Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 2010-04-15 19:15, John Sessoms wrote: And just to go completely out in left field, anyone ever actually see or handle or even touch one of the 800f/4 lenses Pentax made for the 6x7? No, but I saw reviews and ads about it. Was that the one that you could get a K-mount adapter for? Or was it a generic 6x7 to K-mount doohickey? Or do I need to apply for disability due to Alzheimers? Wonder how hard it would be to get that to work with the K20D? Have to find a 67 Adapter K of course. "Aperture Simulator" :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
- Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd And just to go completely out in left field, anyone ever actually see or handle or even touch one of the 800f/4 lenses Pentax made for the 6x7? Yes, both. At a camera store in Saskatoon in the mid 80s. It was huge. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: Doug Franklin On 2010-04-14 20:09, Doug Franklin wrote: > Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious Oops, typo. It's actually f/5.6, not f/4.5. They've got a 500 that's f/4.5, but I don't think it has Macro capability. Comes in Pentax mount and it's "DG" just in case Cotty ever does have to eat his hat. And just to go completely out in left field, anyone ever actually see or handle or even touch one of the 800f/4 lenses Pentax made for the 6x7? I actually got hands on the 6x7 600f/4 one time. Couldn't afford it, but I did get try it out in the store. Wonder how hard it would be to get that to work with the K20D? Have to find a 67 Adapter K of course. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 2010-04-14 20:09, Doug Franklin wrote: Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious Oops, typo. It's actually f/5.6, not f/4.5. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Graydon" Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit: On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: >I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach >lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both 500 and 800 mm mirror lenses, it's going to be quite awhile until I can contemplate hunting down an A* 400/2.8. I think I've seen the 600 FA advertised new in Japan - special order. The FA100 is still remarkably good for inside birds. -- Graydon . -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 2010-04-15 5:06, David Mann wrote: I don't think Pentax made a 400/2.8 with AF. You're probably right, Dave. The Pentax long glass has been out of my price range for so long that I've forgotten most of what they have. :-) I wouldn't mind an 80-200 f/2.8 myself. Me, too. That darned cost-benefit analysis gets in the way there, too. For the prices of the 80-200/2.8 or 300/2.8, I could buy a pretty decent used car. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:06 AM, David Mann wrote: > On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > >> I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was >> discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices. >> Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or >> F*?), I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. I'd like to have >> the FA* 300/2.8, but the same logic applies. > > I don't think Pentax made a 400/2.8 with AF. I don't think I'd want one due > to the weight and super narrow DOF. I really must use my FA400/5.6 more > (same goes for all of my lenses, really). > > I wouldn't mind an 80-200 f/2.8 myself. > I don't think I'd trade my 60-250/4 for the 80-200. The extra 50mm on the long end is frequently used as are those 20mm on the short end, and I doubt I'd be shooting wide open very long. DOF is plenty narrow at f4 for all practical purposes and long lenses aren't well suited to low light. What's more, the lens's best aperture at focal lengths up to about 150 is f4, and at 250 mm, f5.6 is optimum. That rocks. > Dave > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
David Mann wrote: > On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > > > I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was > > discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices. > > Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or > > F*?), I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. I'd like to have > > the FA* 300/2.8, but the same logic applies. > > I don't think Pentax made a 400/2.8 with AF. I don't think I'd want one due > to the weight and super narrow DOF. I really must use my FA400/5.6 more > (same goes for all of my lenses, really). > > I wouldn't mind an 80-200 f/2.8 myself. Back of the queue, please. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was > discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices. > Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or > F*?), I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. I'd like to have > the FA* 300/2.8, but the same logic applies. I don't think Pentax made a 400/2.8 with AF. I don't think I'd want one due to the weight and super narrow DOF. I really must use my FA400/5.6 more (same goes for all of my lenses, really). I wouldn't mind an 80-200 f/2.8 myself. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
My FA 135 is an interesting lens with a DX sensor. Too short for nature but nice for the MC races at VIR. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > On 2010-04-14 19:29, Graydon wrote: > >> Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both >> 500 and 800 mm mirror lenses, it's going to be quite awhile until I can >> contemplate hunting down an A* 400/2.8. > > Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious > option. It's a very good lens, though not as good as the FA* 200/2.8 or F* > 300/4.5 ... but those are well nigh legendary lenses I'm comparing it to. > The Sigma has built in, slide out hood and tripod foot, focuses down to > about 3m, and has a limit switch. > > The thing I like best about it is the AF/MF switch, though. Lots of lenses > have them, but not all of them really act like it. Like my F* 300/4.5 has > an AF/MF switch. However, when I put the Sigma in MF mode, trap focus > works, but not with the F* 300/4.5 in MF mode. > > I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was > discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices. > Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or > F*?), I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. I'd like to have > the FA* 300/2.8, but the same logic applies. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 2010-04-14 19:29, Graydon wrote: Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both 500 and 800 mm mirror lenses, it's going to be quite awhile until I can contemplate hunting down an A* 400/2.8. Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious option. It's a very good lens, though not as good as the FA* 200/2.8 or F* 300/4.5 ... but those are well nigh legendary lenses I'm comparing it to. The Sigma has built in, slide out hood and tripod foot, focuses down to about 3m, and has a limit switch. The thing I like best about it is the AF/MF switch, though. Lots of lenses have them, but not all of them really act like it. Like my F* 300/4.5 has an AF/MF switch. However, when I put the Sigma in MF mode, trap focus works, but not with the F* 300/4.5 in MF mode. I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices. Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or F*?), I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. I'd like to have the FA* 300/2.8, but the same logic applies. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
True, but I do hate cutting them open. > > The FA100 is still remarkably good for inside birds. > > -- Graydon > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit: > On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: > >I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach > >lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. > > Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't > seem to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there > used to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both 500 and 800 mm mirror lenses, it's going to be quite awhile until I can contemplate hunting down an A* 400/2.8. The FA100 is still remarkably good for inside birds. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: Doug Franklin On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: > I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach > lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). Wonder how much that has to do with the scarcity of long fast glass among Pentax's current offerings? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
- Original Message - From: "paul stenquist" Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd I believe Ken Waller uses his 600/4 quite a bit for wildlife shooting. I take my *600/5.6 out from time to time. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). Aren't there still a bunch of guys out there with 600/f4s? Well I've still got mine but I need a sherpa to ensure more frequent usage. BTW My most frequently used lens is my 300mm 4.5 FA. I have to admit that my long glass is pretty much an expensive space filler for now - I've only used the 300/2.8 a couple of times in the last year, and the 250-600 hasn't even come out of the case. I'm considering replacing the 300 (and the 80-200) in the kit with a 60-250. But I'll hang on to the 250-600 for a while - I do plan to take another trip to San Diego soon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
I have both of these lenses. I would not part with the 77ltd! The 100 macro, on the other hand, is another lens. A good lens, one I use fairly often, but without the esthetic appeal. By analogy, the 77mm is like a Rolex or Omega "self-winding" wristwatch, while the 100 macro is like a competent modern battery driven timepiece. As far as functionality, if you only occasionally need macro, then find a used A-50mm (you don't need autofocus for macro) and buy the 77mm as well. You would find the 100mm too long for your usage most of the time. stan On Apr 12, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote: > > fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd > > trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a > faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? > > I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using > my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am > thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit > more reach for portraits. > > > However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. > > Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals? > > t.x. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Not a Pentax lens, but shot with an el-cheapo Kalimar Mirror Telephoto
500mm on the K20D.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/500mm-lens-test-3.jpg
On 4/13/2010 9:56 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem
to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used
to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ).
I rarely use anything shorter than 200mm. I have the 16-45 and 50-200
DA lenses, but it's relatively rare that my usual "topics" admit the
use of such short lenses for reasonable compositions.
Last weekend, Road Atlanta and the USERA (http://www. had a big event
to celebrate 25 years of the Spec Racer Ford(now)|Renault(then) class,
40 years of Road Atlanta, and some other anniversary that I don't
remember. It was great racing and awesome weather.
On Saturday I exposed 1,973 frames and on Sunday 500 more. Far more
than I expected, or really realized at the time I was doing it.
Though I /did/ notice the "SD card wallet" getting kinda thick. Of
those nearly 2,500 frames, I got about 1,200 that passed the first
cull, which I think is pretty darned good, considering it's been so long.
I was mostly practicing for Walter Mitty, which is the last weekend of
April at Road Atlanta. Technically, it's the Historic Sportscar
Racing Mitty Speedfest this year, but that's marketing BS. :-) I
haven't gotten much shooting done at the track for the last year or
so, so I needed the practice.
Of the 2,500 exposures, 2,100 or so were with the FA* 200/2.8, F*
300/4.5, or the Sigma APO 400/5.6 Macro. The rest were on the DA
50-200. I don't think I dropped the shutter once on the 16-45. I'd
have used the hell out of an FA* 600/4, if it made economic sense for
me to spend that kind of geld on a hobby (other than women or racing
:-) ).
I'll toss a few of my personal favorites from the event out there in
the next day or two. I got lucky a couple of times.
There were several cases where I could've used a faster machine gun
than the K-10D. I don't generally "machine gun" exposures, but when
something goes wrong on track, you don't have time to think and
compose. You have to grab every frame you can as the action evolves.
Or I do, at least. When the entire fracas is over in two to three
seconds, or a lot less, and still can cover a couple of hundred
meters, well, my brain has never worked /that/ fast.
The frame rate isn't nearly as limiting as the buffer size. I need at
least three to five seconds of buffer at the highest frame rate the
camera can achieve at max resolution, no dark frame subtraction, no
lens distortion correction, nothing, DNG or raw, to handle those
situations without luck playing the dominant role.
But, basically, it sometimes seems like I'm on the other end of the
boat from most of the PDML faithful a lot of the time, any more. Not
whining, just noticing, maybe myopically. And realizing full well
that I shoot in a niche of subjects for the most part. There just
used to be more fellow niche dwellers a few years ago. :-)
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:50 PM, John Francis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: >> On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: >> >>> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach >>> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. >> >> Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to >> be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be >> (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). > > Aren't there still a bunch of guys out there with 600/f4s? > > I have to admit that my long glass is pretty much an expensive > space filler for now - I've only used the 300/2.8 a couple of > times in the last year, and the 250-600 hasn't even come out of > the case. I'm considering replacing the 300 (and the 80-200) > in the kit with a 60-250. But I'll hang on to the 250-600 for > a while - I do plan to take another trip to San Diego soon. > I believe Ken Waller uses his 600/4 quite a bit for wildlife shooting. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: > >> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach >> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. > > Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to > be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be > (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). Aren't there still a bunch of guys out there with 600/f4s? I have to admit that my long glass is pretty much an expensive space filler for now - I've only used the 300/2.8 a couple of times in the last year, and the 250-600 hasn't even come out of the case. I'm considering replacing the 300 (and the 80-200) in the kit with a 60-250. But I'll hang on to the 250-600 for a while - I do plan to take another trip to San Diego soon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: > >> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach >> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. > > Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to be > nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be (I know > /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). > > I rarely use anything shorter than 200mm. I have the 16-45 and 50-200 DA > lenses, but it's relatively rare that my usual "topics" admit the use of such > short lenses for reasonable compositions. > > Last weekend, Road Atlanta and the USERA (http://www. had a big event to > celebrate 25 years of the Spec Racer Ford(now)|Renault(then) class, 40 years > of Road Atlanta, and some other anniversary that I don't remember. It was > great racing and awesome weather. > > On Saturday I exposed 1,973 frames and on Sunday 500 more. Far more than I > expected, or really realized at the time I was doing it. Though I /did/ > notice the "SD card wallet" getting kinda thick. Of those nearly 2,500 > frames, I got about 1,200 that passed the first cull, which I think is pretty > darned good, considering it's been so long. > > I was mostly practicing for Walter Mitty, which is the last weekend of April > at Road Atlanta. Technically, it's the Historic Sportscar Racing Mitty > Speedfest this year, but that's marketing BS. :-) I haven't gotten much > shooting done at the track for the last year or so, so I needed the practice. > > Of the 2,500 exposures, 2,100 or so were with the FA* 200/2.8, F* 300/4.5, or > the Sigma APO 400/5.6 Macro. The rest were on the DA 50-200. I don't think > I dropped the shutter once on the 16-45. I'd have used the hell out of an > FA* 600/4, if it made economic sense for me to spend that kind of geld on a > hobby (other than women or racing :-) ). > > I'll toss a few of my personal favorites from the event out there in the next > day or two. I got lucky a couple of times. > > There were several cases where I could've used a faster machine gun than the > K-10D. I don't generally "machine gun" exposures, but when something goes > wrong on track, you don't have time to think and compose. You have to grab > every frame you can as the action evolves. Or I do, at least. When the > entire fracas is over in two to three seconds, or a lot less, and still can > cover a couple of hundred meters, well, my brain has never worked /that/ fast. > > The frame rate isn't nearly as limiting as the buffer size. I need at least > three to five seconds of buffer at the highest frame rate the camera can > achieve at max resolution, no dark frame subtraction, no lens distortion > correction, nothing, DNG or raw, to handle those situations without luck > playing the dominant role. > > But, basically, it sometimes seems like I'm on the other end of the boat from > most of the PDML faithful a lot of the time, any more. Not whining, just > noticing, maybe myopically. And realizing full well that I shoot in a niche > of subjects for the most part. There just used to be more fellow niche > dwellers a few years ago. :-) > If it's any consolation my DA* 60-250 is my most used lens, and I still use the A400 5.6 quite a bit. I haven't shot a race in a long time but hope to again one of these days. Paul > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote: I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML as there used to be (I know /you're/ there, John Francis :-) ). I rarely use anything shorter than 200mm. I have the 16-45 and 50-200 DA lenses, but it's relatively rare that my usual "topics" admit the use of such short lenses for reasonable compositions. Last weekend, Road Atlanta and the USERA (http://www. had a big event to celebrate 25 years of the Spec Racer Ford(now)|Renault(then) class, 40 years of Road Atlanta, and some other anniversary that I don't remember. It was great racing and awesome weather. On Saturday I exposed 1,973 frames and on Sunday 500 more. Far more than I expected, or really realized at the time I was doing it. Though I /did/ notice the "SD card wallet" getting kinda thick. Of those nearly 2,500 frames, I got about 1,200 that passed the first cull, which I think is pretty darned good, considering it's been so long. I was mostly practicing for Walter Mitty, which is the last weekend of April at Road Atlanta. Technically, it's the Historic Sportscar Racing Mitty Speedfest this year, but that's marketing BS. :-) I haven't gotten much shooting done at the track for the last year or so, so I needed the practice. Of the 2,500 exposures, 2,100 or so were with the FA* 200/2.8, F* 300/4.5, or the Sigma APO 400/5.6 Macro. The rest were on the DA 50-200. I don't think I dropped the shutter once on the 16-45. I'd have used the hell out of an FA* 600/4, if it made economic sense for me to spend that kind of geld on a hobby (other than women or racing :-) ). I'll toss a few of my personal favorites from the event out there in the next day or two. I got lucky a couple of times. There were several cases where I could've used a faster machine gun than the K-10D. I don't generally "machine gun" exposures, but when something goes wrong on track, you don't have time to think and compose. You have to grab every frame you can as the action evolves. Or I do, at least. When the entire fracas is over in two to three seconds, or a lot less, and still can cover a couple of hundred meters, well, my brain has never worked /that/ fast. The frame rate isn't nearly as limiting as the buffer size. I need at least three to five seconds of buffer at the highest frame rate the camera can achieve at max resolution, no dark frame subtraction, no lens distortion correction, nothing, DNG or raw, to handle those situations without luck playing the dominant role. But, basically, it sometimes seems like I'm on the other end of the boat from most of the PDML faithful a lot of the time, any more. Not whining, just noticing, maybe myopically. And realizing full well that I shoot in a niche of subjects for the most part. There just used to be more fellow niche dwellers a few years ago. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:06:28PM -0400, paul stenquist scripsit: > Uh, a small, light 100mm f1..8 is a physical impossibility. It has > nothing to do with Pentax's expertise or lack of the same. If you use glass, yeah. It's going to have a certain mass to it. If you could use diamond diffraction grating lenses, maybe not. Going to be awhile before that hits retail, though. :) -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:03:31PM +1000, Tanya Love scripsit: > fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd The FA 100 hurts a lot when you drop it on your foot. The 77 much less. I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc. It's not unobtrusive and it's not a particular good portrait lens and cleaning the front element is an unmitigated pain because it's deeply embedded in the casing. The 77 is surprisingly unobtrusive and makes a good candid portrait lens. It's not good for really close shots of anything, but does nicely at leaning over the fence to take pictures of the roses sorts of shots. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Tanya, are you back? We've missed you. The DA 100 macro just got a good review in Popular Photography. And I believe it is an update of the older FA 100 F2.8 macro, which I have, and which is a very good macro lens. Don't leave us again, please. You're so much fun. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Bruce, Those are lovely photos! Now I have to go out and take some myself. Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Seems like a very sensible decision - someone mentioned the Tamron > macro as an alternative. I can give some insight on that. My first good > macro was the > FA 100/2.8 Pentax lens. It was a very good lens - I didn't have any > real complaints with it. At a later time I bought the newest Tamron 90/2.8 > AF 1:1 macro. After using it, it seems to be every bit as good as the FA > 100/2.8 and perhaps slightly better for non-macro use. It is > certainly lighter, smaller and easier to handle. Bokeh seemed just a > little smoother. > > Now I can't tell you how it compares to the newer Pentax DFA 100/2.8, but > thought I > would let you know my experience. > > Here are a couple of shots taken with the Tamron > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1664a.htm > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd20_0274a.htm > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_6274b.htm > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_5734.htm > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_4692a.htm > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, April 12, 2010, 11:44:06 AM, you wrote: > > TL> Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp > TL> 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... > > TL> ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that > they > TL> bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). > > TL> I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more > TL> versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro > TL> lens for ages. > > TL> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I > just > TL> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. > > TL> Decision made - the 100mm it is! > > TL> Consider myself enabled! > > TL> Tan. :) > > TL> -----Original Message- > TL> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > TL> Bruce Dayton > TL> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM > TL> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > TL> Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd > > TL> One thing to consider is how much different the 77 would be compared to > the > TL> 50. While slightly different, I think you would end up having to decide > all > TL> the time between the two. Since you really like the 50 now, I think it > TL> would be better to get something more different (the > TL> macro) rather than something very similar to what you already have and > TL> really like. Just a little more versatility that way. > > TL> -- > TL> Best regards, > TL> Bruce > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/12 John Sessoms : > > There's no improper English in the construction. John, Very much appreciate your encouragement. Quantitatively "more unobtrusive" appears to be less with 44.500 Google results for "more unobtrusive" and 126.000 for "less obtrusive". However, I find "more unobtrusive" is very commonly used, even in online dictionaries. It just doesn't smack me as logical with due respect to the meaning of word plus modifier which in my perception makes it an absolute which may but need not have an opposite. I would guess even among linguists the jury is still out... so perhaps we should all just let it rest or turn it into something fun =) Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/13 David Mann : > On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:01 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > >> wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your >> gas tank is more empty than empty? > > It goes to -11. Strange. Mine only goes to -E/2 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:01 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your > gas tank is more empty than empty? It goes to -11. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Tanya Love wrote: > and I really have been needing a decent macro lens for ages. I think you just answered your own question... > If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just > wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. Maybe one of the "from my cold dead hands" lenses would interest you there. Those would be the 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8... > Consider myself enabled! How exciting... it's been ages since I bought a lens. Owning a house does that to you :( I think you'll really enjoy the FA100. It's about my most used lens. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Beacom wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote: > >> Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp >> 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... >> >> ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they >> bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). Uh, a small, light 100mm f1..8 is a physical impossibility. It has nothing to do with Pentax's expertise or lack of the same. Paul >> >> I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more >> versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro >> lens for ages. >> >> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just >> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. > > So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form? > > Cheers > Mike > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
- Original Message - From: "Michael Beacom" Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form? Sort of a kinder, gentler way of nailing them to a perch? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 4/12/2010 10:46 PM, Michael Beacom wrote:
On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote:
Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra
sharp
100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh...
...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things
that they
bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!).
I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have
more
versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent
macro
lens for ages.
If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess,
I just
wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol.
So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form?
Cheers
Mike
That would all depend on what kind of fetish you were catering to.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote: Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro lens for ages. If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form? Cheers Mike -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 4/12/2010 7:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote:
fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a
faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro?
I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using
my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am
thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit
more reach for portraits.
However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm.
Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals?
t.x.
I just love the FA Limiteds so I can't give you an unbiased answer.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Seems like a very sensible decision - someone mentioned the Tamron macro as an alternative. I can give some insight on that. My first good macro was the FA 100/2.8 Pentax lens. It was a very good lens - I didn't have any real complaints with it. At a later time I bought the newest Tamron 90/2.8 AF 1:1 macro. After using it, it seems to be every bit as good as the FA 100/2.8 and perhaps slightly better for non-macro use. It is certainly lighter, smaller and easier to handle. Bokeh seemed just a little smoother. Now I can't tell you how it compares to the newer Pentax DFA 100/2.8, but thought I would let you know my experience. Here are a couple of shots taken with the Tamron http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1664a.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd20_0274a.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_6274b.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_5734.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_4692a.htm -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 12, 2010, 11:44:06 AM, you wrote: TL> Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp TL> 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... TL> ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they TL> bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). TL> I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more TL> versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro TL> lens for ages. TL> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just TL> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. TL> Decision made - the 100mm it is! TL> Consider myself enabled! TL> Tan. :) TL> -Original Message- TL> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of TL> Bruce Dayton TL> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM TL> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List TL> Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd TL> One thing to consider is how much different the 77 would be compared to the TL> 50. While slightly different, I think you would end up having to decide all TL> the time between the two. Since you really like the 50 now, I think it TL> would be better to get something more different (the TL> macro) rather than something very similar to what you already have and TL> really like. Just a little more versatility that way. TL> -- TL> Best regards, TL> Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: "J.C. O'Connell" wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your gas tank is more empty than empty? No. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/12 Tanya Love : > > If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just > wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. I know that if there was such a thing it would really cost you bad, coming from Pentax. Or anyone for that matter. > Perry Pellecchia > > I would try an extension tube before a conversion lens. I have tried > a short tube (10 mm?) with my FA50/F1.4 and gotten good results. I am > guessing the FA77 with a short tube would make a good combination. > Anyone try this? If AF is a consideration in this, there is only one tube that I know of (and have) which is the Kenko/Soligor UniPlus Pz-AF 25 mm that has all lens contacts including PowerZoom / SDM as well as the AF drive shaft. Kenko/Soligor makes a 15 mm version for other mounts, also longer ones but for Pentax 25 mm is all she wrote. I spent ages finding one, this is also how I came to know and join PDML and ultimately scored one on eBay. This year things look better, my Google search showed that there were at least three sold via PentaxForums alone this year so far, probably because more people are losing their jobs etc. but you really have to keep looking as they sell in practically no time. Right now I keep mine just for that reason even though I use it almost never at all. Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 4/12/2010 11:56 AM, Perry Pellechia wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Just to confuse matters, I've been having a wonderful time using Sasha's tamron 90/2.8. I haven't used the pentax 100/2.8 but I like the images from the tamron better than with my Pentax DFA 50/2.8. I've been running up against the minimum focus distance on my DA40, hence my question about the DA35 macro a while back. Has anyone tried using a Raynox 250 on a DA40? I would try an extension tube before a conversion lens. I have tried a short tube (10 mm?) with my FA50/F1.4 and gotten good results. I am guessing the FA77 with a short tube would make a good combination. Anyone try this? My question was related to, but separate from Tanya's. For me the conversion lens would mean not needing to take the lens off the body and less chance of getting crap on the sensor. I've got macro lenses, for that matter, I've got simple diopter filters too. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your gas tank is more empty than empty? -- J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:44 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd From: eckinator > 2010/4/12 John Sessoms : >> > From: eckinator >>>> >>> >>>> >>> more unobtrusive >>> >> >>> >> or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/ >> > >> > What's improper about "more unobtrusive"? > > In my understanding un- means not, i.e. zero. Thus, more unobtrusive > means less than zero obtrusive. I doubt there is such a thing. It is > like the more perfrect solution. Actually, it means not obtrusive; inconspicuous, unassertive, or reticent. As such, "more" is a suitable modifier. "More" unobtrusive == more inconspicuous, more unassertive or more reticent in addition to indicating a greater degree of "not obtrusiveness." There's no improper English in the construction. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: eckinator 2010/4/12 John Sessoms : > From: eckinator >>> >>> more unobtrusive >> >> or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/ > > What's improper about "more unobtrusive"? In my understanding un- means not, i.e. zero. Thus, more unobtrusive means less than zero obtrusive. I doubt there is such a thing. It is like the more perfrect solution. Actually, it means not obtrusive; inconspicuous, unassertive, or reticent. As such, "more" is a suitable modifier. "More" unobtrusive == more inconspicuous, more unassertive or more reticent in addition to indicating a greater degree of "not obtrusiveness." There's no improper English in the construction. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > Just to confuse matters, I've been having a wonderful time using Sasha's > tamron 90/2.8. I haven't used the pentax 100/2.8 but I like the images from > the tamron better than with my Pentax DFA 50/2.8. > > I've been running up against the minimum focus distance on my DA40, hence my > question about the DA35 macro a while back. Has anyone tried using a Raynox > 250 on a DA40? > I would try an extension tube before a conversion lens. I have tried a short tube (10 mm?) with my FA50/F1.4 and gotten good results. I am guessing the FA77 with a short tube would make a good combination. Anyone try this? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 4/12/2010 11:44 AM, Tanya Love wrote: Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro lens for ages. If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. Decision made - the 100mm it is! Consider myself enabled! Just to confuse matters, I've been having a wonderful time using Sasha's tamron 90/2.8. I haven't used the pentax 100/2.8 but I like the images from the tamron better than with my Pentax DFA 50/2.8. I've been running up against the minimum focus distance on my DA40, hence my question about the DA35 macro a while back. Has anyone tried using a Raynox 250 on a DA40? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!). I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro lens for ages. If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. Decision made - the 100mm it is! Consider myself enabled! Tan. :) -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd One thing to consider is how much different the 77 would be compared to the 50. While slightly different, I think you would end up having to decide all the time between the two. Since you really like the 50 now, I think it would be better to get something more different (the macro) rather than something very similar to what you already have and really like. Just a little more versatility that way. -- Best regards, Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 12/4/10, Bruce Walker, discombobulated, unleashed: >Mark! Damn. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 12/4/10, Derby Chang, discombobulated, unleashed: >I would not want to live in a world where I could only have one prime. That's a T-shirt it ever I saw one. Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
One thing to consider is how much different the 77 would be compared to the 50. While slightly different, I think you would end up having to decide all the time between the two. Since you really like the 50 now, I think it would be better to get something more different (the macro) rather than something very similar to what you already have and really like. Just a little more versatility that way. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 12, 2010, 4:03:31 AM, you wrote: TL> fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd TL> trying to decide between the two as I cant afford both do I want a TL> faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? TL> I dont have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using TL> my fa 50mm f1.7 as a leave on the body all the time lens right now, and am TL> thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit TL> more reach for portraits. TL> However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. TL> Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals? TL> t.x. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd I haven't had a chance to play with the 100/2.8, but ... My FA77 is my favorite lens. It seems that every time I look through the viewfinder, with it on the camera, it brings a smile to my face. The downside is that I find it a bit long for a walkaround lens. I have the FA50/2.8 and it does great for macro work, although a lot of times I need to be closer than I want, or can get, for the magnification. For example, it doesn't work well for photographing things in my friend's aquarium. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/12 John Sessoms : > From: eckinator >>> >>> more unobtrusive >> >> or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/ > > What's improper about "more unobtrusive"? In my understanding un- means not, i.e. zero. Thus, more unobtrusive means less than zero obtrusive. I doubt there is such a thing. It is like the more perfrect solution. Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: eckinator more unobtrusive or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/ What's improper about "more unobtrusive"? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Tanya. I have both, but don't use either as much as i should. I like my 77 ltd, and my 100 f2.8 is hit and miss for me. Not sure if sending it in with my K10D to have them adjust to the 100 would help or not. My images are not as sharp as others i have seen. I do have the DA F 50 f2.8 macro which i really like. Not quite the FL your look at but nice and sharp Dave On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote: > > fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd > > trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a > faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? > > I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using > my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am > thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit > more reach for portraits. > > > However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. > > Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals? > > t.x. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Tanya, as such, FA 77 is not suitable for close up work. Its MDF is limiting (no pun intended). However, if instead of going after FA 100/2.8 macro you manage to put your hands on this (http://www.techtheman.com/2008/06/cosinapentaxphoenixpromaster-11-matched.html), it might as well make your day. Boris On 4/12/2010 2:03 PM, Tanya Love wrote: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit more reach for portraits. However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals? t.x. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/12 eckinator : > more unobtrusive or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
2010/4/12 Tanya Love : > > fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd > > trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a > faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? > > I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using > my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am > thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit > more reach for portraits. > > > However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. my € 0.02 70/77 or wait for the dfa 100/2.8 wr my personal preference is 100 over 70/77 as I both like to be ready to shoot macro and do portrait etc rather from a longer distance and/or with tighter framing. when in doubt, I'd rather take an extra step backwards than forwards as I find it more unobtrusive - vice versa you could just shoot 70/77 with more in the frame and crop at home... IMHO it comes down to macro vs low light with focal length 2nd in line for consideration cheers ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Derby Chang wrote: Only, I would not want to live in a world where I could only have one prime. Mark! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
Tanya Love wrote: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro? I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit more reach for portraits. However, not sure if I would like the 0.7m minimum focus of the 77mm. Decisions, decisions! What are your thoughts guys and gals? t.x. hey Tanya My 2c worth. The two lenses are completely different animals. I have both, and I love em. Both are a pleasure to use, and have crisp performance. But I would never take the 100 to a gig in low light. Nor would I try to test the 77 to it's close focus ability. But if it came to it, I would gladly have the 77 as my sole prime. Small, solid and brilliantly sharp. Only, I would not want to live in a world where I could only have one prime. D -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On 12/04/2010, Tanya Love wrote: > I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using > my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am > thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit > more reach for portraits. Hi Tan, If you don't have a specific requirement for macro, you aren't scared of buying a slowish lens and you aren't fond of flare (this is not a strong point of the 77mm and I have plenty of screwed images to prove it) maybe consider the DA70/2.4? Cheers, -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
