and the 50 1.7. The 28 2.8 gives nice results, with good sharpness > > even > > wide open, the 50 1.7 is extraordinary. I feel that it out resolves > > the A > > series 50 1.7 in all respects, regarding color contrast, sharpness, > > control > > of aberrations and ultimate resolution. And the A 50 1.7 is really, > > really > > good! Even using the F 50 1.7 on my istD there is very little > > vignetting > > wide open... Better than the A series. A very impressive lens, and > > available for very good prices on ebay. The AF is also good by Pentax > > standards. > > > > -That Guy > > --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the army or somethin? Antonio . Designed by someone who was heavily influenced by On 23 Jun 2004, at 19:13, That Guy wrote: I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of A, M, and FA talk of course. I've recently gotten 2 F series lenses, the 28 2.8 and the 50 1.7. The 28 2.8 gives nice results, with good sharpness even wide open, the 50 1.7 is extraordinary. I feel that it out resolves the A series 50 1.7 in all respects, regarding color contrast, sharpness, control of aberrations and ultimate resolution. And the A 50 1.7 is really, really good! Even using the F 50 1.7 on my istD there is very little vignetting wide open... Better than the A series. A very impressive lens, and available for very good prices on ebay. The AF is also good by Pentax standards. -That Guy
