Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Henri, Great lenses and a great price. I presume the 135mm is a K lens at F2.5 with a 58mm filter diameter and not the M-135 f3.5 with 49mm filter. The M-135 f3.5 is a very good lens, but a great price would be $20 for it. Regards, Bob S. Henri writes: > First off, a SMC-M 50mm f/1.4 for about $35 > Second, a SMC-M 135mm f/2.5 for about $45 (Not the Takumar one)
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri, Great lenses and a great price. I presume the 135mm is a K lens at F2.5 with a 58mm filter diameter and not the M-135 f3.5 with 49mm filter. The M-135 f3.5 is a very good lens, but a great price would be $20 for it. Regards, Bob S. Yeah, as I've said a couple of times now later on, it is the K lens. My mistake earlier. I will try to get that 50mm atleast, and see if i have the spare money to buy the 135mm. /Henri
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello Pentax-people, this is the first post from me. > >I found a couple of used lenses at a second hand store, and the prices >were really great.. atleast I think they were pretty nice. >So I'm wondering what comments you could give on these two, and if they >really are such bargains I think they are. > >First off, a SMC-M 50mm f/1.4 for about $35 >Second, a SMC-M 135mm f/2.5 for about $45 (Not the Takumar one) > >Are these good lenses, and worthwhile buying? Any Pentax 50/1.4 is worth buying if it's in good condition. They are rightly regarded as amongst the finest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras. If the lens is in good condition, the price you've been quoted is a steal. It's a bona fide classic. I've never used the 135/2.5 but many others on this list have. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Henri, it's a terrible deal! Give me that shops address and I'll talk to them about trying to rip people off!! Norm Henri Toivonen wrote: Yeah, as I've said a couple of times now later on, it is the K lens. My mistake earlier. I will try to get that 50mm atleast, and see if i have the spare money to buy the 135mm.
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Hello and welcome! HT> First off, a SMC-M 50mm f/1.4 for about $35 HT> Second, a SMC-M 135mm f/2.5 for about $45 (Not the Takumar one) I say you might want to grab both. They are worth it. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
German users, what's the difference between AntWort and Svar? Thanks, Ryan - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: SV: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 > R i g h t ... > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 12. maj 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 > > > Henri, it's a terrible deal! Give me that shops address and I'll talk to > them about trying to rip people off!! > Norm > > > Henri Toivonen wrote: > > > Yeah, as I've said a couple of times now later on, it is the K lens. > > My mistake earlier. > > I will try to get that 50mm atleast, and see if i have the spare money > > to buy the 135mm. > > > > >
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Ryan Lee wrote: > German users, what's the difference between AntWort and Svar? "Antwort" means "answer" in German. "Svar" means "answer" in Danish and Swedish. "Svar" is, as far as I know, not a German word at all. However, it is very silly of Microsoft to have translated the "Re: " into local languages, since so many mail programs depend on "Re: " being the standard. On the mailing lists I manage I have installed this nifty server filter to force mail into standard compliance: http://x42.com/software/mail/ anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
I tested 3 different M50/1.4 about 3 years ago. One was superb, one excellent, and one focused on a 15 degree plane at 1.4 but was OK at smaller stops. What one needs to know is these lenses were manufactured in the late 70's to early 80's. That means they are 20-25 years old. You have no way of knowing the history of any given individual lens. It may have been dropped, the elements can be knocked out of alignment even when there is no visible damage. It could have been serviced by a hack who put it back together wrong. You just have no way of knowing until you try that particular lens how it will perform. In the experience of many an undamaged M50/1.4 is a rather great lens. Yes the newer model will likely have slightly better contrast due to the improved coatings, but other than that I do not believe anyone can actually tell the difference in normal photography. As with any old lens it is best if you get either a no hassle return policy, or a very cheap price. At the price the original poster mentioned I would buy it unless it had obvious signs of damage. -- Antonio Aparicio wrote: I heard the A version was a slightly better performer and that the M version (as with other M lenses) was not the best in the lineup. Antonio On 13 May 2004, at 01:19, Andre Langevin wrote: A 50/1.4 which, IIRC, has the same optical design as the M. The M design has been modified to get to the A version. The result? I don't know. The M had very low contrast at full aperture. The A may be better in that respect. Andre -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Jens, Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A version? I have heard this before, and yet the F version of the lens is nearly impossible to find! I have the FA and A versions, and they are beautiful with wonderful results. Where does the F lens have an edge (probably not in focusing feel)? Joe The M 1.4 is - AFAI recall - excellent. (The SMC F 1.4/50 is one of the best ever made anywhere). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Joe Wilensky wrote: The FA 50mm f/1.4 build quality seems decent for an autofocus lens, about on par with the other FA primes like the 35/2 and 28/2.8. The FA zooms that extend in length like the 28-105 f/3.2-? and the 24-90 feel flimsier, but that's because of the extended barrel. The FA powerzoom was much sturdier. If you're asking specifically about the aperture ring, it's not bad, but nowhere near a good K or M lens. Same for focus feel, although the 50/1.4 and even more so, the 35/2 FA lenses feel almost as good for manual focusing as some of the cheaper A lenses. [...] A few of the A lenses have decent focus feel and aperture rings, although nothing felt quite as flimsy as two examples of the A 35-70 f/4 I tried, Mine feels much better now, after replacing the focus cam and pins! Nice and tight! B¬) keith whaley ...and the A 50/1.7 has an aperture ring that frequently deteriorates inside as some plastic piece breaks off and fouls the mechanism. The A 50/1.4 is usually decent, but the K and M lenses are nearly all superior in feel. I do have the A 24-50 f/4 zoom (bargain condition from KEH) and it feels great, nearly indistinguishable from a good M zoom. Joe [...]
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Hello Joe I only know/own the A 2.8 and the K 2.5. The K version was my first 135mm - unfortunately I sold it with an MX years ago. I finally managed to get one at ebay (USA) sometime ago. The K version is better. Sharper at full aperture. The A version is still very good, but the K is excellent. Amazing sharpness for portraits. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Joe Wilensky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. maj 2004 17:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 Jens, Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A version? I have heard this before, and yet the F version of the lens is nearly impossible to find! I have the FA and A versions, and they are beautiful with wonderful results. Where does the F lens have an edge (probably not in focusing feel)? Joe > >The M 1.4 is - AFAI recall - excellent. (The SMC F 1.4/50 is one of the best >ever made anywhere). > >Jens Bladt >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A >version? IIRC, the F and FA versions are optically identical. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
Hi, Jens, I was asking specifically about the f 50/1.4. I know it's supposedly optically identical to the A and FA versions, but I've read several places that the F version is "ranked" highest, at least by those who have used it. Joe Hello Joe I only know/own the A 2.8 and the K 2.5. The K version was my first 135mm - unfortunately I sold it with an MX years ago. I finally managed to get one at ebay (USA) sometime ago. The K version is better. Sharper at full aperture. The A version is still very good, but the K is excellent. Amazing sharpness for portraits. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > The M 1.4 is - AFAI recall - excellent. (The SMC F 1.4/50 is one of the best ever made anywhere). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
According to Photodo test, it's one of the best lenses (resolution) ever made (tested by Photodo). http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html Omly one and slower 50MM lens (Leica SUMICRON-M 2.0) lens was given THIS GRADE: 4.6 by Photodo. The FA was given 4.2 Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. maj 2004 19:41 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A >version? IIRC, the F and FA versions are optically identical. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
You may very well be wrong. Danish - as well as English - is a Germanic language. In fact there's a lot of English words, that are originally Danish (old nordic), brought to England by the Vikings. The word "table" is one example. "Strand" is annother (beach). 1000 years ago, before French etc. influence in Britain, the Danes and the English could easily understand eachother. The basic words of English and Danish are almost identical: Hand = Hand Eye = Oje Finger = Finger Ear = Ore Hammer = Hammer Nail = Negl Man = Mand House = Hus Ship = Skib Boat = Bad Etc. etc. Basic German words are not very different: Hand = hand Ore = Ear Mann = Man House = Haus etc. etc. The word "svar" is close to the last cylibal of answer In Danish "ansvar" means responsibility (responce = answer = svar) Ansvar = you must answer to... All three are Germanic languages as opposded to i.e. latin based languages. So, at the time of seawards travelling - we were basicly one big "family" in northern Europe. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Anders Hultman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. maj 2004 11:01 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 On Thu, 13 May 2004, Ryan Lee wrote: > German users, what's the difference between AntWort and Svar? "Antwort" means "answer" in German. "Svar" means "answer" in Danish and Swedish. "Svar" is, as far as I know, not a German word at all. However, it is very silly of Microsoft to have translated the "Re: " into local languages, since so many mail programs depend on "Re: " being the standard. On the mailing lists I manage I have installed this nifty server filter to force mail into standard compliance: http://x42.com/software/mail/ anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >According to Photodo test, it's one of the best lenses (resolution) ever >made (tested by Photodo). >http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html >Omly one and slower 50MM lens (Leica SUMICRON-M 2.0) lens was given THIS >GRADE: 4.6 by Photodo. >The FA was given 4.2 This is one of the (many) reasons why I distrust Photodo. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
You won't regret the 50 at all. The list seems to be of the opinion that the M 50 f1.4 is the "least" of the fast 50s, but they're all very good. And with the M, you still get a good build (the F has a pretty bad build). Henri Toivonen wrote: snip I will try to get that 50mm atleast, and see if i have the spare money to buy the 135mm.
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
I have A and FA versions. The are both excellent lenses and rather well built, I think. I also own the K2.5/135mm. It too is an excellent lens and very well (but heavy/bulky) built. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. maj 2004 16:58 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 I happen to own the M 50 f1.4 and the K 135 f2.5. I wouldn't give either of them up. Fine lenses. Welcome to PDML. -Lon
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
I think this F better than FA 50/1.4 thing got started because PhotoDo rated the F a tad higher. Mark Roberts wrote: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A version? IIRC, the F and FA versions are optically identical.
RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
I plead guilty to starting this. It's not just that the F version is rated a bit higher than the FA version. It's that just one other 50mm was rated quite as high (4.6) by Photodo (Hasselblad); the Leica Sumicron-M 50mm f2.0. If these tests are credible, it places the SMC F 1.4/50mm as the very best 1.4/50mm ever tested by Photodo. The Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50mm was rated 4.2 - the same as the Pentax SMC FA 1.4/50mm. So this could indicate that the Pentax lenses can be even sharper than the corresponding Leica lenses. This is what I found interesting. It's not especially interesting, that there may be a samll difference betwen two versions of Pentax 50mm lenses. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. maj 2004 14:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 I think this F better than FA 50/1.4 thing got started because PhotoDo rated the F a tad higher. Mark Roberts wrote: > Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Is the F 50/1.4 truly a better performer than the FA or the A >>version? > > > IIRC, the F and FA versions are optically identical.
Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5
graywolf wrote: I tested 3 different M50/1.4 about 3 years ago. One was superb, one excellent, and one focused on a 15 degree plane at 1.4 but was OK at smaller stops. What one needs to know is these lenses were manufactured in the late 70's to early 80's. That means they are 20-25 years old. As with any old lens it is best if you get either a no hassle return policy, or a very cheap price. At the price the original poster mentioned I would buy it unless it had obvious signs of damage. Okey, so I had to pay more than I expected. About $60-65 (don't know the shipping yet). Still, not a bad price, right? I've seen a pic of it and it had no scratches nor any fungus or stuff like that. /Henri
Welcome Henri (was: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5)
Henri, Yes, I was thinking about him. Great driver indeed! Dario - Original Message - From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:52 PM Subject: Re: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 > Dario Bonazza wrote: > > >Hello Henri, > > > >Welcome to the list, but... Is that your actual name? > >Regards, > > > >Markku Alen :-) > > > > > > Why wouldn't it be? > It's a normal finnish name. Maybe you were thinking of the rally driver > that died in the 80's? > He had the same name as me. > > /Henri >
Re: OT: Etymology (was: RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5)
The Danes ruled most of England for many years, back in the days of Canute and his progeny. Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You may very well be wrong. Danish - as well as English - is a Germanic language. In fact there's a lot of English words, that are originally Danish (old nordic), brought to England by the Vikings.
Re: OT: Etymology (was: RE: 50/1.4 and 135/2.5)
Hi, Friday, May 14, 2004, 4:28:16 PM, Gianfranco wrote: > Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You may very well be wrong. >> Danish - as well as English - is a Germanic language. In fact > there's a lot >> of English words, that are originally Danish (old nordic), > brought to >> England by the Vikings. The word "table" is one example. > "Strand" is >> annother (beach). > I'd like to dissent, but only about the word "table": derived > from the old French, was in origin the Latin "tabula"). many Latin words found their way into Germanic languages which subsequently found their way into English via the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions. The plosive sounds like 'p' and 'b' are very close physically to the fricatives 'f' and 'v', so a word like 'tabula' could easily become something like 'tafel' and then go back to 'table', so it is certainly plausible that it could have come into English via its Germanic predecessors rather than through Norman French. In fact, according to my dictionary, Chambers, it is "partly OE 'tabule', 'tabele', partly OFr (and Fr) 'table', both -L 'tablua' a board". OE=Old English, the direct descendant of Anglo-Saxon, OFr = Old French via the Normans Fr = French L = Latin so it looks as though German 'tafel' is a later switch. Some Latinate words have also come into English through the ancestor of Welsh, which picked up a few Latin words during the Roman occupation. And of course all these languages have a common ancestor so some words which look kind of Latin have in fact been preserved from the common ancestor. -- Cheers, Bob
