Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Ver clever William, yes the lens focal lengh doesnt change but the view you get is no longer that of an 85mm lens because of the crop factor. Which is what I was refering too. But of course you know that and are just being a smarty pants. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:13, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, hence a different DOF, no? Wrong. The focal length of a lens is fixed. If the manufacturer makes an 85mm lens, then that is what it will be, no matter what format is put behind it. Wishful thinking won't change that either. William Robb
Re: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
- Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a > 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, > hence a different DOF, no? Wrong. The focal length of a lens is fixed. If the manufacturer makes an 85mm lens, then that is what it will be, no matter what format is put behind it. Wishful thinking won't change that either. William Robb
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 19 Jul 2004 at 7:39, Tom Reese wrote: > Antonio wrote: > > "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter > lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more > DOF." > > It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm > lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a 50mm lens at f/8 > to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be identical. What > will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more background behind > the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. The reality is that it practically it makes no difference. IOW stopping down one more stop will provide more effective DOF than moving from 35mm to a 1.5x crop sensor at the same magnification. What you have to remember is that DOF is just a photographers guide, it's not a law. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Exaclty, so with the *ist you get greater DOF for the same focal length or AOV. Which is fine if that is what you want but not gret if you like shallow DOF without having to resort to a 300mm lens. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 13:23, Don Sanderson wrote: But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you get the same (subject) image size: 1.) From a Greater Distance with the same focal length. 2.) With a shorter Focal Length from the same distance. Both of these conditions would INCREASE depth of field it seems to me. Or is there some law of optics I'm not aware of at work here? Don -Original Message- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Antonio wrote: "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more DOF." It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a 50mm lens at f/8 to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be identical. What will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more background behind the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field than longer lenses when they are set at identical points in the focusing range. A 20mm lens focused at 10 feet will give you more depth of field than a 100mm lens focused at 10 feet. In your example, the wide angle lens will be focused at a much closer distance than the longer lens. The DOF will be the same if the subject image size is the same. Tom Reese
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you get the same (subject) image size: 1.) From a Greater Distance with the same focal length. 2.) With a shorter Focal Length from the same distance. Both of these conditions would INCREASE depth of field it seems to me. Or is there some law of optics I'm not aware of at work here? Don > -Original Message- > From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > Antonio wrote: > > "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter > lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more > DOF." > > It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm > lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a > 50mm lens at > f/8 to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be > identical. > What will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more > background behind the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. > > Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field than longer lenses > when they > are set at identical points in the focusing range. A 20mm lens > focused at 10 > feet will give you more depth of field than a 100mm lens focused > at 10 feet. > In your example, the wide angle lens will be focused at a much closer > distance than the longer lens. The DOF will be the same if the > subject image > size is the same. > > Tom Reese > > >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Yes, but what about the old 85mm range which is what most people use for portraits? A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:53, Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF than 35mm. It might be a greater DOF in absolute terms but practically its nothing from a photographic image making perspective. IOW DOF is still practically nil when shooting a 300/2.8 wide open using a FF 35mm or APS frame. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, hence a different DOF, no? A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 01:20, Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Antonio Aparicio wrote: You correct Don. DOF is an issue for 1.5x cropped APS digital sensor cameras. Of course, having said that its only an issue if you enjoy a shallow DOF. For those who want greater DOF I guess digital is a godsend. Personally I like the DOF of my current film setup, so a full frame digital camera with no crop would be just the ticket. DOF on the *ist D is more or less the same as film i.e. I'm still often struggling to achieve a decent DOF only the cropped AOV is an issue for me. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Exactly. That is what I thought too. Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more DOF. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF than 35mm. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) On 18 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Antonio Aparicio wrote: You correct Don. DOF is an issue for 1.5x cropped APS digital sensor cameras. Of course, having said that its only an issue if you enjoy a shallow DOF. For those who want greater DOF I guess digital is a godsend. Personally I like the DOF of my current film setup, so a full frame digital camera with no crop would be just the ticket. DOF on the *ist D is more or less the same as film i.e. I'm still often struggling to achieve a decent DOF only the cropped AOV is an issue for me. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and > have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF > should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF > than 35mm. It might be a greater DOF in absolute terms but practically its nothing from a photographic image making perspective. IOW DOF is still practically nil when shooting a 300/2.8 wide open using a FF 35mm or APS frame. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
I wanted to take that back the moment I clicked send! You ARE NOT magnifying more, you're simply wasting part of the potential frame size. However, since the lens was designed with a specific frame size in mind, I would think performance would be affected. DOF should be deeper and oddly enough corner sharpness might be BETTER. Since lenses are usually less sharp at the corners of the frame, and you are not using the corners of the frame! Don > -Original Message- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER > section of > the image circle, > Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the > image circle is capable of, > you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the > imperfections > in the lens with it. > I think I understood what I just said! > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM > > To: pdml > > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > > Dying) > > > > > > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > > center portion of the lens circle." > > > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x > magnification. > > > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > > this. > > > > Joe > > >
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER section of the image circle, Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the image circle is capable of, you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the imperfections in the lens with it. I think I understood what I just said! Don > -Original Message- > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM > To: pdml > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle." > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > this. > > Joe >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Now, if the majority of photographers would begin to understand. As I've mentioned in the past, a 50mm lens projects the same size image on the film/sensor regardless of format, it's just that the image takes up a larger portion of the film/sensor the smaller the format. Bill - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle." > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > this. > > Joe >
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Alan wrote: I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. REPLY: I've no idea whether there will be more Limited lenses. I've heard though, that the MF/AF clutch mechanism of the DA lenses will find it's way into "non-DA" lenses. These could be replacements for existing FA lenses. Pål
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
"that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the center portion of the lens circle." I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand this. Joe
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Gotcha, kinda like being saddled with a 1.5x rear converter all the time. Yuck. Would this also leave DOF the same for a give F stop even though the effective focal length increases by 1.5x? That would mean having to run wide open more often to control DOF, decreasing sharpness further on most lenses. I know that DOF is deeper for a given magnification on my C5050, due to the shorter FL of course. Has this been a problem for you, or am I thinking about it wrong and DOF does get shallower? Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM > Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: > Pentax is Dying) > > > > Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as > > versus the softer random edges in film grain? > > Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, > I'd hate to > > think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. > >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the center portion of the lens circle. Herb - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as > versus the softer random edges in film grain? > Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to > think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital.
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Assuming you had film and digital sensors of same resolution/mm spec, a FF film image will be sharper than a APS digtial sensor until the lens used with the APS sensor is 50% sharper than the lens used on film. With APS digital you need really good lenses to match average lenses on FF film. Reason is you are using shorter focal length lenses and magnifying the central portion only with APS digital. JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as versus the softer random edges in film grain? Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. > acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness > from my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in > sharpness on the *istD. ch is most of the time. > > Herb...
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as versus the softer random edges in film grain? Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. > acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from > my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in > sharpness on > the *istD. ch is most of the time. > > Herb...
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens >line-up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast >end. Frankly, I have no problem with Pentax's lens lineup at all. I suppose I'd rather like a fast (f/2.8-4.0) 17-35 zoom, but I easily get by with their excellent primes in this range. The only place I find the Pentax system lacking is in the flash department. I'm saving my money, not for any new lenses, but for the rumoured AF500FGZ. Hoping/expecting to see it soon. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in sharpness on the *istD. Velvia scans show more difference. none of my lesser expensive Pentax lenses are now being used. i don't have many short/medium primes because they don't offer the flexibility i need. i choose my position for landscapes based on the spatial relationships of the objects in my scene and the FOV gets determined later. most of the reason i use short/medium primes is when i need the larger aperture, and that is almost never since i am on a tripod virtually 100% of the time. i'm tending toward longer lenses now for macro work and lately that has been my 400/5.6 with a high quality closeup lens. it's not as sharp as i like, but it gives me the working distance i need. the 24/2 has too much chromatic abberation and is too long for my landscape work. most of my prime work is done with my two 400mm lenses, and the 400/5.6 just isn't in the same league as the 400/2.8, especially with an extender on each, which is most of the time. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > What makes you say this Herb? > > All my primes but for the FA24/2 seem up to the task.
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 14:12, Dario Bonazza wrote: > Just wait a few weeks and you'll see... I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens line- up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast end. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Alan Chan wrote: > Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA > lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 & FA50/2.8 etc) because > they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can > confirm. Just wait a few weeks and you'll see... Dario
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:41, Herb Chong wrote: > the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the > practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens > quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera. What makes you say this Herb? All my primes but for the FA24/2 seem up to the task. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, > instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus > buyers.
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
> > >Why not an DA Limited series ? > > I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, > instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus > buyers. Manual focus good - auto-focus bad. Manual focus good - auto-focus bad. Film-based SLR good - DSLR bad. Film-based SLR good - DSLR bad. Four legs good - two legs bad. Four legs good - two legs bad.
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Why not an DA Limited series ? I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus buyers. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Why not an DA Limited series ? -Message d'origine- De : Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 17 juillet 2004 22:23 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. This is especially true when people are saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed >that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). The lens >focus down to 1:2 by itself but the kit will include either a small >extension tube or a dedicated close-up lens for bringing it down to 1:1. >What solution will be used was not finalized when I got this info a couple >of years ago. Such a lens could be a great replacemnt for both the two FA >macros. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to > FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Why? Was it a mistake to have 50s at 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8 at the same time? I thought macros (like the 87 Paal is talking about) are a different ball-game. Kostas
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. This is especially true when people are saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). The lens focus down to 1:2 by itself but the kit will include either a small extension tube or a dedicated close-up lens for bringing it down to 1:1. What solution will be used was not finalized when I got this info a couple of years ago. Such a lens could be a great replacemnt for both the two FA macros. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > > > > Alan wrote: > > > > > Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA > > > lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 & FA50/2.8 etc) because > > > they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can > > > confirm. > > > Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). I suppose they will be released when the Asahi family personal photographer reaches the age of 87, and then 118 years? William Robb
