Re: 24-50s
>> The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically, but I do have to admit >> that it's the most "plasticky" lens I own. > Really? Plastickly? For such a heavy lens? Granted, the exterior > rings are all hard black plastic, but the barrel and all internals > are metal. Maybe it's the glass that makes it heavy? I wonder if > it's the inherent looseness in the focusing mechanism/design that > contributes to the feeling you're experiencing? It's not the > tightest moving set of controls I've ever experienced. Well, "heavy" is a relative term - for most of the lenses that I personally use, the A 35-70/4 seems quite light. However, I guess I will agree with your description of what I might be describing as the feel of "platicky-ness" (). I guess that the "looseness" while focusing might be the culprit (although when I am saying "loose", I am referring to a lack of drag while focusing, not to any sort of "wobbly" looseness). Fred
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
> For me, constant 2.8 is important. I find that many receptions are > quite dim, and focusing is a bit tougher. True. Once in a while, I wish my A 28-135/4 were a bit faster. The f/4 spec is fine outside most of the time, and inside, when I'm often using flash with it (set at f/8 usually), it's OK, too. It's only the focusing that suffers in dimmer inside lighting, especially at the wider end (at the longer end, the focus "snaps" into place visually a little easier). Fred
Re: 24-50s and A35-70f4
> My sample of the A35-70, purchased used and showing obvious signs > of use, has more slop in focusing than most of my primes, but is > tighter than any of my other zooms. This is one lens I regard as > more than adequate in build quality, despite the plastic bits. Yes, I'd say that the build of my A 35-70/4 is entirely adequate. And, the lens does make up for its less-than-solid build with its optics - except for some barrel distortion at the wide end, I've found it to be a pretty darned good (even if unpretentious) little lens (with a surprisingly good "macro" function - much better than several other so-called "macro-zoom" lenses. Fred
Re: 24-50s and A35-70f4
I thought all Pentax zooms of the A series and later felt like the A 35-70, until I got a KEH bargain condition A 24-50. What a difference! Quite heavy and solid, with a beautiful focusing and zoom feel. Definitely more metal and/or glass. Do the well regarded Pentax A zooms, like the 35-105 or the 70-210, have that heavy, smooth quality feel, or is their build quality more like the 35-70? Joe On Feb 26, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Fred wrote: My sample of the A35-70, purchased used and showing obvious signs of use, has more slop in focusing than most of my primes, but is tighter than any of my other zooms. This is one lens I regard as more than adequate in build quality, despite the plastic bits. Yes, I'd say that the build of my A 35-70/4 is entirely adequate. And, the lens does make up for its less-than-solid build with its optics - except for some barrel distortion at the wide end, I've found it to be a pretty darned good (even if unpretentious) little lens (with a surprisingly good "macro" function - much better than several other so-called "macro-zoom" lenses. Fred
Re: 24-50s and A35-70f4
> I thought all Pentax zooms of the A series and later felt like the > A 35-70, until I got a KEH bargain condition A 24-50. [snip] Do > the well regarded Pentax A zooms, like the 35-105 or the 70-210, > have that heavy, smooth quality feel, or is their build quality > more like the 35-70? The A 70-210/4, the A 35-105/3.5, and the A 28-135/4 are all head-and-shoulders over the A 35-70/4, when you are talking about "feel" and overall mechanical build quality. However, the 35-70/4 was not designed as ~any~ sort of a "premium lens", and yet it does commend itself quite well optically (and has a better "macro" function than any of the other three lenses above). Fred
Re: 24-50s and A35-70f4
My sample of the A35-70, purchased used and showing obvious signs of use, has more slop in focusing than most of my primes, but is tighter than any of my other zooms. This is one lens I regard as more than adequate in build quality, despite the plastic bits. Keith Whaley wrote: Fred wrote: The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically, but I do have to admit that it's the most "plasticky" lens I own. Really? Plastickly? For such a heavy lens? Granted, the exterior rings are all hard black plastic, but the barrel and all internals are metal. Maybe it's the glass that makes it heavy? I wonder if it's the inherent looseness in the focusing mechanism/design that contributes to the feeling you're experiencing? It's not the tightest moving set of controls I've ever experienced.
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
John Mustarde: > The Tamron 24-135 handles well, is fairly sharp at all f-stops, and > the magnification factor is handy, but it's not well suited for > outdoor pics on a sunny day even with its tulip hood. > > Flares badly, to say the least. > > http://www.photolin.com/misc/flare.jpg > > Oh where's the Pentax Super Multi-Coating when you need it? On Pentax lenses? ERN
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:39:03 -0500, you wrote: >Nikon's 24-120 is reportedly a big seller (and very popular with the >wedding shooters). There are a couple of options in the 24-135 range, >too (Sigma, Tamron). >And the Pentax 24-90 is in the ballpark, too :) The Tamron 24-135 handles well, is fairly sharp at all f-stops, and the magnification factor is handy, but it's not well suited for outdoor pics on a sunny day even with its tulip hood. Flares badly, to say the least. http://www.photolin.com/misc/flare.jpg Oh where's the Pentax Super Multi-Coating when you need it? -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
Anyone ever used the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8? I've heard diametrically opposing opinions of it. Tamron was making some laughable "SP" lenses in recent history, and the SP35-105/2.8 & SP28-105/2.8 are the most expensive junk thus far (I had the 35-105/2.8). Fortunately, they learnt from their huge mistake and start making some nice & affordable SP lenses again (17-35/2.8-4, 28-75/2.8, 70-210/2.8, 180/3.5 macro). Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
At 20:45 25/02/04, you wrote: Anyone ever used the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8? I've heard diametrically opposing opinions of it. I have one. I use it for my Minolta. I found it to be quite nice, not too sharp, but certainly not soft. It's great for weddings because it does not render overly fine details of the blemishes of the skin. But it's heavy and a bit big. Best regards Sung Nee
Re: 24-50s
Fred wrote: > > >> The A 24-50 is a constant f/4 and has the A contact, and seems to > >> be built nearly to the M 24-35 standard, _much_ better than the A > >> 35-70, for instance, in terms of build quality. > > > Ironically, I find the A35-70 to be a much better lens optically. > > The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically, but I do have to admit > that it's the most "plasticky" lens I own. Really? Plastickly? For such a heavy lens? Granted, the exterior rings are all hard black plastic, but the barrel and all internals are metal. Maybe it's the glass that makes it heavy? I wonder if it's the inherent looseness in the focusing mechanism/design that contributes to the feeling you're experiencing? It's not the tightest moving set of controls I've ever experienced. keith > Fred
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
I am using a Tamron 28-75/2.8 now. For DSLR 1.5 crop factor, the 24 would be nicer. We were talking about a lens for wedding photography, not a consumer zoom. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 2:33:23 AM, you wrote: KK> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> does alter things a bit. A constant aperture 2.8 24-90 would be nice. KK> I assume that this has to be longer and heavier (and more expensive) KK> than the 28-70/2.8. Are you sure it would be nice? :-))) KK> Kostas
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote: > does alter things a bit. A constant aperture 2.8 24-90 would be nice. I assume that this has to be longer and heavier (and more expensive) than the 28-70/2.8. Are you sure it would be nice? :-))) Kostas
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
For me, constant 2.8 is important. I find that many receptions are quite dim, and focusing is a bit tougher. Also, the DSLR 1.5 factor does alter things a bit. A constant aperture 2.8 24-90 would be nice. Bruce Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 6:39:03 PM, you wrote: MR> "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120 >>> to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom. >> >>Seems to me a 28-105 covers that range quite nicely. MR> Nikon's 24-120 is reportedly a big seller (and very popular with the MR> wedding shooters). There are a couple of options in the 24-135 range, MR> too (Sigma, Tamron). MR> And the Pentax 24-90 is in the ballpark, too :)
Re: 24-50s
>> The A 24-50 is a constant f/4 and has the A contact, and seems to >> be built nearly to the M 24-35 standard, _much_ better than the A >> 35-70, for instance, in terms of build quality. > Ironically, I find the A35-70 to be a much better lens optically. The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically, but I do have to admit that it's the most "plasticky" lens I own. Fred
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
> As well as the A28-135/4. A tank of a lens, but a good performer > by most accounts. And my favorite as a wedding lens... Fred
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
As well as the A28-135/4. A tank of a lens, but a good performer by most accounts. chris On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bill Owens wrote: > Seems to me a 28-105 covers that range quite nicely. > > Bill > > > What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120 > > to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom.
Re: Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120 >> to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom. > >Seems to me a 28-105 covers that range quite nicely. Nikon's 24-120 is reportedly a big seller (and very popular with the wedding shooters). There are a couple of options in the 24-135 range, too (Sigma, Tamron). And the Pentax 24-90 is in the ballpark, too :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Zooms, was Re: 24-50s
What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120 to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: I don't know if anybody has ever TRIED to make a really good 24-50 zoom. Pros don't seem to have used such a thing. Nikon made a 25-50 f/4.0 that was quite well regarded, and also as big as you'd expect a good quality 24-50 f/4.0 to be. It wasn't a big success financially. While everybody makes a 17-35 f/2.8 or something like it these days, there doesn't seem to be a demand for a 24-50 f/2.8 (which is odd because that's exactly what the 17-35 is on most DSLRs...)
Re: 24-50s
>From: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> While the M 24-50 has a mediocre reputation, the A 24-50 was a new design (same design was used for the F 24-50) and I have one. I didn't know there was an M24-50! Seems odd that there would be both a 24-35 and a 24-50 in the same series. In general that has not been a very popular zoom range. Pentax had to redesign the M24-50 because of a big flare problem with it. This lens could pick up the color of the surroundings, which is a lesser known flare related problem. Only mention I have found of this is in the reference book "Ilford Manual of Photography". Second sentence is the rare one. "In colour photography, flare is likely to lead to a desaturation of colours, since flare light consists of a mixture of light from all parts of the scene, which usually approximate to white light. It may also lead to colour casts, sometimes resulting from objects outside the scene photographed." With sun in my back, I took a photo of white snow, surrounded by green spruces. Few spruces were in the scene. The SMC Takumar 28/3.5 at f8 gave white snow. The M24-50 at 28mm and f8, gave green snow. Yikes! I sold mine. The M24-50 would have a value as a collector's piece though. Of even more value would be the elusive set-screw lens shade for the lens. I don't know if anybody has ever TRIED to make a really good 24-50 zoom. Pros don't seem to have used such a thing. Nikon made a 25-50 f/4.0 that was quite well regarded, and also as big as you'd expect a good quality 24-50 f/4.0 to be. It wasn't a big success financially. Minolta also made one, rather well regarded "for a zoom". I think it went through AF times like Pentax F24-50. Andre
