Re: AF Performance (Was: Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms)
- Original Message - From: Larry Cook Subject: AF Performance (Was: Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms) So the answer is that the camera possess the algorithms for AF but the performance is based both on the algorithms and how responsive the lens mechanism is? If that is correct then a lens that seems to hunt more than another is not directly at fault? It is the camera algorithms not being able to adequately handle the responsiveness of the lens? Interesting. Of course you would still want to avoid such a lens because it is the system as a whole that is important and therefore an unresponsive lens that causes the camera to hunt is still a bad thing regardless of which component is actually at fault. Unresponsiveness or hunting can be induced by a variety of external factors that have nothing to do with the equipment, as well. Trying to focus on a low contrast subject that gives the AF nothing to latch onto will cause hunting. Low light levels will cause hunting, and this problem will be exacerbated by a slower lens. Some third party lenses won't work as well with some cameras as first party lenses. Consumer market equipment may not be a responsive as pro market equipment. It isn't possible to get a camera/lens combination that will perform 100% flawlessly 100% of the time. I think it is a good idea to focus manually whenever auto focus isn't required. This way, you will have that skill in place for when you need it. William Robb
Re: AF Performance (Was: Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms)
I understand that circumstances can stymie focusing but what I was concerned about were reviews that talk about a particular lens' inabilty to focus well or that it hunts more than another lens. Currently I have all manual focus lenses and I am trying to determine if an AF lens would be better to photograph my son's soccer games and sort of veered off into how AF works. Larry Cook So the answer is that the camera possess the algorithms for AF but the performance is based both on the algorithms and how responsive the lens mechanism is? If that is correct then a lens that seems to hunt more than another is not directly at fault? It is the camera algorithms not being able to adequately handle the responsiveness of the lens? Interesting. Of course you would still want to avoid such a lens because it is the system as a whole that is important and therefore an unresponsive lens that causes the camera to hunt is still a bad thing regardless of which component is actually at fault. Unresponsiveness or hunting can be induced by a variety of external factors that have nothing to do with the equipment, as well. Trying to focus on a low contrast subject that gives the AF nothing to latch onto will cause hunting. Low light levels will cause hunting, and this problem will be exacerbated by a slower lens. Some third party lenses won't work as well with some cameras as first party lenses. Consumer market equipment may not be a responsive as pro market equipment. It isn't possible to get a camera/lens combination that will perform 100% flawlessly 100% of the time. I think it is a good idea to focus manually whenever auto focus isn't required. This way, you will have that skill in place for when you need it. William Robb
RE: AF Performance (Was: Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms)
Many people have reported some Sigma lenses took longer to lock focus (tend to hunt more). It seems that the distance and focal length data are required for AF as well, and those data are held by a chip inside the AF lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan So the answer is that the camera possess the algorithms for AF but the performance is based both on the algorithms and how responsive the lens mechanism is? If that is correct then a lens that seems to hunt more than another is not directly at fault? It is the camera algorithms not being able to adequately handle the responsiveness of the lens? Interesting. Of course you would still want to avoid such a lens because it is the system as a whole that is important and therefore an unresponsive lens that causes the camera to hunt is still a bad thing regardless of which component is actually at fault.
Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms
Hi Larry. Welcome aboard. I snipped your post a tad. Cannot speak for the Pentax version as i dont have one, yet, but i do a lot of equestrian work with my Nikon f2.8 and it works out very well.I;'d have to say atleast 97-98% usable,well focused shots from it. If i am following a Dressage rider around the ring,i keep it on AF-C and shoot at will. I think for soccer you should find a huge difference from the mf lenses.You allready say you have mf f2.8 lenses so that should give you a good idea what you can get in low light. I do have some problems in ~really~ low light, but nothing that bothers me. Dave Brooks . Since all of my lenses save one (16-45 DA) are MF I have no good way to judge whether I would see a significant improvement focusing in the fast pace and questionable night lighting found at high school soccer games. So what is the opinion of people that have used both? Is it worth buying an AF lens to get improved focusing? Thanks, Larry Cook www.cook-imaging.com http://www.cook-imaging.com
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco queried: How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. It handles fine. The zoom ring is quite large and easy. The focus ring seems fine to me. I don't have the FA 24-90 here, but my recollection is that the 24-90 may be smaller than the 16-45 at shortest length. I am not sure how they compare extended. They both have the extending barrel design, except that the 16-45 is shortest at its long end. The 16-45, anyway, is not a compact lens. I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that it is a constant f4.0. Joe
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
on 02.07.04 16:54, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys and gals, I'm in the mood to purchase a 16-45, but I'd like to hear some first hand experiences from those who own it and made a side by side comparison with at least one of the lenses above. I recall somebody said that the 16-45 is definitely sharper than the 24-90 at similar FL, is it true? I'm mainly interested in the performance wide open. Another thing: the Italian importer has no 16-45 readily available, but I've found a shop in Naples that has a couple of *ist D and, among several lenses, at least a 16-45. They ask 469 Euro for the lens alone. Is it good? As usual, many thanks in advance. Hi Giafranco, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). It is also worth looking at the tests of FA 43/1.9 limited, FA 35/2 and FA* 85/1.4 (on following page) and compare results. Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Joe
RE: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
The 43 is widely known to be soft wide-open -That Guy -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90 Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Giafranco, Hi Sylwek, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Thanks!! I was looking for something of that kind too. And I'm even able to read French... :-) Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). Good. I guess there is almost no alternative. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. Hi Joe, I too own the 20-35 and the Sigma EX 70-200. If it is in the same league I'll buy the 16-45 as soon as I can. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. I have found that the 24-90 is fine (in the centre, at least) wide open on the *ist D, although not extraordinary. The fact that it performs that well wide open is vry interesting, as I shot a lot wide open. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. That's good. How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Surprisingly, I thought that the price was a bit high; the shop where I saw the lens yesterday has almost only grey market stuff (the people were a bit rude too: they refused to show me the lens if I wasn't going to buy it). In another shop (where I ordered the lens at first, before the importer told us it was not available yet) the price was 415 Euro with the Italian warranty. Tough decisions... Thanks again for the enablement... :-) Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
OK, I have been looking for a nice SMC-A 35mm f/2 for a long time ... for those who have said they own one and hardly ever use it, will you consider selling it? Give me a price, or let me know what you may be looking for in trade. Joe RE: Haven't used the K 30 f/2.8, but I do own the A35 f/2. It is a pretty spectactular lens. To bad I almost never use it. ... I have both these lenses. I have shot tests with them, but I haven't put much mileage on the 30 and haven't touched the 35 in a decade. -- 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: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8 You don't have a 31LTD then? Well, yes. But thats why I am no longer looking for a 30mm lens. William Robb
Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:07:25 -0400 From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed Not a lot of answers... The A lens is certainly an uncommon lens. I have the M one but have not tried it yet. I might bring it to Mongolia in july, with 24/2.8, 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 as a back-up kit alongside a small 645 kit (45,75,150). The 35/2 would become my fast normal lens, although I will try to stick to the 645. It will be my first medium format shooting... Andre I have both these lenses. I have shot tests with them, but I haven't put much mileage on the 30 and haven't touched the 35 in a decade. Both of these lenses perform as well as anything I've tested at their focal length (35 and 28) from Pentax or Nikon and are in my opinion among Pentax's best lenses. A35 has staggering center sharpness, except at f/2 where I found it slightly worse than the Nikkor AF and the original Super-Takumar. From f/2.8 on the center is tack sharp. Edge sharpness isn't great at f/2 or f/2.8, slightly worse than the Super Tak and noticeably worse than the Nikkor AF. By f/4 the edges tighten up and are as good or better than any other 35 I tested. K30 is consistently a little better in the center than at the edges, but shows less difference across the field than the A35. The A35 is sharper in the center at all apertures than the K30 (slightly worse at f/2 than K30 at f/2.8) but only a hair sharper than the K30 at the edges (except at f/2.8 where the K is better) Note that NO 28mm lens I tested produced better than average performance wide open, and most were still noticeably weak one stop down from that. As a group the 28s performed worse than the 35s, in general equalling the performance of the 35s only when closed down an extra stop. The A35 and K30 follow this pattern, with the K30 a B lens at f/4 and an A lens at f/5.6, whereas the the A35 is in A territory by f/4. These results, of course, are only valid for my particular samples without corroborating evidence. Personally, I find the 28/50 combination to be a better fit for my shooting style than the 24/35/85 sort of combination. 35 isn't wide enough to be wide for me, so I would opt for the K30. For other styles of shooting, I can see that a wide 50 might be just the thing. I was all set to take the K30 to England on vacation, and then I lucked into an M28/2. I'm still leaning towards the K30, although the M28 has performed well so far. DJE
Re: Opinions: SMC-M 28mm 1:2
On 12 Jul 2003 at 7:23, Dag T wrote: My A version of the lens is very nice. I'll take this opportunity to not so subtly plug my current eBay auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2940154723 Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
I own the A 35/2.8, which is supposed to be the same optic. As others have pointed out, it is not a stellar lens but perfectly OK. About par with a decent zoom, something that probably explains the popularity of zoom lenses. Pål
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
Hi, My buddy has one, I have used it a few times and informally compared it to the K30/2.8 and Super Takumar 35/3.5. It is a reasonably sharp lens, though not outstanding, about on par with the FA28-70/4 at middle apertures. It is ok wide open. It exhibits a warm color balance (in comparison to K30 and ST35) and good flare control. Mechanically the lens feels solid though the diaphragm is beginning to be sluggish, a problem with this particular lens as I understand. The actual focal lenght is slightly longer than the ST35 which is supposedly the same optically to the K35/3.5. Bokeh, which is subjective, is fine but not as good ( IMO) as either the K30 or Super Tak. Overall, I think it is quite a decent though not superb lens that should give you quite nice photos. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, William in Utah. - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8 Hi! I am about to buy the above lens in Excellent condition from KEH. Well, as a matter of fact a friend of mine is about to buy this lens which then be brought over to Israel. Anyway, is there anyone on the list who actually has/had this lens and used it? If so, I would very much like to hear your opinion about it. From what I could dig out in different archives on the Net it appears that this is average (in Pentax manner) lens with resolution a little below that of 50/1.7. My intent is to attach this lens to ME Super and keep it there for some time. I also have soft, cross screen and circular polarizer filters all of which are going to find themselves attached to this lens in some way. Well, not all of them at the same time though vbg. Once bought I will have the modest prime outline - 35/2.8, FA 50/1.7, modified Helios single element soft lens (~85/4), and almost-the-lens Takumar K 135/2.5. Though I like extremely the almost-the-lens. Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
Peter Spiro wrote: 35mm is my favorite focal length, and at one time or another I have tried almost all of them, and I have posted some comparisons at http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/infinitytest.htm I found something intriguing there. You were using this method: The film photos were printed onto paper (involving some sharpness loss) and then scanned in from those prints, involving further loss. The digital image, by contrast, is always as good as its first generation no matter how many times it is copied digitally. and compared a scan of a print with a digital image displayed on the monitor, and you concluded that: The S40's resolution beats most of the Pentax prime lenses at the centre, and rivals several at the edge. This tiny, shirt-pocket sized camera offers full control, including setting the apertures and shutter speeds. The Dimage 7's photo is sharper still, rivalling the 50mm f/1.4 Pentax. If you want to compare lenses with lenses, I suspect you should use the same method/procedure for all of them. If you want to compare prints with prints, you should make prints from the digital files too. In your opinion, what this test really compared ? cheers!
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
I had the A35/2.8 which was said to be identical to the M. I did some landscape shots with it and thought it wasn't particular sharp as a prime lens. regards, Alan Chan I am about to buy the above lens in Excellent condition from KEH. Well, as a matter of fact a friend of mine is about to buy this lens which then be brought over to Israel. Anyway, is there anyone on the list who actually has/had this lens and used it? If so, I would very much like to hear your opinion about it. From what I could dig out in different archives on the Net it appears that this is average (in Pentax manner) lens with resolution a little below that of 50/1.7. My intent is to attach this lens to ME Super and keep it there for some time. I also have soft, cross screen and circular polarizer filters all of which are going to find themselves attached to this lens in some way. Well, not all of them at the same time though vbg. Once bought I will have the modest prime outline - 35/2.8, FA 50/1.7, modified Helios single element soft lens (~85/4), and almost-the-lens Takumar K 135/2.5. Though I like extremely the almost-the-lens. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
I would like to point out that this A was better built than the M which might have aging spring. I stripped down both before. This A has metal aperture ring, not plastic. regards, Alan Chan I am about to buy the above lens in Excellent condition from KEH. Well, as a matter of fact a friend of mine is about to buy this lens which then be brought over to Israel. Anyway, is there anyone on the list who actually has/had this lens and used it? If so, I would very much like to hear your opinion about it. From what I could dig out in different archives on the Net it appears that this is average (in Pentax manner) lens with resolution a little below that of 50/1.7. My intent is to attach this lens to ME Super and keep it there for some time. I also have soft, cross screen and circular polarizer filters all of which are going to find themselves attached to this lens in some way. Well, not all of them at the same time though vbg. Once bought I will have the modest prime outline - 35/2.8, FA 50/1.7, modified Helios single element soft lens (~85/4), and almost-the-lens Takumar K 135/2.5. Though I like extremely the almost-the-lens. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Opinions needed about SMC M 35/2.8
Hi! MI i used to have one (from ebay), until its diafragm stuck. then i MI sold it on ebay for what i paid originally (although i did warn MI the buyer). MI the lens is fine. i have 35/2 now, and except the weight and the MI price, i'm not sure there's a lot of difference. MI i have just looked at keh prives for 35/2.8, and the price looks MI right. go ahead, grab it, you'll like it. Thanks (to all of you who responded). I trust that being KEH excellent condition it wouldn't have a sticky aperture. So I hope I will just mount it and shoot away. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II I would second this. I researched this lens because I was seriously considering it second hand. The build of these lenses is 'precarious' shall we say, and I would not be keen to buy one which has been dropped - certainly not if it has been self-fixed, who knows what gremlins may be lurking. It is however a fine lens optically. The only problem is flare as Alan says. You need to consider its use. For me landscapes just needed the extra flare control that SMC gives and I went for the FA*24, which is financially a whole different ballgame. Rob, You chose well. The Sigma might be sharp, but it has *extreme* barrel distortion which is obvious in many types of shot, not just architectural. Regards, John
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
For some reason, I was thinking of the f1.8. I concur, $100 is way too much for the 2.8. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:07 AM Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II I would second this. I researched this lens because I was seriously considering it second hand. The build of these lenses is 'precarious' shall we say, and I would not be keen to buy one which has been dropped - certainly not if it has been self-fixed, who knows what gremlins may be lurking. It is however a fine lens optically. The only problem is flare as Alan says. You need to consider its use. For me landscapes just needed the extra flare control that SMC gives and I went for the FA*24, which is financially a whole different ballgame. I also agree with Alan on price. These go for £40-60 from a dealer with warranty in the UK, and there are plenty of samples. $100 seems way over the top, all considered. -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 May 2003 07:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II I had the manual focus version and imho, it was fine optically. Colour contrast were good. Flare control built quality were lacking. The hood did nothing to the flare problem. Regular polarizer worked fine without vignetting. However, US$100 is expensive for what it is imho, especially it was dropped before. I certainly would not recommend any camera or lens which has been dropped before, except for parts. Fixed or not really doesn't matter. This lens is not a rare enough for the risk. regards, Alan Chan I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local currency g). It goes as follows: 1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this lens. 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n that I could handle yesterday. Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a strange notion just before very recently g) admits that the lens once fell on the ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing ring so that the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat flabby. The owner fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The only effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off some inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving 'macro' up to 1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi coated. I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens for the ride. Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of this very lens. Thanks in advance. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
Hi! I think you've convinced me. I am passing this one on. Unless of course just a few shots I've made with it come out astoundingly good. Then I will have to reconsider. But being able to see the distortion in the viewfinder of my ME Super makes me think that above possibility is rather remote. Thanks a lot all those who responded to me. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
Shoot a slide of a brick wall with it. If it is equaly sharp in all four corners, buy it. If not pass on it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II Hi! I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local currency g). It goes as follows: 1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this lens. 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n that I could handle yesterday. Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a strange notion just before very recently g) admits that the lens once fell on the ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing ring so that the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat flabby. The owner fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The only effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off some inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving 'macro' up to 1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi coated. I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens for the ride. Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of this very lens. Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
Also, does the price of $90 seem fair/bairgain or not that good (I don't think so)? ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii - Original Message - From: ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:06 AM Subject: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!! The subject says it all. I really need this info quick - I found only one opinion on Stan's site. TIA. Regards, ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
Anything less then 28mm in a zoom is going to cost you the big bucks.better buy it before I do...and if you don't email me the link off list ok? - Original Message - From: ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:19 PM Subject: Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!! Also, does the price of $90 seem fair/bairgain or not that good (I don't think so)? ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii - Original Message - From: ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:06 AM Subject: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!! The subject says it all. I really need this info quick - I found only one opinion on Stan's site. TIA. Regards, ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
Anything less then 28mm in a zoom is going to cost you the big bucks.better buy it before I do...and if you don't email me the link off list ok? Too late, Taz - couldn't stand the pressure and bought it :-) The lens was listed on a Polish auction site with a BIN price of the equivalent of $90. Seller has no negatives (and lotsa positives), and the lens on the picture looks really good and is described as like new with most points one would want to ask listed. It's 2.20 AM here in Poland and the lens was listed recently, so nobody chad the chance to see it (despite me of course :-) I couldn't wait til morning because by then it would be gone I'm sure (I tend to get up at noon). Regards, ukasz
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
- Original Message - From: Alan Chan Subject: Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!! I just wish they don't leave my packages on the doorstep, quietly... This is a truly annoying habit they have. I came home from work one day to find a box stuffed in my mailbox, another larger box sitting on my front step, and a third box sitting on my back step. This was a camera body, a bellows/ slide copier and a lens, all sitting in plain view from the street, abandoned outside in -30 weather. UPS is no better, and will bill you an obscene amount of money for thier negligence. Canada Post is OK if the sender insists on a signature on reciept. I have heard stories of UPS drivers forging signatures on delivery reciepts. William Robb
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
On Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003, at 18:53 US/Pacific, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wish they don't leave my packages on the doorstep, quietly... My UPS driver is equally annoying. In the absence of a written notice pleading with him to ring my unit, he'll leave a UPS spoor (aka a post-it note alleging I wasn't there) and run away. More than once, I've been in all day only to be greeted by the sight of a UPS spoor on the way out in the late afternoon. It's like he's afraid to touch the entry system or something (does he think it'll give him cooties?). End result is that UPS three-day service ends up being more like eight to ten day, over three day, or we'll deliver it when we feel like it service. I think I'm going to start requesting parcel post delivery whenever possible. Even if the mailman doesn't ring my unit, they hold the package in a local post office instead of holding it hostage in a UPS sorting facility way in the outer bumfuck port district industrial lands and taunting me with multiple lying notices. It's worth paying a premium for that alone. -- David Barts Portland, OR
Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
ukasz Kacperczyk a crit: The subject says it all. I really need this info quick - I found only one opinion on Stan's site. In France 120 EUR (+/- 120 $), so 90 = good price. Michel
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:41:08 -0800 (PST), Peter Jansen wrote: I find with my F-300mm f4.5 and Z1p that I have to use the 2s mirror-up at speeds as high as 1/125 or even 1/180. Luckily, I'm typically shooting in bright overcast or daylight, so it's not usually a problem to get at least 1/250 shutter speed, or faster. Which is good, as 1/250 or 1/500 is the sweet spot for my application. The MZ-S has WAY less vibration than the ME Super (I have one). I haven't done any systematic tests, but I this sure seems true to me, at least compared to my K-1000, LX, and ZX-5. Also, the MZ-S seems to spread the action out over more time than the other three cameras. It audibly progresses through a couple of different phases. The LX does this also, but the entire process happens over a shorter time, while the K-1000 and ZX-5 just seem to be crash thump all at once. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
Hi David, I guess you haven't tried it with Provia or Velvia locked on a solid tripod head with mirror lockup? If you got one great, sharp photo, then you will get more, since your technique may be at fault. It's very, very hard to get sharp, hand held tele photos, eben at high shutter speeds. I can't at all. Anyway, thanks again for this info. : ) Best Peter --- David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: My sample of the 400mm isn't quite as sharp as I'd like, although I may be expecting a bit much. and Doug Franklin replied: You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still climbing its learning curve. Yes, I suspect I may have been facing issues with technique. I was pretty careful but still may have been affected by camera shake. My first test was performed at long-distance (about 100 metres) on a hot day so atmospheric conditions may also have contributed to my dissatisfaction. However I do have one surprisingly good photo of a blackbird from slightly further than minimum focusing distance (ie slightly more than 2m away). Shot at 1/90th on a tripod with unlocked ballhead. I was sure it wouldn't come out but it turned out quite well. I'll scan it if you want, its quite a closeup. Most of my photos from this lens have been handheld. I know I'm pushing it even at 1/500th but thats about all I can get wide-open with 100ISO film. I'm going to have to use my monopod more often, not to mention faster film (pity Provia 400F is so expensive). I was going to do some more testing but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I should do so soon because there's not much left of Summer down here... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
I believe it is 10 feet. And yes a Pentax 300mm f2.8 is on my very short list, though getting Pentax 1.4XL 2XL + the 1.7 AF converters can be another $400-600. : ) Peter --- Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter, I'm sending you my collected comments on the Pentax 400/5.6 PKA, 400/5.6 FA, and Tamron 400/4. I used to own the 400/5.6 PKA and found it very nice! I sold it recently because I don't shoot enough over 200mm. (My XR Rikenon 300/4.5 is on Ebay right now for the same reason.) From what I have read, the FA is no sharper than the A was. It does, however, focus closer (2 m vs. 2.8 m). As I've stated here before, I think that most serious shooters are better served by a 300/2.8 and a set of 1.4X, 1.7X, and 2X teleconverters. My second choice, based on all that I've read about it, would be to get the Tamron 400/4. You'll find the extra f-stop a joy to use, 560mm is just a 1.4X TC away, and the optics are second to none. Does anyone know how close the Tamron can focus? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
Peter Jansen wrote: Does anyone have experience with the FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF) lens (for 35mm)? How does the quality compare to the FA* 300mm f4.5 ED (IF)? How about with the A 1.4X-S converter? I have the FA*400mm f/5.6 and the F*300mm f/4.5 (optically identical to the FA*). I haven't used either with a convertor so I can't comment about that. My sample of the 400mm isn't quite as sharp as I'd like, although I may be expecting a bit much. I want to do some more testing before I start drawing concrete conclusions. However it is definitely sharper than the manual focus Tokina SL 400mm f/5.6 that it replaced. The F*300mm f/4.5 is an incredible lens. If you have the FA* 300mm already I'd advise trying it with the TC, if AF is not required. In fact, my 300mm is so much better than my 400 that I've been giving a little thought to selling the 400mm. If you're interested, twist my arm a bit and I'll shoot some sample slides for you, while deciding whether or not I really need to keep it. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
I do have the F* 300mm ED(IF) I love it agree it is one of the best. It works well with the 1.4x-S converter, but it can be a pain to focus manually (f6.3). I'm a little spoiled by AF. Perhaps I should look at the old Tamron SP f4 with a 1.4x, or bite the bullet and get the FA* 300mm f2.8 with the 2X-L converter... Pentax PLEASE make a 400mm f4 ED(IF)! Thanks for your help! Peter --- David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Jansen wrote: Does anyone have experience with the FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF) lens (for 35mm)? How does the quality compare to the FA* 300mm f4.5 ED (IF)? How about with the A 1.4X-S converter? I have the FA*400mm f/5.6 and the F*300mm f/4.5 (optically identical to the FA*). I haven't used either with a convertor so I can't comment about that. My sample of the 400mm isn't quite as sharp as I'd like, although I may be expecting a bit much. I want to do some more testing before I start drawing concrete conclusions. However it is definitely sharper than the manual focus Tokina SL 400mm f/5.6 that it replaced. The F*300mm f/4.5 is an incredible lens. If you have the FA* 300mm already I'd advise trying it with the TC, if AF is not required. In fact, my 300mm is so much better than my 400 that I've been giving a little thought to selling the 400mm. If you're interested, twist my arm a bit and I'll shoot some sample slides for you, while deciding whether or not I really need to keep it. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:16:21 +1300, David Mann wrote: My sample of the 400mm isn't quite as sharp as I'd like, although I may be expecting a bit much. You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still climbing its learning curve. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still climbing its learning curve. Perhaps a giant Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss head will help a bit? Oh... you will need super low vibration body like ME Super or MX too. Bodies like Z-1p won't cut. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:32:13 -0800, Alan Chan wrote: You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still climbing its learning curve. Perhaps a giant Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss head will help a bit? Oh... you will need super low vibration body like ME Super or MX too. Bodies like Z-1p won't cut. :-) Yeah, but that's entry fees for about five races, so I won't be buying it soon. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
I find with my F-300mm f4.5 and Z1p that I have to use the 2s mirror-up at speeds as high as 1/125 or even 1/180. When I first got the F-300mm f4.5, I thought it was somewhat soft wide open. But I soon found out that it was that darn Z1p mirror slap and slower speeds. I later got a MZ-S I can go 1/60 or even 1/45 without much trouble. The MZ-S has WAY less vibration than the ME Super (I have one). It's has the softest shutter/mirror slap that I've ever tried. Give one a spin. Actually you might want one after that... Peter --- Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still climbing its learning curve. Perhaps a giant Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss head will help a bit? Oh... you will need super low vibration body like ME Super or MX too. Bodies like Z-1p won't cut. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: Opinions on FA* 400mm f5.6 ED (IF)
The MZ-S has WAY less vibration than the ME Super (I have one). It's has the softest shutter/mirror slap that I've ever tried. Give one a spin. Actually you might want one after that... Care to let me try yours? I promise I'll return it. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro
Hey there, I have one of these. If Pentax doesn't get the DSLR to market pretty soon it'll belong to Bruce. To answer your questions: - The manual focus ring is as bad as anything out there. - BokehI'm not sure. I've shot a few things with it wide open, but not a lot. Here are some examples: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-26.html http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-24.html http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-25.html http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-33.html http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-35.html http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-31.html I don't promise these are all wide open. In case you're wondering, these are photos from a hiking trail dedication. This guy through hiked the Appalachian Trail at the age of 70: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/knob/skgo-10.html - It's very sharp. - I have no idea how much it's worth. I thought it was a good deal new. Also, it only has click stops for whole apertures. You can balance it in between, but there's no click. In summary, it's got nice optics, crappy build. tv -Original Message- From: ukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro Hi all, I'm looking for opinions on the FA 100/3.5 Macro lens. I'm planning to use it as a portrait lens. How good/bad is the manual focus ring? What kind of bokeh does this lens have? How sharp is it? And the last thing - how much is it worth? Thanks in advance. Regards, ukasz PS. Anyone has a nice 135/2.8 F or FA for sale? === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro
- Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 5:13 PM Subject: RE: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro Hey there, I have one of these. If Pentax doesn't get the DSLR to market pretty soon it'll belong to Bruce. snip between, but there's no click. In summary, it's got nice optics, crappy build. tv Wow - thanks, Tom! That's what I call an exhaustive answer. ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
RE: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro
-Original Message- From: ukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow - thanks, Tom! That's what I call an exhaustive answer. I have to try and balance out the OT crap I post here. tv
Re: opinions on the Moose circular polarisers
It depends on whether you like or need the extra warmth. Alternatives are to use a warmer film, or add warmth to your liking in a photo editing program (if you are set up for digital). Joe
RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:48, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Here's my opinion on TC's: They Suck compared to real primes at the desired focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have one for 6X7 that degrades quality just like the 35mm ones do but at least with 6X7 the quality level is still acceptable. 35mm Lenses are cheap, why not just buy the focal lengths you want ( hint, for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ). JCO J.C, There no need to use such antagonistic language to express your opinion. When I first read your email I thought I ought to post an equally hard nosed response, but that's how flame wars get started. While you may find 35mm lenses to be inexpensive, as a student I do not. I was interested in this TC because for $45, I would be hard pressed to find a telephone prime lens. Would you care to suggest any good, inexpensive telephoto primes in the 200mm-300mm range. The other reason I'm enquiring about this particular TC is for it's macro capability. Currently I'm using a Pentax 50m/1.7 on extension tubes. I've enjoyed the photography, and the pictures, but I find swapping the tubes around to be quite awkward. -Scott
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
At 12:52 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, you wrote: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. I used it with both of those lenses and loved the results I got. Using it with the 135mm and the Vivitar 283 flash with one layer of handkerchief over the flashhead as a diffuser got me some very nice dragonfly closeups. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Subject: RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:48, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Here's my opinion on TC's: They Suck compared to real primes at the desired focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have one for 6X7 that degrades quality just like the 35mm ones do but at least with 6X7 the quality level is still acceptable. 35mm Lenses are cheap, why not just buy the focal lengths you want ( hint, for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ). JCO J.C, There no need to use such antagonistic language to express your opinion. When I first read your email I thought I ought to post an equally hard nosed response, but that's how flame wars get started. I was agressive because I wanted my point to be HARD. TCs are only good if you want to travel light and are willing to accept soft, lower contrast images. 35mm photography is borderline enuff without resorting to these band-aids. For years NONE of the major camera companies made them because they simply dont live up to their **previously** high standards. While you may find 35mm lenses to be inexpensive, as a student I do not. I was interested in this TC because for $45, I would be hard pressed to find a telephone prime lens. Would you care to suggest any good, inexpensive telephoto primes in the 200mm-300mm range. Check ebay there are TONS of 135 and 200mm PRIME lenses made by third parties which are dirt cheap and will outperform most if not ALL lens PLUS TC combinations. Now if you want 300mm , they are a little more but you could probably find a decent 300mm F5.6 for under $100 used. The other reason I'm enquiring about this particular TC is for it's macro capability. Currently I'm using a Pentax 50m/1.7 on extension tubes. I've enjoyed the photography, and the pictures, but I find swapping the tubes around to be quite awkward. -Scott Once again, a 50mm 1.7 plus TC aint going to even come close to a real macro lens. Try to find a third party one used. For example I just got a vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro in screwmount for $60. AND it's AWESOME sharp. Sounds like you are using K mount right? If your on a tight budget, you should switch to screwmount. Far more economical for the same level of quality. JCO
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
At 01:26 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, JCO wrote: ( hint, for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ). JCO Did you say hint because you're about to put them all on ebay or did you mean to say boast Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was agressive because I wanted my point to be HARD. TCs are only good if you want to travel light and are willing to accept soft, lower contrast images. 35mm photography is borderline enuff without resorting to these band-aids. For years NONE of the major camera companies made them because they simply dont live up to their **previously** high standards. Well, Pentax made the T6-2X back in the '70's and that's a while ago. It was $150 new when third party TC's were $20. Well Pentax has been making 35mm Lenses since 1952. They probably went at least 25 yrs WITHOUT offering one. They probably caved in due to the popularity of the 3rd parties offerings, but even a T6-2X is not going to give results as good as a well made prime of the equivalent focal length. TCs are a kludge at best. A 2X TC throws away 75% of the image formed by a prime, and magnifys the remaining 25% to fill the frame. Needless to say the result is a softer image and less conrast due to more elements. I dont take pictures often enuff to waste the time I do using an inferior lens system like a 2XTC. Based on my latest digital image processing and printing, 35mm is capable of excellent quality, but you need really good optics film to achieve it. I'll pass on the TC's thank you. JCO
RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
No, Not selling. I plan on using them on a PENTAX digital SLR in a few years. For now, I'm getting great results with that old fashioned thing called FILM. If Pentax decides not to go the digital SLR route, I just might buy a Canon EOS digital and mount them on that if I have to. I am a strong believer in using the right lens for the job. Hence, I bought a WHOLE BUNCH of them dirt cheap about 10 yrs ago. These are all Takumars. In the late 80's early 90's when Pentax came out with AF, people were dumping screwmount lenses like hot potatoes! It was perfect timing for me as I just got back into photography around 1988 after about a 12 year layoff. As a matter of fact at that time I felt they were so undervalued That I invested in them and at one point had over 175 extra ones. But I needed cash last year and sold all of them ( just the extras ) at ebay. I made a healthly profit to say the least. Even with todays higher prices, the takumars are still excellent value. Way cheaper than the K, M, or A lenses and just as good in many respects. -Original Message- From: wendy beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter At 01:26 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, JCO wrote: ( hint, for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ). JCO Did you say hint because you're about to put them all on ebay or did you mean to say boast Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
John (JCO), I hear you on TC's. I've never been a big fan of them, but... It's Gymnastics season and for the last 3 meets, I've dragged the camera along. The gym is dark. The stands are a long way from the vault, bars, beam and floor. Even with the A135/1.8 and 800 Fuji film, things are tough to shoot. The girls are moving, flying, twirling, spinning... I've taken the 300mm along before, but I won't climb the bleachers with the 400! (Last night was the PZ-1p, A135/1.8, monopod, 43 77 limiteds... a light kit!) As it is, the A1.4X-S and A2.0X-S give me some flexibility without weight. More photos suffer from slow shutter speed than from using the TC. So I think they have a place... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TCs are a kludge at best. A 2X TC throws away 75% of the image formed by a prime, and magnifys the remaining 25% to fill the frame. Needless to say the result is a softer image and less conrast due to more elements. I dont take pictures often enuff to waste the time I do using an inferior lens system like a 2XTC. Based on my latest digital image processing and printing, 35mm is capable of excellent quality, but you need really good optics film to achieve it. I'll pass on the TC's thank you.
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
In a message dated 12/11/02 3:59:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott Get it you can't go wrong. It's not only a very good 7element converter it's excellent for macro... Highly recommended. With the 50mm it gives you the ability to do some incredible selective focus.. Vic
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
The only time I find myself using a teleconverter is when I need something longer than my 300/2.8 (in other words, when there's no alternative for me!) I think this means I'm agreeing with JCO, but I'm not sure ;) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The only time I find myself using a teleconverter is when I need something longer than my 300/2.8 (in other words, when there's no alternative for me!) I think this means I'm agreeing with JCO, but I'm not sure ;) -- Mark Roberts he says you should go and buy that 600 f5.6. Herb
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Hi, Bob. Does anyone know how it compares to the A 2X-S or L ? ...or the Vivitar 2X Fred mentioned? I've never compared the Vivitar Macro-Focusing TC with the A 2X-L, but I have shot it side-by-side (on an A* 300/4) with the A 2X-S and the T6-2X, and I've found the three TC's to be quite similar in quality. Vivitar seems to have made so many 2X TC's that I wouldn't know how to spot the ones you guys are raving about. g Gee, I don't think it should be all that confusing, Bob. If I recall, amongst the Vivitar manual focus K-mount TC's I think there are really only two models: 1. The regular 2X model. (I think its marked as 2X-22, with the 22 referring to its K-mount.) (I think it's a 4-element design.) 2. The 2X Macro-Focusing TC. (This is is a 7-element design). Does anyone know of any other Vivitar manual focus K-mount TC's? Fred
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Scott, I don't have a good 2xTC, so this is the opinion of the poor folk. I do have a Tamron 2x (4 element) and a Tokina 2x (7 element) and the Vivitar. I'd pick the Vivitar any day of the week. The built-in extension is useful, and it's well made, and it gives me pleasing shots. -Lon Scott Nelson wrote: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
It's cheap ($80 on ebay) and it rocks. There's even an A version so you won't lose program mode if that matters to you. I don't have any examples to show you at the moment, but others on the list may have some. Note that it will siphon away two stops of light, so that 135/3.5 is going to be slooow and tough to focus in dim light. The helicoid capability is really handy; beats the heck out of using extension tubes. Using 50/1.7 will make a great pair for macro work. t On 12/11/02 12:52 PM, Scott Nelson wrote: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
At 12:52 PM -0800 12/11/02, Scott Nelson wrote: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott I picked one up on ebay last year for about $40. It is a very good performer, though since I have a 50mm macro already I usually use it just as a straight TC. A friend of mine has one for his Nikon and he thinks the world of it. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
Here's my opinion on TC's: They Suck compared to real primes at the desired focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have one for 6X7 that degrades quality just like the 35mm ones do but at least with 6X7 the quality level is still acceptable. 35mm Lenses are cheap, why not just buy the focal lengths you want ( hint, for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ). JCO
Re: Opinions requested: How good is the 645 A-35mm f/3.5? and generally, wide for MF ?
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Adam wrote: In search of the list wisdom... I am considering enabling me with a 35mm wide for my 645, and would like to get the views of the list users who have used this manual focus lens: How good is it wide open? Very good. How good is it at the best aperture? Excellent+. I think the 45-85 and 120/4 are sharper. It's about on par with the 75, I guess. I don't really do comparisons or strict lens tests. Any flare problem? Not really. Seems to get about the same amount of flare as any other Pentax WA. The FA might be better in this regard as it has a dedicated tulip hood. I think it was optically redesigned too. Apart from the obvious wider field of view, is it sharper than the A-45mm/2.8 ? Couldn't say, I haven't got any film back from my FA 45 to compare. I've used Tom's 35mm f3.5 and it *is* very good! I only used it for a day and didn't take a lot of shots with it, but I really liked the ones I did get. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Opinions requested: How good is the 645 A-35mm
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:49:37 -0500 From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michel Adam wrote: In search of the list wisdom... I am considering enabling me with a 35mm wide for my 645, and would like to get the views of the list users who have used this manual focus lens: How good is it wide open? It and the 300/4 are my favorites for the P645. I usually use it at f8 or f11 so really can't say how it does wide open. Warren __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I have this lens, and I love it. Since I have my 24-90mm Pentax, I seem to be using it more for Macro only, and less for general stuff. I can recommend it. For portraiture, it could be too sharp according to a lot of peoples opinions. I did notice one thing that is a bit less: flare. It is possible to notice that. I didnt' do a side by side comparison with a Pentax SMC lens, should do that some time. Before I bought this lens, I have read lens tests of macro offerings of Pentax (100mm) , and Tamron, Tokina and Sigma (90mm). The differences are really minimal. I like the fact that is goes to 1:1 without any additional rings. On Thursday 17 October 2002 21:53, Delano Mireles wrote: Hi all, I was wondering if anyone could provide an opinion on this Tamron lens being used as a portrait lens? I'm thinking of taking the plunge on a serious portrait lens (AF) for about $400. Thanks, Delano -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro? I've currently got the AF version, and I had the MF version prior to that. Its a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack, and with excellent Bokeh (to my poorly trained eye!). Also, the 1:1 without the use of tubes is quite handy! It generally sells reasonably second hand as well. I dont know how it stacks against similar Pentax glass, as I've never found a pentax macro lens here in Ireland, but I can reccommend it! Cheers, Terry
Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I was wondering if anyone could provide an opinion on this Tamron lens being used as a portrait lens? I'm thinking of taking the plunge on a serious portrait lens (AF) for about $400. I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro? [snip] Its a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack, and with excellent Bokeh (to my poorly trained eye!). Now that would be interesting. I've never tried this particular macro lens, although I am familiar with quite a few other Pentax and 3rd-party (VS1, AT-X) macro lenses, but I've found that macro lenses - in general - just don't seem to have very good bokeh (they're usually a little harsh for their bokeh). If one really wants a serious portrait lens (and I personally do like sharp portrait lenses, so a fast 100-ish macro lens might otherwise seem attractive), I wouldn't ordinarily recommend any macro lens for that purpose. It seems to me that using a macro lens as a portrait lens is a compromise (sort of like using a portrait lens with a close-up lens attachment as a macro lens). Again, though, I've never tried this particular macro lens... Fred
RE: Opinions Vivitar Series-1 24-70 f3.8-4.8
Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: when doesn't this happen ? Only if the sun is at your back. about my statement: But there is a disadvantage: It has big troubles with flare. If there is a light source not even in the picture area but nearby you get tremendous flare. Hi Paul, I meant: if the light source, e.g. the sun, is not part of the composition but just outside of the picture area. And this happens quite often, at least for me. With the sun in ones back there will be no flare. :-) But already with the sun at 90 degrees it's a problem. A hood would be an improvement, but it's not an IF lens, so the front part rotates. I think I will keep with my 'hand hood'. regards Bernd H. - 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: Opinions Vivitar Series-1 24-70 f3.8-4.8
Bob, if you like the 24mm length like I do it was one of my favorite lens until it stopped zooming. It is very sharp at 24mm but with some vignetting at the wider apertures. Sharpness falls at 70mm but it's still contrasty. A great walking-around lens. Warren PS and a great buy at that price Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 20:08:49 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Opinions Vivitar Series-1 24-70 f3.8-4.8 Hey Guys... Just found bought Vivitar Series-1 24-70 f3.8-4.8 on back shelf of a tired little camera store for $ 60 with caps square padded case. Didn't want to leave it behind 'cause I wasn't going back that way anytime soonAnybody have it / love it / hate it ?? Its a PK-A mount...mint glass, snappy 8-blader. Thanx, Bob = Warren Xato For where to go when you know when [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.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 .
Re: Opinions on standard zooms
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 01:23 PM, Brendan wrote: DO NOT GET THAT SIGMA I have the 28-105 f2.8-4 and it optically is very poor, a better choice would be the cheaper 28-105 F4-5.6 sigma which is much better and cheaper. Heh, Brendan's 28-105 f2.8-4 makes lamp posts look like they're in Candyland on a hot summer day. -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: Opinions on standard zooms
John Leonard wrote: ... I'm wondering whether that Sigma zoom is a bit too budget. Probably, yes. I'm tempted to replace it with a 28-105 internal-focussing (I just HATE that filter ring turning). Have considered Pentax, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. I've been satisfied enough with the Tokina but its coating and flare resistance just suck. Pentax has been already covered. The Tamron and Sigma 28-105/4-5.6 are pretty good and inexpensive. Like the idea of faster lens, so Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 very attractive, but Sigma again? Need to keep below 200 UK pounds (ideally). Forget it. It's a really bad lens. I've noticed that IF lenses seem to whirr more on focussing. Could the increased load on the camera auto-focus drive be a problem? IMO, no. I'm sure Pentax would say using anything but a Pentax lens might wreck the camera, but what is the truth? ... It doesn't matter in the slightest, as long as the lens fit properly. There has been some discussion about some Vivitar MF lenses getting stuck on AF Pentax Bodies but in my experience it didn't crop up. In modern AF cameras and lenses there may be some grade of incompatibility WRT electronic innards (i.e. misreading of aperture values and the like. Some Sigmas seem to have that, sometimes). Bottom line: if you want speed and quality go for an affordable set of second hand primes. Relatively fast and good quality zooms are pretty heavy and expensive. For a comparative chart I laid down some time ago you can check: http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/28-105.html I can't check it right now but it should still be there. Ciao, Flavio - 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: Opinions on standard zooms
From: John Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6 Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch John, Obviously, you are concerned with quality. Surprise your self and get any of the used single focal length lenses you can find. Zooms, while connivent, do not offer the quality of image that a standard will offer. If you want a quality zoom, prepare to spend large sums of money. Evaluate what focal lengths you use and get standard lenses of those focal lengths - AF or MF. I used quality zooms myself but returned to single focal length lenses - quality of image was the reason. Evaluate your needs and make your choice. Bob - 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: Opinions on standard zooms
John wrote: JL I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6 JL Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch JL (particularly when the sun isn't shining) than ones I took on an MZ-50 with JL standard Pentax 28-70 lens. No wonder. This particular lens (FA 28-70/4) has very good contrast. JL I'm wondering whether that Sigma zoom is a bit too budget. I'm tempted to JL replace it with a 28-105 internal-focussing (I just HATE that filter ring JL turning). Have considered Pentax, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. Like the idea of JL faster lens, so Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 very attractive, but Sigma again? Need JL to keep below 200 UK pounds (ideally). I heard the only good Sigma in this range is the 28-70/2.8. JL I've noticed that IF lenses seem to whirr more on focussing. Could the JL increased load on the camera auto-focus drive be a problem? This is likely due to the steep stroke rather than the load. IF by design moves less glass on shorter range, so it's supposed to put less strain on the AF motor. JL I'm sure Pentax JL would say using anything but a Pentax lens might wreck the camera, but what JL is the truth? The general consensus is that Pentax lenses have faster AF. The communication protocol between the lens and the body has a significant role, and at least Sigma hasn't licensed it. Servus, Alin - 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: Opinions on standard zooms
In a message dated 4/15/2002 2:39:57 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6 Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch (particularly when the sun isn't shining) than ones I took on an MZ-50 with standard Pentax 28-70 lens. I'm wondering whether that Sigma zoom is a bit too budget. And when you use the Pentax lens on the -5n, how do those results compare? ERNR My photographs hang on the virtual walls at http://members.aol.com/ernreed - 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: Opinions on standard zooms
The following Pentax zooms will fit your budget and are highly regarded: FA 28-70 f4 FA Power Zoom 28-105 f4-5.6 (but try it first, as it is a heavy lens, some feel too heavy on an MZ/ZX body) FA 24-90 (new, and every zoom user seems to want one) You might also look for: FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5? (This is new, and not yet available in the U.S. so I can't give you a review. There's also an FA 28-105 made by Tamron. Avoid that. You'll know the Tamron by the 62 mm. filter thread. The new Pentax has a 58 mm. thread.) Some of these might be available used from KEH. Joe - 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: Opinions on standard zooms
DO NOT GET THAT SIGMA I have the 28-105 f2.8-4 and it optically is very poor, a better choice would be the cheaper 28-105 F4-5.6 sigma which is much better and cheaper. --- John Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6 Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch (particularly when the sun isn't shining) than ones I took on an MZ-50 with standard Pentax 28-70 lens. I'm wondering whether that Sigma zoom is a bit too budget. I'm tempted to replace it with a 28-105 internal-focussing (I just HATE that filter ring turning). Have considered Pentax, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. Like the idea of faster lens, so Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 very attractive, but Sigma again? Need to keep below 200 UK pounds (ideally). I've noticed that IF lenses seem to whirr more on focussing. Could the increased load on the camera auto-focus drive be a problem? I'm sure Pentax would say using anything but a Pentax lens might wreck the camera, but what is the truth? Thanks, John Leonard, Surrey, UK. - 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 . __ Find, Connect Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca - 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: opinions on Tokina 2.8/28mm ?
I have owned one of those lenses for 4 or 5 years now and I can't say any thing bad about it. I think it is as good as any thing Pentax makes, and at one forth the price. Build quality is the best. It is one of the sharpest shooting lens made. - Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: opinions on Tokina 2.8/28mm ? Hi, anybody with experience with this lens? How did you like it? Build quality? Sharpness? I can get one really cheap, but don't know if I should, instead of waiting for a better pentax. How does it compare e.g. to the worse Pentaxes, 2.8/28 M,A ? Thanks Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: Opinions, please
Wendy; Try some Fuji Provia 100 or 400 (depending on what kind of speed you are looking for. I like Velvia but it's VERY slow. I've never tried photographing black subjects on a white background with the LX or MX but I'm sure it would be difficult to say the least. I'd be tempted to stop down for the black dog but then wouldn't that under-expose the white snow leaving me with grey snow? If I opened up for the snow would the dog look dark grey rather than rich black? That's why i was impressed with the Matrix metering. Very impressed indeed! Christian On Wednesday 23 January 2002 20:47, Wendy wrote: Hi Christian, Thanks for your comments I actually used fuji superia 200 (got a money off voucher with the Shrek DVD!) You're right, I should give slide film a try, that would give me a better idea of how close the exposure is. Trouble is, I wouldn't know which to choose as the last time I used slide film, agfa was my film of choice and it's something I've never seen here or even know if is available any more. I used the multi-segment metering mode and have to say, I am wildly impressed. I'm used to the centre-weighted average of the MX and I'm pretty sure the results would have been a lot different if I'd been using the MX. thanks, Wendy - 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: Opinions: Agfa Duoscan T1200
David A. Mann wrote: 1- optical performance It performs quite well at 1200 dpi, but the 2400 dpi interpolated mode is...uh...well, kind of stinky. I don't see much of a difference between a 1200dpi scan scaled up in Photoshop and one interpolated in the scanner to 2400dpi. I'm quite happy with its sharpness. Occassionally I'll get noise in extra vivid reds when scanning from negatives. 2- scanning speed It's fast, especially at low resolutions. It's much much faster than my Polaroid Sprintscan at comparable resolutions. 3- what's it like for printed matter? Like scans from magazines or scans from photographic prints? From prints it is quite nice, but you REALLY have to keep that glass clean. I don't care much for the software's built-in descreening or sharpening tools. I'm using the Mac software, so the PC software could be different. Other than those tools, the software is quite workable and intuitive. 4- I can see the 3.0 dmax is pretty low: is this a problem? I'm probably stuck with it though as it's the only affordable medium/large-format slide scanner available (I don't want to use a flatbed with transparency adaptor). The only trouble I've ever run into is with Scala transparencies with really rich, detailed blacks. Everything else has been fine, and in performance it actually seems to be better at darkest detail than the higher-spec'ed Sprintscan. 5- I'll be using it on a PC and I'd also like opinions on its driver and whatever software comes bundled with it (I probably won't use it though). If it's the same as the Mac package, it is very well laid out and intuitive. 6- Do you think I could easily adapt the 6x7 carrier to hold my panoramic 35mm slides? :) I dunno, I sandwich stuff in glass mounts. :) You should be able to do it. 7- Does it come with a SCSI adaptor or do I have to buy this separately? Mine is SCSI. 8- What's it like for colour negs? It's pretty good at getting you to the ballpark of colour-correctness. What I do like is the ability to create your own film profiles quickly and easily in the scanning software. As I said before, the only colour issue I've had with the scanner is with supersaturated reds from colour neg getting a bit noisy at times. If I encounter the problem, I usually just shift the scan over to be a bit green until the noise goes away, make the scan and then shift it back in Photoshop. Did I miss anything? :) -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: Opinions: Agfa Duoscan T1200
You may want to reconsider the T1200, as I think there is at least one better alternative. The T1200 itself is a pretty good unit. Within the limits of its specifications it performs well. With a bit of experimentation it will produce good results with negatives and slides. The only complaint I have about it is that I find the drawer mechanism for scanning transparencies awkward in that the holders tend to slide around when you close the drawer. For that reason I prefer the Agfa Arcus ll, which in the real world produces similar results to the T1200 without the awkwardness of the drawer. (The last statement is based on scanning a couple of negs on both scanners connected to the same computer and using the same software, for what it's worth.) The 3.0 dmax specification does not seem to be a major problem. I've had no difficulty getting clean scans of transparency shadows with the scanner. However, I think you should take a good look at the Epson 1640SU Photo as an alternative. I've done something over 300 scans over the last couple of months and have been very pleased with the results. (I'm setting up for a project involving scanning about 2500 archival negs over the summer.) It has an optical resolution of 1600 ppi while the T1200 is only 600x1200. The 1640 produces noticeably sharper scans, and I prefer its tonal rendition. I'm not sure what the dmax is, but I've scanned some extremely dense black and white negs with excellent results. I can't comment on the 1640SU Photo software as I work primarily with Hamrick Vuescan, which produces excellent results and has some useful features for high volume scanning. It has been a while since I've checked the price of the T1200. It used to be significantly more expensive than the 1640SU Photo, which lists at $399US. I've also heard that Canon will be announcing a new unit in this price range with 2400 ppi resolution. There is a very good scanning-oriented listserv at www.leben.com. John Poirier - Original Message - From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 1, 2001 1:40 AM Subject: Opinions: Agfa Duoscan T1200 Hi all, Well I've decided that I should finally get a film scanner of some sort. I can't afford a 4000dpi 35mm scanner yet, but I do want to be able to scan my 6x7 slides for the web, which meant I was going to have to buy the Duoscan anyway. I'm able to afford this one at the moment so I might as well get it now (before the price goes up even more), and use it to get more of my 35mm slides on the web until I can pick up a high-res 35mm scanner. So, I'd appreciate it if anyone who's used this scanner to tell me/us what you think of it. I'll be using it for 6x7 and 35mm to start with, and I want to use the slide trays (I absolutely want to avoid sandwiching my slides between glass plates like the guys in the camera shop do). The specific things I want to know about are: 1- optical performance 2- scanning speed 3- what's it like for printed matter? 4- I can see the 3.0 dmax is pretty low: is this a problem? I'm probably stuck with it though as it's the only affordable medium/large-format slide scanner available (I don't want to use a flatbed with transparency adaptor). 5- I'll be using it on a PC and I'd also like opinions on its driver and whatever software comes bundled with it (I probably won't use it though). 6- Do you think I could easily adapt the 6x7 carrier to hold my panoramic 35mm slides? :) 7- Does it come with a SCSI adaptor or do I have to buy this separately? 8- What's it like for colour negs? Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) 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 .
