Re: Pentax lenses I want
The problem with small light autofocus lenses is once you put the autofocus motor in the lens it's no longer small. They can be smallish, but I would hate to see a 43mm limited with a built in AF motor. It would have to be much bigger. On 11/2/2019 9:51 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: Dear Mark, you would have noticed that in the Film SLR days ALL Pentax Lenses were Full Frame. Even the SLR themselves were pretty small and petite looking. And these Lenses were as large or as small as the DA Lenses on the current crop of APSC DSLRs. So why NOT design all Lenses as Full Frame? This would have kept design and manufacturing efforts and costs down. Now please don't start searching for a Technical reason why this is detrimental to Photography. I just responded to your thread "I want a full-frame version of this lens". As for Lenses I am a zoom lover - covered between 10 & 300 mm as I am not into wild life, nature or sports photography - so do not need longer lenses. No GAS. Now all my Zooms are brutally sharp. How do I assure this?? Simple: I will go on buying lenses till I find the sharpest one. That's the Keeper. I do have some Prime Lenses because of their f1.2 or f1.4 Apertures for special Low Light Photography or DOF needs. Thanks for reading. Bipin. Toronto & Bangalore -- America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please. - P.J. O'Rourke -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Juan, welcome back! I have been in BA a few times in the last couple of years, kept thinking I needed to track you down and ask for restaurant recommendations down there… And thanks for starting this discussion. Long story short, over the last 20 years I have bought and sold many lenses. Gradually got to the point where I probably don’t need any more and am not actively looking. For my K-1 I have the big 3 DFA lenses. (And yes, they are big.) 15-30/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 So, a funny thing happened on my last trip to Europe. I left all of those lenses home. I took an A-20/2.8, FA43/1.9, and DFA 100 macro WR. And I also took the new GR III, APS-C with a fixed lens (28mm effective length). Sometimes I used the 43mm, sometimes I used the 20mm e.g. when I was inside a church or wanted wider landscapes, but most of my K-1 shots were with the 100mm, and the GR III got extensive use for wider shots. Essentially a two-camera two-lens system. I did sometimes miss having my zooms, but mostly was pleased I had saved the weight and fuss of carrying multiple heavy lenses. A few decades ago, in the late ‘70s, early ‘80s, I did extensive rock climbing and mountaineering. I had a similar two-camera, two-lens system then: a Nikkormat with 100mm lens and a MInox G with a zone-focus fixed focal length lens (28mm? 35mm?). The Minox was carried on my gear sling, I could be holding on the rock with left hand, with the right hand pull up the camera, flip open the cover with my thumb, set the focus, match-needle the exposure, compose and shoot, flip the cover closed, and be on my way all in just a very few seconds. The Ricoh GR III comes the closest to a totally functional everything-just-right of any camera I have used since those MInox cameras. I just wish it were WR so it would be usable in the rain and had a better coating on the screen so that it was usable in bright sun. Actually, I am at the point where I really need to let go some of those lenses in the closet. I love the almost sensual feel of the 77/1.8 but I seldom take it anywhere nor use it if I do have it. It is not WR, and when using AF it does not allow the manual fine tuning of focus that more modern Pentax lenses have. Same is true of the 43mm. Next time I will just take my 50/1.2 for mid-range shots. And so I see no reason to keep the 43mm. Back to the original “lens lust” theme… I had a 400/4.0 (?5.6?) which I bought for an Alaska trip in 2016. I was glad to have it, used it often, but too long for me to handhold, and other than Alaska there are too few times I shoot wildlife when using a tripod. So I sold it after the trip. (Bought a DA* 300/4.0 instead, which I don’t think I will ever let go.) I would buy another 400mm if/when I go back to Alaska. And then one other, by far the best lens ever, the DA*200/4.0 Macro. I had one, I wasn’t using it, I sold it to a list member who could take far more advantage of that gem than I could. But don’t think of looking for one, such a search is akin to a search for the Golden Fleece or the Holy Grail; you may hear rumors of sightings, but you will not find one. Stan > On Nov 1, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: > > I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I > need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about > (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) > > DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 > would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some > zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the > KP much anyway. > > M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M > lenses. I do have the DA21 Limited for APS, and the Sigma 20/2.8 for APS on > the Sony, and an awesome Zeiss 21/2.8 for full frame on Leicas and Sonys. > And that's without counting the zooms that cover that both on APS and full > frame: I have a 17-70/4, a 12-24/4, and a Canon 17-40/4 that covers full > frame with fast AF via an adaptor on the Sony. > > M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. Don't need it, as I > have tons of both 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a really nice Konica Hexanon > 40mm/1.8 that is perfect for the A7ii. > > DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting > it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have > other lenses covering this range. > > K85/1.8: I had this lens. It fell from my motorcycle jacket the day I was > getting my istD back in 2004. I never saw it again. It's not a FL I > regularly use so it's hard to justify. I had found it in pristine condition > for under $100 back in the late 90s. > > M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what > should be legal. I lost it years ago. I do have an M28/2.8 and the > FA28/2.8, plus a Takumar 28/3.5 (the big barreled one). Oh and I do have > the awesome
Re: Pentax lenses I want
Have the DA16-50 and it was my 2nd favorite lens after the 43mm Ltd (or maybe most favorite after being introduced to Scottish weather.) We were away for a weekend to one of the western islands, decent weather. Walking around all day, 16-50 was just fine. Back to the hotel for lunch, back out and suddenly found that I had a 20-50. No drops, no jolts. Lens just decided that I no longer needed the range from 16 to 20. Found some references on this list to this problem, googled it, checked service cost and decided that 20-50 wasn't so bad consider the weagher sealing. Later decided that it was just too damn big and heavy - and obvious - for walking around towns and cities, so I bought a 2nd hand DA21 from Japan. Love it. Have since bought the 28-105WP and tend to go with that. Will still drag out the 16 (20) - 50 if I'm feeling a bit land-scapey in inclement weather. On 03/11/2019 13:18, Paul Stenquist wrote: I have an excellent barely used DA 16-50/2.8. Pentax sent me a new one about 5 years ago after failing to fix my original one. This was when I was working with them a bit on promotions, so I believe they took care to make sure it was a good one. Make me an offer. Paul On Nov 2, 2019, at 11:02 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Actually the lens I want, but can't justify, is the DA 16-50mm f2.8. I already have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4.5 which covers the range, and suits my needs most of the time. Plus the Tamron 17-50mm is a wee bit better optically by all accounts and much closer to my budget. I wouldn't turn my nose up at the Pentax if I could get it for the same price as the Tamron, since it probably beats it like a rag doll as far as build quality is concerned. On 11/1/2019 2:12 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the KP much anyway. M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M lenses. I do have the DA21 Limited for APS, and the Sigma 20/2.8 for APS on the Sony, and an awesome Zeiss 21/2.8 for full frame on Leicas and Sonys. And that's without counting the zooms that cover that both on APS and full frame: I have a 17-70/4, a 12-24/4, and a Canon 17-40/4 that covers full frame with fast AF via an adaptor on the Sony. M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. Don't need it, as I have tons of both 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a really nice Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8 that is perfect for the A7ii. DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have other lenses covering this range. K85/1.8: I had this lens. It fell from my motorcycle jacket the day I was getting my istD back in 2004. I never saw it again. It's not a FL I regularly use so it's hard to justify. I had found it in pristine condition for under $100 back in the late 90s. M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what should be legal. I lost it years ago. I do have an M28/2.8 and the FA28/2.8, plus a Takumar 28/3.5 (the big barreled one). Oh and I do have the awesome K30/2.8 and a bunch of other 28s for other mounts, so it's super hard to justify buying this one. Takumar 50/1.4, 8 element: I REALLY don't need this. My best 50mms are a Summicron, the A50/1.4, maybe the M50/1.7 or FA50/1.7 (yes, I have all those plus a lot more 50s!) K50/1.2: Again, I don't need another 50. But it sure would be nice to play with that extra third of a stop. How about you? Any lenses you've always wanted but haven't gotten around to getting? Any opinions on that list above? j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com -- America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please. - P.J. O'Rourke -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
It’s optically the same as the FA43 Limited, but that lens is se up for the screwdriver AF drive — the focusing is a bit too quick with a loose feel. Makes it hard to be precise. The Special is RF coupled and has a beautiful focusing feel and built in hood. The only downside is that close focus is .7m, like most RF lenses. Not a big issue on the CL since it’s FOV is cropped and it’s a short portrait tele in this application. G > On Nov 3, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Godfrey DiGiorgi > wrote: > >> The Pentax lens I always wanted is the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special that >> they produced in Leica Thread Mount for a short run of about 2000 units. >> Most were sold in Japan and still command a price around $1500 or so as a >> complete set with the matching optical viewfinder. >> >> A year or so back after I bought the Leica CL, I found one available in >> Japan EBay for $600 without the finder and nabbed it. It’s every bit as >> good a lens as I expected. (-: > > > Ohhh, yes, good one Godfrey, I would also love to have that one! > > Is it any different optically to the 43mm Limited? I mean--if you'll use it > on a camera with live view/EVF, then there's no difference, correct? Is its > only advantage that it is rangefinder coupled? > > j > > -- > Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.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: Pentax lenses I want
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > The Pentax lens I always wanted is the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special that > they produced in Leica Thread Mount for a short run of about 2000 units. > Most were sold in Japan and still command a price around $1500 or so as a > complete set with the matching optical viewfinder. > > A year or so back after I bought the Leica CL, I found one available in > Japan EBay for $600 without the finder and nabbed it. It’s every bit as > good a lens as I expected. (-: Ohhh, yes, good one Godfrey, I would also love to have that one! Is it any different optically to the 43mm Limited? I mean--if you'll use it on a camera with live view/EVF, then there's no difference, correct? Is its only advantage that it is rangefinder coupled? j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.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: Pentax lenses I want
I have an excellent barely used DA 16-50/2.8. Pentax sent me a new one about 5 years ago after failing to fix my original one. This was when I was working with them a bit on promotions, so I believe they took care to make sure it was a good one. Make me an offer. Paul > On Nov 2, 2019, at 11:02 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > Actually the lens I want, but can't justify, is the DA 16-50mm f2.8. > > I already have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4.5 which covers the range, and suits my > needs most of the time. > > Plus the Tamron 17-50mm is a wee bit better optically by all accounts and > much closer to my budget. > > I wouldn't turn my nose up at the Pentax if I could get it for the same price > as the Tamron, since it probably beats it like a rag doll as far as build > quality is concerned. > >> On 11/1/2019 2:12 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: >> I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I >> need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about >> (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) >> >> DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 >> would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some >> zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the >> KP much anyway. >> >> M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M >> lenses. I do have the DA21 Limited for APS, and the Sigma 20/2.8 for APS on >> the Sony, and an awesome Zeiss 21/2.8 for full frame on Leicas and Sonys. >> And that's without counting the zooms that cover that both on APS and full >> frame: I have a 17-70/4, a 12-24/4, and a Canon 17-40/4 that covers full >> frame with fast AF via an adaptor on the Sony. >> >> M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. Don't need it, as I >> have tons of both 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a really nice Konica Hexanon >> 40mm/1.8 that is perfect for the A7ii. >> >> DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting >> it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have >> other lenses covering this range. >> >> K85/1.8: I had this lens. It fell from my motorcycle jacket the day I was >> getting my istD back in 2004. I never saw it again. It's not a FL I >> regularly use so it's hard to justify. I had found it in pristine condition >> for under $100 back in the late 90s. >> >> M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what >> should be legal. I lost it years ago. I do have an M28/2.8 and the >> FA28/2.8, plus a Takumar 28/3.5 (the big barreled one). Oh and I do have >> the awesome K30/2.8 and a bunch of other 28s for other mounts, so it's >> super hard to justify buying this one. >> >> Takumar 50/1.4, 8 element: I REALLY don't need this. My best 50mms are a >> Summicron, the A50/1.4, maybe the M50/1.7 or FA50/1.7 (yes, I have all >> those plus a lot more 50s!) >> >> K50/1.2: Again, I don't need another 50. But it sure would be nice to play >> with that extra third of a stop. >> >> How about you? Any lenses you've always wanted but haven't gotten around to >> getting? Any opinions on that list above? >> >> j >> >> -- >> Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com > > -- > America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. > America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please. >- P.J. O'Rourke > > > -- > 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: Pentax lenses I want
Actually the lens I want, but can't justify, is the DA 16-50mm f2.8. I already have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4.5 which covers the range, and suits my needs most of the time. Plus the Tamron 17-50mm is a wee bit better optically by all accounts and much closer to my budget. I wouldn't turn my nose up at the Pentax if I could get it for the same price as the Tamron, since it probably beats it like a rag doll as far as build quality is concerned. On 11/1/2019 2:12 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the KP much anyway. M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M lenses. I do have the DA21 Limited for APS, and the Sigma 20/2.8 for APS on the Sony, and an awesome Zeiss 21/2.8 for full frame on Leicas and Sonys. And that's without counting the zooms that cover that both on APS and full frame: I have a 17-70/4, a 12-24/4, and a Canon 17-40/4 that covers full frame with fast AF via an adaptor on the Sony. M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. Don't need it, as I have tons of both 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a really nice Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8 that is perfect for the A7ii. DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have other lenses covering this range. K85/1.8: I had this lens. It fell from my motorcycle jacket the day I was getting my istD back in 2004. I never saw it again. It's not a FL I regularly use so it's hard to justify. I had found it in pristine condition for under $100 back in the late 90s. M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what should be legal. I lost it years ago. I do have an M28/2.8 and the FA28/2.8, plus a Takumar 28/3.5 (the big barreled one). Oh and I do have the awesome K30/2.8 and a bunch of other 28s for other mounts, so it's super hard to justify buying this one. Takumar 50/1.4, 8 element: I REALLY don't need this. My best 50mms are a Summicron, the A50/1.4, maybe the M50/1.7 or FA50/1.7 (yes, I have all those plus a lot more 50s!) K50/1.2: Again, I don't need another 50. But it sure would be nice to play with that extra third of a stop. How about you? Any lenses you've always wanted but haven't gotten around to getting? Any opinions on that list above? j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com -- America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please. - P.J. O'Rourke -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Ah, yes, a gentle Scottish mist, when the heavens open up and the fish swim up out of the rivers and into the sky... On 11/1/2019 8:01 PM, Pat Temmerman wrote: Have the DA21... would love if it were fully WP (I live in Scotland. Rain is real.) On 01/11/2019 23:39, John Francis wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. ... and with a price tag to match! I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. -- America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please. - P.J. O'Rourke -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
I don't really need any more lens, I go from 16mm to 400mm (with a gap between 210 and 400), but none of my current photography would justify the expense of filling in the gap. If I could find one, the power zoom 28-105 was one of the best I have had, and wouldn't mind getting it for when my 28-105 3.5/5.6 wears out. However, as I've mentioned before, my phot kit will probably last longer than I will! John in Brisbane mm -Original Message- From: PDML On Behalf Of Juan Buhler Sent: Saturday, 2 November 2019 4:13 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Pentax lenses I want I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the KP much anyway. M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M lenses. I do have the DA21 Limited for APS, and the Sigma 20/2.8 for APS on the Sony, and an awesome Zeiss 21/2.8 for full frame on Leicas and Sonys. And that's without counting the zooms that cover that both on APS and full frame: I have a 17-70/4, a 12-24/4, and a Canon 17-40/4 that covers full frame with fast AF via an adaptor on the Sony. M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. Don't need it, as I have tons of both 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a really nice Konica Hexanon 40mm/1.8 that is perfect for the A7ii. DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have other lenses covering this range. K85/1.8: I had this lens. It fell from my motorcycle jacket the day I was getting my istD back in 2004. I never saw it again. It's not a FL I regularly use so it's hard to justify. I had found it in pristine condition for under $100 back in the late 90s. M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what should be legal. I lost it years ago. I do have an M28/2.8 and the FA28/2.8, plus a Takumar 28/3.5 (the big barreled one). Oh and I do have the awesome K30/2.8 and a bunch of other 28s for other mounts, so it's super hard to justify buying this one. Takumar 50/1.4, 8 element: I REALLY don't need this. My best 50mms are a Summicron, the A50/1.4, maybe the M50/1.7 or FA50/1.7 (yes, I have all those plus a lot more 50s!) K50/1.2: Again, I don't need another 50. But it sure would be nice to play with that extra third of a stop. How about you? Any lenses you've always wanted but haven't gotten around to getting? Any opinions on that list above? j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.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. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Nicely captured image - good job. -Original Message- >From: Toine >Subject: Re: Pentax lenses I want > >My last lens, HD DA 55-300, probably makes my wanted list complete. I >do have the 60-250 which is somewhat better but a monster compared to >the tiny HD 55-300. The old 55-300 was excellent, the HD version is >even better. The other lenses on my wanted list are or were the DA35 >macro, DFA 100 macro and 08 Wide zoom. > >sample shot of today with lots of cropping: >https://www.repiuk.nl/content/imgp1852/lightbox/ > >On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:25, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: >> > >> > I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I >> > need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about >> > (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) >> >> I’ve been very lucky that in the past few years I’ve managed to score on >> several of my wishlist lenses, mostly through a combination of gifts and KEH. >> >> DA 35 macro >> FA 43 ltd >> DFA 100 WR macro >> Sigma 35/1.4 macro >> >> I always find myself wanting faster lenses, and particularly faster and >> wider, or faster and longer. It must be really nice to be one of those >> people that only does one small subset of photography, like sports, wildlife >> or landscape. I take some consolation in Moore’s Law in that as sensors get >> better I can use an f/2.8 lens in cases where I used to need f/1.4 or >> faster. Unfortunately, I now find myself photographing in even more >> ridiculous light levels and still needing faster glass. >> >> Also, unfortunately, I find myself needing autofocus more and more. The >> situation could be relieved a bit with decent through the eyepiece live view >> with focus peaking, or a split focusing screen (katzeye), but age is taking >> its toll on my eyesight even faster than on my memory. >> >> My 77/1.8 is still one of my favorite lenses, but when photographing >> musicians I still want faster and longer, 85/1.4, or 135 f/2 or faster. >> >> In a similar vein, a lot of the night landscapes I do require faster and >> wider than what I have. I’ve got the Rokinon 24/1.4 which is pretty nice, >> and the Pentax 15-30/2.8, but I still constantly find myself up against >> difficulties capturing the night sky, and wanting both faster and wider >> glass. It expect that better sensors, and/or better processing software >> could alleviate those issues. In theory software could take multiple >> images, separate sky from foreground, stack and stitch them separately and >> put them back together in one clean photo. In theory, the software could >> even do something fancy with convolution and unsmear the stars. >> While I’m off topic and talking about my software wishlist, it would be nice >> if I could just point my processing software and a directory, have it look >> at time stamps, GPS, compass and accelerometer data and automatically HDR >> and/or stitch any photos that could be. >> >> When photographing wildlife, I constantly find myself up against the length >> and speed limits of my bigma (50-500), I don’t know what would be better, >> but I do know that I can’t afford it. >> >> If I was shooting APS I’d definitely want the sigma f/1.8 zooms (18-35 and >> 50-100), if they were full frame I’d probably try to rent out my body on >> street corners to come up with the money. In the department of wishing it >> were full frame, I could really use the 50-135/2.8 range in full frame, >> although a 35-100/2.8 would probably do me even more good. >> >> I also wish that I had weather sealed versions of pretty much all of my >> legacy glass. I don’t stop taking photos when the weather gets a bit damp. >> As has been recently observed, that’s often when the best opportunities >> happen. >> >> The DA40/2.8 was mentioned, and back in the days of my K-x that was one of >> my favorite walkabout lenses because it turned the K-x into practically a >> pocket camera. Like the DA35 macro, it vignettes a little bit on the K-1, >> but is still manageable. Processing software could solve a lot of that. >> Speaking of software wishlists, I wish my K-1 gave me an option between APS >> and FF, and also that the square format option didn’t store all of the raw >> sensor data so that it was useful in raw mode to save the K-1 buffer space. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Larry Colen >> l...@red4est.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: Pentax lenses I want
On 11/2/2019 17:51:10, Dale H. Cook wrote: My wishlist for anything generally greatly exceeds the contents of my wallet. For now I have to be content owning a Pentax-DA 18-270mm as my walking-around lens, a Rokinon 650Z 650-1300mm as my long glass, and a Pentax-A 50mm f2. The only lens currently on my wishlist is a suitable late-model replacement for the 50mm as I want to return it to the K-1000 and sell all of my 35mm film kit as a lot. Check KEH. I frequently see the "Pentax 50mm F/1.4 SMC FA" there at "won't break the bank" prices. Plus it's a full-frame lens if you ever get a K-1, although as far as I could tell, the "Pentax 50mm F/1.8 SMC DA" doesn't vignette on the K-1 even though it's technically a crop sensor lens. They usually have that one available too. Actually, I have you to thank for my latest acquisition. I was looking at KEH for sturdy tripods to recommend in response to your post lamenting that yours wasn't steady enough for photographing hummingbirds. After I found several good Gitzo/Manfrotto legs, I figured "What the heck, I'll see if they've got any Pentax lenses I want." ... and the FA 600/f4 just kind of fell into my lap. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
My last lens, HD DA 55-300, probably makes my wanted list complete. I do have the 60-250 which is somewhat better but a monster compared to the tiny HD 55-300. The old 55-300 was excellent, the HD version is even better. The other lenses on my wanted list are or were the DA35 macro, DFA 100 macro and 08 Wide zoom. sample shot of today with lots of cropping: https://www.repiuk.nl/content/imgp1852/lightbox/ On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 22:25, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: > > > > I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I > > need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about > > (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) > > I’ve been very lucky that in the past few years I’ve managed to score on > several of my wishlist lenses, mostly through a combination of gifts and KEH. > > DA 35 macro > FA 43 ltd > DFA 100 WR macro > Sigma 35/1.4 macro > > I always find myself wanting faster lenses, and particularly faster and > wider, or faster and longer. It must be really nice to be one of those > people that only does one small subset of photography, like sports, wildlife > or landscape. I take some consolation in Moore’s Law in that as sensors get > better I can use an f/2.8 lens in cases where I used to need f/1.4 or faster. > Unfortunately, I now find myself photographing in even more ridiculous light > levels and still needing faster glass. > > Also, unfortunately, I find myself needing autofocus more and more. The > situation could be relieved a bit with decent through the eyepiece live view > with focus peaking, or a split focusing screen (katzeye), but age is taking > its toll on my eyesight even faster than on my memory. > > My 77/1.8 is still one of my favorite lenses, but when photographing > musicians I still want faster and longer, 85/1.4, or 135 f/2 or faster. > > In a similar vein, a lot of the night landscapes I do require faster and > wider than what I have. I’ve got the Rokinon 24/1.4 which is pretty nice, and > the Pentax 15-30/2.8, but I still constantly find myself up against > difficulties capturing the night sky, and wanting both faster and wider > glass. It expect that better sensors, and/or better processing software > could alleviate those issues. In theory software could take multiple images, > separate sky from foreground, stack and stitch them separately and put them > back together in one clean photo. In theory, the software could even do > something fancy with convolution and unsmear the stars. > While I’m off topic and talking about my software wishlist, it would be nice > if I could just point my processing software and a directory, have it look at > time stamps, GPS, compass and accelerometer data and automatically HDR and/or > stitch any photos that could be. > > When photographing wildlife, I constantly find myself up against the length > and speed limits of my bigma (50-500), I don’t know what would be better, but > I do know that I can’t afford it. > > If I was shooting APS I’d definitely want the sigma f/1.8 zooms (18-35 and > 50-100), if they were full frame I’d probably try to rent out my body on > street corners to come up with the money. In the department of wishing it > were full frame, I could really use the 50-135/2.8 range in full frame, > although a 35-100/2.8 would probably do me even more good. > > I also wish that I had weather sealed versions of pretty much all of my > legacy glass. I don’t stop taking photos when the weather gets a bit damp. As > has been recently observed, that’s often when the best opportunities happen. > > The DA40/2.8 was mentioned, and back in the days of my K-x that was one of my > favorite walkabout lenses because it turned the K-x into practically a pocket > camera. Like the DA35 macro, it vignettes a little bit on the K-1, but is > still manageable. Processing software could solve a lot of that. > Speaking of software wishlists, I wish my K-1 gave me an option between APS > and FF, and also that the square format option didn’t store all of the raw > sensor data so that it was useful in raw mode to save the K-1 buffer space. > > > > > -- > Larry Colen > l...@red4est.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. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
My wishlist for anything generally greatly exceeds the contents of my wallet. For now I have to be content owning a Pentax-DA 18-270mm as my walking-around lens, a Rokinon 650Z 650-1300mm as my long glass, and a Pentax-A 50mm f2. The only lens currently on my wishlist is a suitable late-model replacement for the 50mm as I want to return it to the K-1000 and sell all of my 35mm film kit as a lot. -- Dale H. Cook, decades as 35mm SLR photographer, now Pentax K-70 w/ Pentax-DA 18-270mm walking-around lens https://plymouthcolony.net/photos/index.html -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Juan Buhler wrote: > > I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I > need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about > (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) I’ve been very lucky that in the past few years I’ve managed to score on several of my wishlist lenses, mostly through a combination of gifts and KEH. DA 35 macro FA 43 ltd DFA 100 WR macro Sigma 35/1.4 macro I always find myself wanting faster lenses, and particularly faster and wider, or faster and longer. It must be really nice to be one of those people that only does one small subset of photography, like sports, wildlife or landscape. I take some consolation in Moore’s Law in that as sensors get better I can use an f/2.8 lens in cases where I used to need f/1.4 or faster. Unfortunately, I now find myself photographing in even more ridiculous light levels and still needing faster glass. Also, unfortunately, I find myself needing autofocus more and more. The situation could be relieved a bit with decent through the eyepiece live view with focus peaking, or a split focusing screen (katzeye), but age is taking its toll on my eyesight even faster than on my memory. My 77/1.8 is still one of my favorite lenses, but when photographing musicians I still want faster and longer, 85/1.4, or 135 f/2 or faster. In a similar vein, a lot of the night landscapes I do require faster and wider than what I have. I’ve got the Rokinon 24/1.4 which is pretty nice, and the Pentax 15-30/2.8, but I still constantly find myself up against difficulties capturing the night sky, and wanting both faster and wider glass. It expect that better sensors, and/or better processing software could alleviate those issues. In theory software could take multiple images, separate sky from foreground, stack and stitch them separately and put them back together in one clean photo. In theory, the software could even do something fancy with convolution and unsmear the stars. While I’m off topic and talking about my software wishlist, it would be nice if I could just point my processing software and a directory, have it look at time stamps, GPS, compass and accelerometer data and automatically HDR and/or stitch any photos that could be. When photographing wildlife, I constantly find myself up against the length and speed limits of my bigma (50-500), I don’t know what would be better, but I do know that I can’t afford it. If I was shooting APS I’d definitely want the sigma f/1.8 zooms (18-35 and 50-100), if they were full frame I’d probably try to rent out my body on street corners to come up with the money. In the department of wishing it were full frame, I could really use the 50-135/2.8 range in full frame, although a 35-100/2.8 would probably do me even more good. I also wish that I had weather sealed versions of pretty much all of my legacy glass. I don’t stop taking photos when the weather gets a bit damp. As has been recently observed, that’s often when the best opportunities happen. The DA40/2.8 was mentioned, and back in the days of my K-x that was one of my favorite walkabout lenses because it turned the K-x into practically a pocket camera. Like the DA35 macro, it vignettes a little bit on the K-1, but is still manageable. Processing software could solve a lot of that. Speaking of software wishlists, I wish my K-1 gave me an option between APS and FF, and also that the square format option didn’t store all of the raw sensor data so that it was useful in raw mode to save the K-1 buffer space. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.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: Pentax lenses I want
> On Nov 2, 2019, at 6:51 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: > > Dear Mark, you would have noticed that in the Film SLR days ALL Pentax > Lenses were Full Frame. Even the SLR themselves were pretty small and > petite looking. > And these Lenses were as large or as small as the DA Lenses on the > current crop of APSC DSLRs. > So why NOT design all Lenses as Full Frame? Only two reasons, size and cost. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.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: Pentax lenses I want
> On 02 November 2019 at 13:51 Bipin Gupta wrote: > > And these Lenses were as large or as small as the DA Lenses on the > current crop of APSC DSLRs. > So why NOT design all Lenses as Full Frame? > This would have kept design and manufacturing efforts and costs down. Who needs to search? -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
The Pentax lens I always wanted is the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special that they produced in Leica Thread Mount for a short run of about 2000 units. Most were sold in Japan and still command a price around $1500 or so as a complete set with the matching optical viewfinder. A year or so back after I bought the Leica CL, I found one available in Japan EBay for $600 without the finder and nabbed it. It’s every bit as good a lens as I expected. (-: G -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
> On Nov 2, 2019, at 12:44 PM, John Francis wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:23:20AM -0400, John wrote: >>> On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: > I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax > already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. >>> >>> ... and with a price tag to match! >>> >>> I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 >>> to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's >>> because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different >>> from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had >>> met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. >>> >>> I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body >>> makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that >>> it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a >>> fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what >>> my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; >>> the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite >>> a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. >>> >>> >> >> I got lucky and the one last lens that I was pining away for just happened >> to fall into my lap this fall (even if I will still be paying for it for the >> next three years). > > My lucky moment came around 20 years ago, when the lens I'd always longed for > (but thought I'd never own, as it wasn't cheap) turned up on the used market. > Apparently someone who earned his living shooting NASCAR was switching from > Pentax to Nikon, as his editors were now insisting on digital images. > > I found out about this from a post on rec.photos.marketplace, which went > something like "If you're looking for a bargain, Charlotte Camera have a > Pentax 250-600 for sale for _only_ $3000", plus some other remarks which > made it fairly clear the poster meant this mostly as a humorous comment. > > Five minutes later I followed up with a post that said "No they don't ..." > > Then I had to explain to the household expenditure committee why I'd just > paid that much for a lens, especially since it was only a couple of months > since I'd picked up a used A* 300/2.8 (with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters). > > I think you were shooting with the 250-600 for the first time when I ran into you at the Long Beach race. Do you still use it? How is it on digital? > -- > 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: Pentax lenses I want
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:23:20AM -0400, John wrote: > On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > > > I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax > > > > already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. > > > > > > Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. > > > > ... and with a price tag to match! > > > > I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 > > to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's > > because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different > > from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had > > met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. > > > > I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body > > makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that > > it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a > > fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what > > my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; > > the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite > > a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. > > > > > > I got lucky and the one last lens that I was pining away for just happened > to fall into my lap this fall (even if I will still be paying for it for the > next three years). My lucky moment came around 20 years ago, when the lens I'd always longed for (but thought I'd never own, as it wasn't cheap) turned up on the used market. Apparently someone who earned his living shooting NASCAR was switching from Pentax to Nikon, as his editors were now insisting on digital images. I found out about this from a post on rec.photos.marketplace, which went something like "If you're looking for a bargain, Charlotte Camera have a Pentax 250-600 for sale for _only_ $3000", plus some other remarks which made it fairly clear the poster meant this mostly as a humorous comment. Five minutes later I followed up with a post that said "No they don't ..." Then I had to explain to the household expenditure committee why I'd just paid that much for a lens, especially since it was only a couple of months since I'd picked up a used A* 300/2.8 (with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters). -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. ... and with a price tag to match! I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. I got lucky and the one last lens that I was pining away for just happened to fall into my lap this fall (even if I will still be paying for it for the next three years). I think I've now got not only everything I need, but everything I wanted ... unless I run across a Tokina ATX-Pro 287 28-70 f/2.8 to replace the one I wore out. I've got the Sigma 24-70, but I don't love it the way I loved that Tokina lens. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Have the DA21... would love if it were fully WP (I live in Scotland. Rain is real.) On 01/11/2019 23:39, John Francis wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. ... and with a price tag to match! I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already > >offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. > > Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. ... and with a price tag to match! I could never quite persuade myself I needed the older FA* 28-70/2.8 to go along with the FA* 80-200/2.8 that was my main lens. But that's because I was mostly doing motorsports photography - very different from the sort of thing that Juan does - so the 28-105/f4.0-5.6 I had met my needs for the occasional pit or paddock shots. I'm waiting to see whether the announced flagship APS-C camera body makes it all the way into production; if it does, (and assuming that it has the sort of feature upgrades that could tempt me) there's a fairly good chance I'll buy one last Pentax body. But despite what my PDML T-shirt says I'm not sure I'll be buying any more lenses; the main potential candidate - the D FA 150-450 - would add quite a bit to whatever the new body (plus grip) would cost. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:09 PM Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > I'm about to sell a load of M and A primes because my old eyes aren't > good at focussing anymore, including a M3.5/28 and a M4/20. > > Make sure to post here when you do, who knows... :) j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.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: Pentax lenses I want
Paul Stenquist wrote: >I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already >offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax lenses I want
I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already offers an excellent 24-70/2.8. Paul > On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > Juan Buhler wrote: > >> I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I >> need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about >> (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) >> >> DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 >> would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some >> zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the >> KP much anyway. > > I'd love to have this lens for the K-01 I use for street shooting. But > I just can't justify the expense. > >> DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting >> it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have >> other lenses covering this range. > > I want a full-frame version of this lens. It would my daily choice on > the K-1. > > What I'm wishing for is a slower (say f/3.5 or 4) 24-70 weather sealed > zoom for full-frame. I have the 28-105 f/3.5-5.6 and it's a great lens > that's my main choice for hiking but I'd happily sacrifice 35mm on the > long end to get an extra 5mm on the wide end. > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.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. -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Am 01.11.19 um 19:12 schrieb Juan Buhler: M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M lenses. A nice lens if you have a thing for primes. On the downside it's not faster than most wide-angle zooms. Have one in my camera bag (aka The Millstone) and haven't used it for years. M40/2.8: I just always wanted that little pancake lens. I've had one and sold it, years ago. A typical Tessar design: pseudo-sharp with godawful bokeh. OK if you want something that can be put on a MX and still fits into your pocket. Optically, there are far better lenses. M28/3.5: This was my main 28, my copy seemed to be a lot sharper than what should be legal. That's indeed a really nice lens. A somewhat wider standard lens on APS-C. How about you? Any lenses you've always wanted but haven't gotten around to getting? Any opinions on that list above? The lenses I'd want all don't exist and probably never will: faster zooms without the bulk. I'm about to sell a load of M and A primes because my old eyes aren't good at focussing anymore, including a M3.5/28 and a M4/20. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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: Pentax lenses I want
Juan Buhler wrote: >I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I >need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about >(which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway) > >DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the 15 >would be a great companion to it. I don't really need it, since I have some >zooms that cover this focal length, plus I haven't been shooting with the >KP much anyway. I'd love to have this lens for the K-01 I use for street shooting. But I just can't justify the expense. >DA20-40: This seems like the perfect street lens for the KP. Been wanting >it since it came out, but never pulled the trigger. Again, I already have >other lenses covering this range. I want a full-frame version of this lens. It would my daily choice on the K-1. What I'm wishing for is a slower (say f/3.5 or 4) 24-70 weather sealed zoom for full-frame. I have the 28-105 f/3.5-5.6 and it's a great lens that's my main choice for hiking but I'd happily sacrifice 35mm on the long end to get an extra 5mm on the wide end. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax lenses at GFM
Expensive for us retirees as well Dave... On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David J Brooks wrote: > The shot of Bill and his glasses looks very crisp Bob. > > Looks like the lens is a winner, just to damn expensive for us part timers.:-) > > Dave > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: >> Here are some photos with the new DA60-250/4, the DA200/2.8, and the >> DA55/1.4. >> I had not had 'hands-on' with any of them and was very impressed >> (think of Jimmy Carter 'lusting in my heart'). >> http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/PentaxLenses# >> I hadn't seen the DA200/2.8 yet and enjoyed shooting with it. >> The DA60-250 is really special. See the 3d shot, wide open at 250mm & >> 1/20th. >> The others are with the DA55mm and I can see why Bill likes it. >> All shot at the Nature Center at GFM. Some will recognize Bill & Phyllis >> Owens. >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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: Pentax lenses at GFM
The shot of Bill and his glasses looks very crisp Bob. Looks like the lens is a winner, just to damn expensive for us part timers.:-) Dave On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Here are some photos with the new DA60-250/4, the DA200/2.8, and the DA55/1.4. > I had not had 'hands-on' with any of them and was very impressed > (think of Jimmy Carter 'lusting in my heart'). > http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/PentaxLenses# > I hadn't seen the DA200/2.8 yet and enjoyed shooting with it. > The DA60-250 is really special. See the 3d shot, wide open at 250mm & 1/20th. > The others are with the DA55mm and I can see why Bill likes it. > All shot at the Nature Center at GFM. Some will recognize Bill & Phyllis > Owens. > Regards, Bob S. > > -- > 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: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
True Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. februar 2006 00:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:57 PM, John Francis wrote: > I regard that as even worse than just openly publishing them - > it's a tacit admission that you know you're doing something wrong. Yep. Bob -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Strange as IMO Réponse Photo was, years ago, piece of s***. > Seems the exchanged roles ;) They most definitely have. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Strange as IMO Réponse Photo was, years ago, piece of s***. Seems the exchanged roles ;) 2006/2/20, Ralf R. Radermacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Either they got a faulty unit, or they messed up their testing protocol. > > At any rate, they should have double-checked before publishing this > result. A serious magazine would have done this. Then again, they've > stopped being serious, years ago. > > Thank heavens for Réponses Photo and Le Photographe. > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Either they got a faulty unit, or they messed up their testing protocol. At any rate, they should have double-checked before publishing this result. A serious magazine would have done this. Then again, they've stopped being serious, years ago. Thank heavens for Réponses Photo and Le Photographe. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Sylwester Pietrzyk a écrit : Joseph Tainter wrote on 20.02.06 17:54: "Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the center, all but closed down at f/16!" That's funny, because their countrymen from pictchallenge rated DA 16-45/4 very high and said its performance is similar to hi-end Nikon DX 17-55/2,8 except for slightly higher CAs at wide end. Definitely puzzling... Chasseur d'Images also uses DXO analyser for all their tests, including this one. Either they got a faulty unit, or they messed up their testing protocol. Patrice
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Joseph Tainter wrote on 20.02.06 17:54: > "Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly > disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the > center, all but closed down at f/16!" That's funny, because their countrymen from pictchallenge rated DA 16-45/4 very high and said its performance is similar to hi-end Nikon DX 17-55/2,8 except for slightly higher CAs at wide end. Here is the test with comparison to FA 24-90, made using DXO analyzer so it should be quite neutral: http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/BxuREV7.html and here are some fixed focal Pentax lenses tested the same way: http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/BxuREV8.html -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 20, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote: Merci, Patrice. It is curious that they managed to get results on the DA 16-45 so different from everyone else's experience with that lens. Joe Sample variation. They just got a lousy sample. You'd think companies would check out samples before sending them to photo magazines, but typically they don't. I've gotten completely nonfunctioning samples from some big name companies. When we used to do lens tests we got some embarrassingly bad examples from some of the top companies. I'd suggest that this just shows poor quality control on that particular lens. Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
"Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the center, all but closed down at f/16!" Merci, Patrice. It is curious that they managed to get results on the DA 16-45 so different from everyone else's experience with that lens. Joe
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Patrice LACOUTURE a écrit : Here is a synthesis for primes for those who can't/don't want to buy the magazine issue. Seems like I posted this twice (the first one was an incomplete draft). Sorry for this. Also note that when I write ">= f/16", this means f/16, f/22, and so forth... which is mathematically wrong, because actually, f/22 < f/16 for any f (f/x actually is the diaphragm diameter, if I remember well ;-). So all my < and > comparisons are based on f-stop numbers: f/16 "<" f/22. Regards Patrice
Re: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chas
On Feb 20, 2006, at 4:30 AM, mike wilson wrote: By the way, I think that "fair use" is a concept specific to United States copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe? --Mark http://www.cla.co.uk/support/he/he-support-licence.html 3. Conditions, about half way down. (The link at the top of the page seems to be broken.) Unfortunately, nothing similar to this exists in the USA for photographers and writers. Musicians have ASCAP, which performs similarly in licensing the use of music. Professional Photographers of America tried to set up a similar system in the USA several years ago but the membership was too stupid to understand the scheme and its benefits to them. Bob
Re: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chas
> > From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/02/20 Mon AM 12:41:45 GMT > To: "'pentax-discuss'" > Subject: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests > from Chasseur d'Images) > > This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Klaus > Schroiff of the Photozone website (www.photozone.de) used to have a > wonderful compilation of lens tests. His tables included ratings from Color > Foto, Popular Photography, and Chasseur d'Image magazines and included > pretty much every Pentax lens that was current at the time and most of the > third party offerings. Fair use or not, I believe that one or more of the > magazines threatened him into pulling the list off of the web. So it looks > to me like the photography magazines are as "tweaky" about their product > (lens ratings) as the lens makers are about theirs (the lenses themselves). > > By the way, I think that "fair use" is a concept specific to United States > copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe? > > --Mark http://www.cla.co.uk/support/he/he-support-licence.html 3. Conditions, about half way down. (The link at the top of the page seems to be broken.) > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
RE: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images)
I guess the rules are, that you can qoute but not publish entire articles or test sheets without permission. A pluasible course might be to simply qoute the final grade or score - after asking the magazsine for permission to publish it. BTW - German FOTOmagazin has it own test facilities and is worth lookiing at too. In some magazines these test scores are actually used by the manufacturers/sellers when advertising the lenses, cameras etc. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. februar 2006 01:42 Til: 'pentax-discuss' Emne: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images) This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Klaus Schroiff of the Photozone website (www.photozone.de) used to have a wonderful compilation of lens tests. His tables included ratings from Color Foto, Popular Photography, and Chasseur d'Image magazines and included pretty much every Pentax lens that was current at the time and most of the third party offerings. Fair use or not, I believe that one or more of the magazines threatened him into pulling the list off of the web. So it looks to me like the photography magazines are as "tweaky" about their product (lens ratings) as the lens makers are about theirs (the lenses themselves). By the way, I think that "fair use" is a concept specific to United States copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe? --Mark -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Well, I think Patrice just did the most part of the job and that without any legal issue. I didn't want to run into legal problems, just to be helpful. The only "suspicious" test is the DA16-45. The already test it before (2 years?) and it was then VERY good. So there's obviously a problem. As "dénicher" it means succeeding in finding something (the something being somewhat hard to find). One would'nt use dénicher for the 18-55 but rather for a second hand ist-D if you see what I mean ;) I will post more when I have time to read it. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Thanks! Considerate of you to develop this post. Jack --- Patrice LACOUTURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/2/19, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Interrested? > > Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested. > > There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I > > could scan the sheets? > > Here is a synthesis for primes for those who can't/don't want to buy > the magazine issue. > > In this text, I voluntarily grouped lenses with similar figures > together. One should still buy the issue to get actual graphs and > measured figures. > > Sorry, nothing about zooms (yet). Too many figures, too hard to > synthesize. > Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly > disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the > center, all but closed down at f/16! > > Regarding the Primes, then: > > They tested with the AF (except for the A 50 f/1.4, of course), so > there are often poor results at faster diaphs with fast primes (f/2.8 > and faster): in these conditions, the lens is good, but the AF does > not focus correctly enough. They state that their tests with a flat > target tend to increase this focusing issue at faster speeds, which > would be less of a problem for "real photo". > > SHARPNESS: > > All lenses graphs are similar: > - increase from some low figure full open (see note above), to > excellence when stopping down, > - a large, flat section where the quality is excellent (all lenses > show very similar maximum values!!!), both for center and corners. > - slight decrease for higher f/stop values. > > These three parts are noted inc/exc/dec below. > > DA 14 f/2.8 EF (IF): > - inc: < f/8 > - exc: f/8 -> f/16 > - dec: f/22 (slight) > > FA 20 f/2.8: > - inc: f/2.8 > - exc: f/4 -> f/11 > - dec: >= f/16 (slight) > > FA*24 f/2 IF AL: > - inc: <= f/4 > - exc: >= f/5.6 > - dec: NONE > > FA 31 f/1.8 AL Limited: > - inc: <= f/2.8 > - exc: f/4 -> f/11 (humpback, very high at f/5.6-f/8) > - dec: >= f/16 (slight) > > FA 35 f/2 AL: > - inc: <= 2.8 > - exc: >= f/4 > - dec: NONE > > DA 40 f/2.8 limited: > - inc: f/2.8 > - exc: >= f/4 > > FA 43 f/1.9 limited: > - inc: <= f/4 > - exc: >= f/5.6 > - dec: NONE > > A 50 f/1.4: > - inc: only f/1.4 > - exc: >= f/2 > - dec: >= f/16 (slight) > > FA 50 f/1.4: > - inc: <= f/2 > - exc: >= f/2.8 > - dec: NONE > > FA 50 f/1.7: > - inc: <= 2.8 (2.8 excellent at center, not at corners) > - exc: >= 4 > - dec: NONE > > F 50 f/2.8 Macro > - inc: f/2 > - exc: f/2.8 -> f/11 (a bit less good as other primes) > - dev: >= f/16 (suite noticeable, f/22 is not as good as f/2.8) > > D FA 50 f/2.8 Macro: > - inc: <= 5.6 > - exc: >= f/8 > - dec: f/22 (slight) > > FA 77 f/1.8 limited: > - inc: <= 2.8 (center excellent at f/2.8) > - exc: >= f/4 > - dec: f/22 (slight) > > FA 85 f/1.4 IF: > - inc: <= 2 > - exc: >= 2.8 > - dec: NONE (f/22 VERY slight) > > D FA 100 f/2.8 Macro: > - inc: <= f/4 > - exc: f/5.6 - f/22 > - dec: f/32 > (f/4 and f/32 are still fairly good) > > FA* 200 f/2.8 IF ED: > - inc: <= 5.6 (5.6 almost as good ad f/8) > - exc: f/8 -> f/22 > - dec: f/32 > > VIGNETTING: > > All lenses have unnoticeable vignetting for all but the two faster > stops, where it goes up to about 0.3 f-stop. > > Exceptions: > - DA 14mm f/2.8 ED IF: almost 1 f-stop at f/2.8, 0.2 f-stops from > 5.6 and up. > - FA 20mm f/2.8: 0.5 f-stop at f/2.8, then 0.2 f-stop. > - A 50mm f/1.4: only f/1.4 has a bit of vignetting. It drops to 0 > from f/2 and up. > > CHROMA ABERRATION: > > They split neatly into 4 categories: > - Excellent: FA 50 f/1.7 > - Better: FA 31, D FA 50 macro, FA 77, > - Average: FA 35, FA 85, D FA 100, FA 200 > - Not as good: DA 14, FA 20, FA 24, FA 43; A 50 1.4, FA 50 1.4, F > 50 Macro, FA 85 > > DISTORSION: > > - Unnoticeable: D FA 50 Macro, FA 77, FA 85, D FA 100 macro, FA 200 > - 50mms: all non-macro 50mm have very low distorsion 0.10 to 0.17 > - A bit higher (0.21-0.26): F 50mm Macro, FA 43, DA 40, FA 35 > - Worse: FA 31, FA* 24, DA 14 > - Huge (0.83): FA 20 (but less so with APS-C sensors). > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
2006/2/19, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Interrested? > Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested. > There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I > could scan the sheets? Here is a synthesis for primes for those who can't/don't want to buy the magazine issue. In this text, I voluntarily grouped lenses with similar figures together. One should still buy the issue to get actual graphs and measured figures. Sorry, nothing about zooms (yet). Too many figures, too hard to synthesize. Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the center, all but closed down at f/16! Regarding the Primes, then: They tested with the AF (except for the A 50 f/1.4, of course), so there are often poor results at faster diaphs with fast primes (f/2.8 and faster): in these conditions, the lens is good, but the AF does not focus correctly enough. They state that their tests with a flat target tend to increase this focusing issue at faster speeds, which would be less of a problem for "real photo". SHARPNESS: All lenses graphs are similar: - increase from some low figure full open (see note above), to excellence when stopping down, - a large, flat section where the quality is excellent (all lenses show very similar maximum values!!!), both for center and corners. - slight decrease for higher f/stop values. These three parts are noted inc/exc/dec below. DA 14 f/2.8 EF (IF): - inc: < f/8 - exc: f/8 -> f/16 - dec: f/22 (slight) FA 20 f/2.8: - inc: f/2.8 - exc: f/4 -> f/11 - dec: >= f/16 (slight) FA*24 f/2 IF AL: - inc: <= f/4 - exc: >= f/5.6 - dec: NONE FA 31 f/1.8 AL Limited: - inc: <= f/2.8 - exc: f/4 -> f/11 (humpback, very high at f/5.6-f/8) - dec: >= f/16 (slight) FA 35 f/2 AL: - inc: <= 2.8 - exc: >= f/4 - dec: NONE DA 40 f/2.8 limited: - inc: f/2.8 - exc: >= f/4 FA 43 f/1.9 limited: - inc: <= f/4 - exc: >= f/5.6 - dec: NONE A 50 f/1.4: - inc: only f/1.4 - exc: >= f/2 - dec: >= f/16 (slight) FA 50 f/1.4: - inc: <= f/2 - exc: >= f/2.8 - dec: NONE FA 50 f/1.7: - inc: <= 2.8 (2.8 excellent at center, not at corners) - exc: >= 4 - dec: NONE F 50 f/2.8 Macro - inc: f/2 - exc: f/2.8 -> f/11 (a bit less good as other primes) - dev: >= f/16 (suite noticeable, f/22 is not as good as f/2.8) D FA 50 f/2.8 Macro: - inc: <= 5.6 - exc: >= f/8 - dec: f/22 (slight) FA 77 f/1.8 limited: - inc: <= 2.8 (center excellent at f/2.8) - exc: >= f/4 - dec: f/22 (slight) FA 85 f/1.4 IF: - inc: <= 2 - exc: >= 2.8 - dec: NONE (f/22 VERY slight) D FA 100 f/2.8 Macro: - inc: <= f/4 - exc: f/5.6 - f/22 - dec: f/32 (f/4 and f/32 are still fairly good) FA* 200 f/2.8 IF ED: - inc: <= 5.6 (5.6 almost as good ad f/8) - exc: f/8 -> f/22 - dec: f/32 VIGNETTING: All lenses have unnoticeable vignetting for all but the two faster stops, where it goes up to about 0.3 f-stop. Exceptions: - DA 14mm f/2.8 ED IF: almost 1 f-stop at f/2.8, 0.2 f-stops from 5.6 and up. - FA 20mm f/2.8: 0.5 f-stop at f/2.8, then 0.2 f-stop. - A 50mm f/1.4: only f/1.4 has a bit of vignetting. It drops to 0 from f/2 and up. CHROMA ABERRATION: They split neatly into 4 categories: - Excellent: FA 50 f/1.7 - Better: FA 31, D FA 50 macro, FA 77, - Average: FA 35, FA 85, D FA 100, FA 200 - Not as good: DA 14, FA 20, FA 24, FA 43; A 50 1.4, FA 50 1.4, F 50 Macro, FA 85 DISTORSION: - Unnoticeable: D FA 50 Macro, FA 77, FA 85, D FA 100 macro, FA 200 - 50mms: all non-macro 50mm have very low distorsion 0.10 to 0.17 - A bit higher (0.21-0.26): F 50mm Macro, FA 43, DA 40, FA 35 - Worse: FA 31, FA* 24, DA 14 - Huge (0.83): FA 20 (but less so with APS-C sensors).
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Can someone check to see if the tests appear on the magazine's website? I clicked on a number of headings, but came accross no lens listings. Jack --- Patrice LACOUTURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/2/19, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean? > > Means "to find" but just a bit familiar (more like "to suss out"). > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images)
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:41:45PM -0800, Mark Erickson wrote: > > By the way, I think that "fair use" is a concept specific to United States > copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe? No - the "fair use" provision is spelled out in the international Berne Copyright agreement. Most of the nations of the western world are signatories to this agreement, which gives it the same standing as national law. The US has recently taken to passing additional copyright legislation aimed at extending the copyright period beyond that specified in the international law, and suchlike. So, in fact, some things which fall under "fair use" in Europe are now prohibited in the USA.
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Just bought it yesterday. Quite interesting indeed... The issue (like most back issues) can be mail-ordered directly at them. Although I WON'T scan the tables themselves, I can scan and send the order form for those interested. Patrice 2006/2/20, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Feb 19, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > > > Good point Bob. > > Having been in the photo magazine biz for a long time I know the > frustrations of doing good lab tests. Back in the early 90s when we > were doing PhotoPRO magazine we did some real lens tests. Cost a > bundle, and got us mostly grief from manufacturers when their stuff > scored poorly. > > > > > Problem is, I've never been able to find Chasseurs > > d'Images in Philly; I've only ever found it in Europe. > > I don't know about Philly, but I've seen it in NYC and I think in > some other US cities. I'd look for it at news stands in French > neighborhoods, if there are any in Philly. I used to pick it up and > read it now and then. > > > > > Maybe he could email us the tables off-list? > > Just the tables might qualify under fair use. > > Bob > >
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
2006/2/19, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean? Means "to find" but just a bit familiar (more like "to suss out").
Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images)
This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Klaus Schroiff of the Photozone website (www.photozone.de) used to have a wonderful compilation of lens tests. His tables included ratings from Color Foto, Popular Photography, and Chasseur d'Image magazines and included pretty much every Pentax lens that was current at the time and most of the third party offerings. Fair use or not, I believe that one or more of the magazines threatened him into pulling the list off of the web. So it looks to me like the photography magazines are as "tweaky" about their product (lens ratings) as the lens makers are about theirs (the lenses themselves). By the way, I think that "fair use" is a concept specific to United States copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe? --Mark
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Rick Womer wrote: Good point Bob. Having been in the photo magazine biz for a long time I know the frustrations of doing good lab tests. Back in the early 90s when we were doing PhotoPRO magazine we did some real lens tests. Cost a bundle, and got us mostly grief from manufacturers when their stuff scored poorly. Problem is, I've never been able to find Chasseurs d'Images in Philly; I've only ever found it in Europe. I don't know about Philly, but I've seen it in NYC and I think in some other US cities. I'd look for it at news stands in French neighborhoods, if there are any in Philly. I used to pick it up and read it now and then. Maybe he could email us the tables off-list? Just the tables might qualify under fair use. Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Good point Bob. Problem is, I've never been able to find Chasseurs d'Images in Philly; I've only ever found it in Europe. Maybe he could email us the tables off-list? Rick --- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Sylwester Pietrzyk > wrote: > > > On 2006-02-19, at 22:45, Thibouille wrote: > > > >> So, will I scan? > > > > Yes, please be so good for us :-) > > > Excuse me for being a bringdown and all. > > But can anyone say copyright? > > Bob > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:57 PM, John Francis wrote: I regard that as even worse than just openly publishing them - it's a tacit admission that you know you're doing something wrong. Yep. Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:56 PM, John Francis wrote: It would be legal for Thibouille to retype just the numeric ratings from the lens tests. But scanning the pages, or retyping the opinions & comments (except for brief excerpts for the purpose of a critique) is not. Correct. But if you like the work this magazine does, you should support it by buying the magazine. Doing proper lab tests costs money, and the only way they can make money and do more tests is if you buy the magazine. I've seen Chasseur on some US news stands, and I am sure you can order copies. Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: If it's legal to put them on the web it woluid be very nice :-) Regards It's legal for Chasseur d'Image to put them up on their web site. Anyone else would need their permission to do so. Do they normally post their tests on their site? Bob
RE: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
I bough it last Friday (I can found it quite easily in Barcelona). I am glad that they liked 'my' A50/1.4, even more than the FA also tested. They also liked 'my' FA35/2 and 18-55 kit lens. By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean? (in the A50/1.4 text) --- Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > Interrested? > Got the latest one and there are quite a number of > lenses tested. > There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but > if you wish I > could scan the sheets? > > Of course, comments are in french but could be still > useful. > > So, will I scan? > -- > Thibouille > -- > *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... > > __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
I regard that as even worse than just openly publishing them - it's a tacit admission that you know you're doing something wrong. On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:53:10PM +0100, Jens Bladt wrote: > You might put them in a "secret place" that requires a pasword. It's easy to > make a pdf-file with a pass word. > You might call it somethin cryptic - and let us know :_)) > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. februar 2006 23:34 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images > > > you mean "fair use"? > > best, > mishka > > On 2/19/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But can anyone say copyright? > > > > Bob > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
It would be legal for Thibouille to retype just the numeric ratings from the lens tests. But scanning the pages, or retyping the opinions & comments (except for brief excerpts for the purpose of a critique) is not. On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:50:44PM +0100, Jens Bladt wrote: > If it's legal to put them on the web it woluid be very nice :-) > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. februar 2006 22:46 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images > > > Interrested? > Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested. > There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I > could scan the sheets? > > Of course, comments are in french but could be still useful. > > So, will I scan? > -- > Thibouille > -- > *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
RE: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
You might put them in a "secret place" that requires a pasword. It's easy to make a pdf-file with a pass word. You might call it somethin cryptic - and let us know :_)) Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. februar 2006 23:34 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images you mean "fair use"? best, mishka On 2/19/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But can anyone say copyright? > > Bob > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
RE: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
If it's legal to put them on the web it woluid be very nice :-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. februar 2006 22:46 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images Interrested? Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested. There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I could scan the sheets? Of course, comments are in french but could be still useful. So, will I scan? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 02/17/2006
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Mishka wrote: you mean "fair use"? best, mishka Fair use is quoting a small portion of an article for the purposes of critique or review. The only fair use exemption for complete articles is narrowly defined for bona fide educational institutions. Copying and distributing a complete article, or other copyright protected work, is a violation of copyright law, even if no financial gain is involved. I live by the copyrights on my works, so it really bothers me to see copyright treated in a cavalier manner, particularly on a photography list. What's wrong with those interested getting their own copies of the magazine so the authors can make their livings? Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
you mean "fair use"? best, mishka On 2/19/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But can anyone say copyright? > > Bob > >
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On 2006-02-19, at 22:45, Thibouille wrote: So, will I scan? Yes, please be so good for us :-) Excuse me for being a bringdown and all. But can anyone say copyright? Bob
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
you will. best, mishka On 2/19/06, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, will I scan? > -- > Thibouille
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On 2006-02-19, at 22:45, Thibouille wrote: So, will I scan? Yes, please be so good for us :-) -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
Yes, please! (ou, oui s'il vous plait!) Rick --- Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interrested? > Got the latest one and there are quite a number of > lenses tested. > There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but > if you wish I > could scan the sheets? > > Of course, comments are in french but could be still > useful. > > So, will I scan? > -- > Thibouille > -- > *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
I bought it from a BIN listing at EUR 66 (Approx US $78) So US$50 obo? Wendy On 12/28/05, Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This one time, at band camp, wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On the same subject, > > Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me? > > Im interested > > How much? > > Kind regards > Kevin > > > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. > Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." > > -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
Better than having them coming out of other places. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-) thats gotta be uncomfortable. :) Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
Just another proof that the K/M crippling of Aperture priority on Pentax DSLR matters Its absurd the screwmount lenses are more flexible than the K/M lenses on a K mount camera... jco -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:38 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth I find I prefer using screwmount lenses on the D to using K/M mount lenses, Aperture priority becomes usable at apertures other than wide open. My two most used lenses are my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (KAF2 mount) and the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: >What you describe is pretty much exactly like mounting >screw mount lenses on the ist-D with a K/M42 adapter. >A bit more work, but not only possible, but fun. > >Don > > > >>-Original Message- >>From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:47 PM >>To: pentax list >>Subject: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth >> >> >>A list member recently contacted me off-list asking whether it was >>possible to use a certain Pentax DA lens on Canon cameras. >> >> > > > > > >>Cheers, >> Cotty >> >> >>___/\__ >>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com >>_ >> >> >> >>
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
This one time, at band camp, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-) thats gotta be uncomfortable. :) Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
I find I prefer using screwmount lenses on the D to using K/M mount lenses, Aperture priority becomes usable at apertures other than wide open. My two most used lenses are my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (KAF2 mount) and the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: What you describe is pretty much exactly like mounting screw mount lenses on the ist-D with a K/M42 adapter. A bit more work, but not only possible, but fun. Don -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:47 PM To: pentax list Subject: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth A list member recently contacted me off-list asking whether it was possible to use a certain Pentax DA lens on Canon cameras. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
I think he's got it. Cotty wrote: On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX. So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and only opens when introduced to the body, literally opening up when the aperture lever comes into contact with the body lever? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
Cotty wrote: On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX. So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and only opens when introduced to the body, literally opening up when the aperture lever comes into contact with the body lever? Yup Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not >wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX. So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and only opens when introduced to the body, literally opening up when the aperture lever comes into contact with the body lever? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
On 29/12/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: >> On the same subject, >> Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me? > >Im interested > >How much? Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
This one time, at band camp, wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the same subject, > Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me? Im interested How much? Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
Stuck enroute with my Treo ... Email consumes time... :-) correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX. G
RE: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
What you describe is pretty much exactly like mounting screw mount lenses on the ist-D with a K/M42 adapter. A bit more work, but not only possible, but fun. Don > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:47 PM > To: pentax list > Subject: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth > > > A list member recently contacted me off-list asking whether it was > possible to use a certain Pentax DA lens on Canon cameras. > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
On 28/12/05, wendy beard, discombobulated, unleashed: >On the same subject, >Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me? How much would you like for it Wend? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >Do i owe you $15.00 or are you arguing in your spare time. 20 bucks with a tip :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
On the same subject, Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me? I bought one, intending to try and use my limited lenses on the 1Dmk2 but I chickened out. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Went for the more expensive solution Bought a DS instead -- Wendy Beard Ottawa Canada
Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
Do i owe you $15.00 or are you arguing in your spare time. LOL Dave(sorry, just had to)Brooks > A list member recently contacted me off-list asking whether it was > possible to use a certain Pentax DA lens on Canon cameras. I don't want > to reveal the list member, but I'm sure they won't mind me posting my > answer as a general piece of info, I thought it might be of interest, > and perhaps de-mistify things... > > > >Would it be possible to put a Pentax DA 16-45 on a Canon camera with an > >adaptor? > > It is not feasible. Notice I didn't say that it's not possible, just not > feasible. The reason why is that the Pentax DA 16-45mm lens has no > aperture ring, so if it is mounted, via an adapter, onto a Canon EOS, > there is simply no way to change the aperture. Simple as that. > > So the answer is that it is very possible to mount the DA 16-45 onto a > Canon with an adapter, but unless someone take the lens apart and > designs a way of manually changing aperture, then you will be stuck with > the maximum aperture of f/4, and no way of stopping down. Electronic > control via the camera is not possible, or maybe it is, but at many > hundreds of times the cost of the lens. An expert could probably spend > weeks designing and rebuilding the lens to allow EOS control - but > that's daft, right ? ;-) > > >What about metering is that affected at all? > > When I put my K15mm or my A*85mm onto my 1D, it basically behaves like > an old fashioned stop-down manual lens from the days of old. I switch > the camera to manual (M), I put the lens on, and I focus on a scene, > then I decide what aperture I want to shoot at, say f/8, so I stop the > lens down to f8, and a half press of the shutter button and the camera > literally looks at the amount of light coming through and tells me to > set the shutter speed (say) to 1/250th sec. I do this buy using the main > dial (small revolving dial on top near shutter release), moving it until > 1/250th sec is shown in the viewfinder, and then I fire the shutter. > > The only other way to use one of these lenses with the Canon is this: > instead of selecting manual (M), I select aperture priority automatic > (AV). Now, when I use the K mount lens, I first of all focus on the > scene, then I select the aperture I want to use (say f/8 again), and as > I turn the aperture ring, and at the same time have a half-press on the > shutter, the camera is changing the shutter speed to match, > automatically. So as I come to rest the aperture ring at f/8, the camera > has already set the shutter speed at the correct 1/250th sec, and away I go. > > It's as simple as that. > > Obviously, the camera has no electrical connection with the lens, so > (for instance) it does not know what the focal length of the lens is, > nor the aperture being used. All it knows is what the amount of light is > coming through the lens. And if it knows that the ISO is set to (say) > 200, and it knows the amount of light, then it can figure out the > shutter speed required to expose the scene correctly. An external light > meter can do this. A lot of photographers can do this by sight. > > So now you can see why it is vital when mounting a Pentax or Nikon or > Contax lens on a Canon camera that the lens has an aperture ring to > manually adjust the amount of light coming through. > > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
RE: Pentax lenses.
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: > These links don't work for me :( Technically, underscores are not meant to be allowed in a URL. Some software is more forgiving. I set mine up to allow them but my ISP's proxy returns an error. I got around it by temporarily disabling the proxy in my web browser. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
RE: Pentax lenses.
These links don't work for me :( Lukasz -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss (E-mail) Subject: Pentax lenses. I tried to send this last night, only to discover that I had been dropped off the list. It was a quiet time here. I guess I have to direct-deposit the monthly stipend to Doug :-) Anyways, here it goes again... With all the talk of 'jumping ship' if there is no DSLR from Pentax, and the 'look' of Canon and Nikon lenses, I present the following image in two forms: http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flare.jpg and http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flaret.jpg Flare.jpg is the large version of flaret.jpg. This shot was taken near the French Market in New Orleans, Louisiana this past weekend with my sister. It was a perfect situation for flare. As a matter of fact it was almost too harsh to look at with your eyes. The Limited 31/1.8 was used. I cannot recall if I metered with my LX on the building or used my Sekonic L-358 in incident mode. Anyway I often push my Pentax lenses in this fashion. It makes me the 'loyal' Pentaxian that I am. I have a Nikon F3 with a small assortment of lenses and from experience none of the Nikon lenses can handle flare like a Pentax. I have not experienced Canon lenses, only seen some shots taken by friends. I get the same flare control from all my Pentax lenses not just the Limiteds. Just thought I would toss my hat into the ring, César Panama City, Florida
Re: Pentax lenses.
On 26 Sep 2002 at 8:52, Cesar Matamoros II wrote: > http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flare.jpg and > http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flaret.jpg > Anyway I often push my Pentax lenses in this fashion. It makes me the > 'loyal' Pentaxian that I am. I have a Nikon F3 with a small assortment of > lenses and from experience none of the Nikon lenses can handle flare like a > Pentax. I have not experienced Canon lenses, only seen some shots taken by > friends. I get the same flare control from all my Pentax lenses not just the > Limiteds. Thank you César, you have just illustrated why I'm so keen for a K-mount DSLR! Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:34:07 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote: > [...] when I was shooting motorsports for car magazines. But my most > used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, [...] That's good to hear since I shoot motorsports and I just took delivery of my first FA* lens today (FA* 200/2.8 from KEH). :-) Now for the FA 20/2.8 and FA 100/2.8 ... TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA, > > probably over 90% were 50mm. > > That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses available on > ebay demonstrates how ludicrous this remark is. I wouldn't be so sure. I sold cameras for nearly 6 years from 1985 to 1991. We moved a hell of a lot of Super Programs, and Program Plus'. We sold a lot of 50mm f/1.7 lenses. We didn't carry any other Pentax lenses. We sold a lot more off brand zooms than anything else. In that 6 years, I only special ordered 2 Pentax lens, which were an A 50mm f/1.2 and an A 70-210 f/4. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA, > probably over 90% were 50mm. That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses available on ebay demonstrates how ludicrous this remark is. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
I don't know if I was a "professional" when I was shooting motorsports for car magazines. But my most used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, and I used to clean the bits or rubber and dust off it by wiping it with my t-shirt. I made many many thousands of dollars with that old hunk of metal and glass. The coating was gone. The front element had visible scratches. But the pictures still looked good in the magazines. Now that I'm strictly a hobbiest, I fret over a tiny spec of dust on any of my pristine glass. But that's because I'm a hobbyist, and I care about those things. (When I shot for money I had four lenses. Now that I shoot for fun I have forty.) Paul Pål Audun Jensen wrote: > > Mishka wrote: > > >anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a > >completely different game with completely different rules, many not so > >obvious. > > I don't think so. I believe the run-of-the-mill pro is less concerned about > lens quality, as long as it is good enough, than the average enthusiast or > connoisseur. > > Pål > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
>This is a constructed argument. Sure there are rare Pentax lenses but they >can be counted on one hand. But there are rare Nikon lenses too, I'll bet >that any Nikon lens available for two years only, like the K 105mm, are >hard to find as well. I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than >Nikon lenses but that doesn't make Pentax lenses rare. Seems to be a matter of one's definition. 1) How many were made? 2) How many can be found on used market? regards, Alan Chan _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
In a message dated 6/18/2002 7:09:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm denying that pentax lenses in > general are rare. > Pal, Deny it all you want. Nobody was saying as much. We're all agreed on this! -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
In a message dated 6/18/2002 6:01:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Now look for a Nikon > AI 105/2.5. It doesn't matter how many Pentax 105's were > made, there aren't any for sale. > Bingo!! -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
In a message dated 6/18/2002 3:59:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Pentax lenses aren't rare. I didn't say they were rare. I said that the finer versions are rather harder to find than comparable lenses of other makes. What's more, you normally pay more for a really fine Pentax lens than you would for the same caliber of lens in another SLR make. I've always found this to be the case. -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
Pål Audun Jensen commented: June 18, 2002 7:05 AM Why some Pentax lenses are rare in North America may be that Pentax didn't sell many there and/or that people simply don't offer them for sale. I'm also sure that the Pentax lens population may look different from the Nikon lens population but even a rare lens as the A 300/3.8 is so abundant that some major second hand retailers (in North America mind you) saw the need to dump them. Sure, some lenses are made in small volumes but this hold true for exotic Nikon lenses as well; some of them were only made in volumes as low as 60. I'm not denying that Pentax lenses in general may be harder to find than Nikon lenses, but I'm denying that pentax lenses in general are rare. Pål I think that perhaps with the advent of auto focus, Pentax strayed from the design philosophy that was successful for them previously, and also they were not at the forefront of that development as they had been with TTL exposure and other such developments. They did well in the P&S market, but not until they came out with the MX/MZ series did their auto focus cameras get back into contention in the SLR market. They also made the mistake of power zoom lenses which didn't go anywhere. I don't think their lenses following the Power zoom series, were on a par with those in the M and A series that existed just prior to auto focus. At that point they seemed to target the P&S market who wanted to move up to an SLR as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional. However, the offerings in the last few years seem more on track, although, they seem to be bringing out more quality MF lenses than in the 35mm arena. Excepting of course the Limited series, but only 3 lenses in that line! As a matter of interest, I was just in my local camera dealer, who commented that used Pentax cameras and lenses do not sit on the shelf for long. I think there are a lot of traditional Pentax users who have stayed with older manual cameras and lenses, and as Pål suggested from the sales figures he quoted, there are an awfull lot of those around. However, I think many of those people, like myself who did not get into auto focus till the MZS. However, when I did, and looked at aquiring a series of AFlenses, Pentax didn't offer me the selection I wanted. I know the FA* series lenses are great but the 28-70 and 70-200 f2.8 are both power zoom, which did not appeal to me, and extremely expensive, so I went with the sigma EX series of lenses and built my battery of AFlenses in that line. I think Pentax need to come out with something better than the like of their 80-320 consumer zoom, and redesign and drop the power zoom on their FA* 28-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. Also they need to make cosmetic improvements to their 50 and 100 mm macro lenses. It seems though, generaly they are back on track, just that their resources are spread between MF and 35 SLR where as none of the other major manufactures are in the MF market. Anyway, just some rambling thoughts on this topic. ...cheers! Mike. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
Bruce wrote: >Yes, there were millions of Pentax >lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA, >probably over 90% were 50mm. Pentax was a value camera >here, and few people invested in a lot of OEM lenes. What does my post have to do with North America? I was refering to production numbers which of course reflect global sales. I was also saying that Pentax lenses aren't rare; not that they aren't necessarily hard to find. By 20 years ago, Pentax have sold more SLR cameras than any other camera manufacturer. In some European markets, Pentax had more than 50% of the OEM lens sale; that's more than all the others put together. If you go further back to the 60's/early 70's Pentax cameras and lenses were among the most sold. In the 80's, based on production volume and assuming that bulk of the A-series lenses sales happened in the period from 1983-1987, Pentax sold yearly about 65-75% of the volume Canon have achieved during the 90's, hardly low by any standards. I doubt Pentax only sold 50mm lenses. It isn't until the 90's that Pentax lens sales starts to drop significantly below Nikon and Canon. Why some Pentax lenses are rare in North America may be that Pentax didn't sell many there and/or that people simply don't offer them for sale. I'm also sure that the Pentax lens population may look different from the Nikon lens population but even a rare lens as the A 300/3.8 is so abundant that some major second hand retailers (in North America mind you) saw the need to dump them. Sure, some lenses are made in small volumes but this hold true for exotic Nikon lenses as well; some of them were only made in volumes as low as 60. I'm not denying that Pentax lenses in general may be harder to find than Nikon lenses, but I'm denying that pentax lenses in general are rare. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
I wrote: I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than Nikon lenses but that doesn't make Pentax lenses rare. Correction: It is supposed to be: "I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than Pentax lenses..." Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
Bruce wrote: >Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always >seems to be at least one thread of having looked for >months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in >some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax >lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA, >probably over 90% were 50mm. Pentax was a value camera >here, and few people invested in a lot of OEM lenes. >15 minutes of looking on US e-bay tells the story. Try >to find a 105/2.8 K mount Pentax. Now look for a Nikon >AI 105/2.5. It doesn't matter how many Pentax 105's were >made, there aren't any for sale. This is a constructed argument. Sure there are rare Pentax lenses but they can be counted on one hand. But there are rare Nikon lenses too, I'll bet that any Nikon lens available for two years only, like the K 105mm, are hard to find as well. I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than Nikon lenses but that doesn't make Pentax lenses rare. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always seems to be at least one thread of having looked for months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA, probably over 90% were 50mm. Pentax was a value camera here, and few people invested in a lot of OEM lenes. 15 minutes of looking on US e-bay tells the story. Try to find a 105/2.8 K mount Pentax. Now look for a Nikon AI 105/2.5. It doesn't matter how many Pentax 105's were made, there aren't any for sale. Not in Norway Bruce From: Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pentax lenses aren't rare. They are among the most common out there. I believe that many a sitting on their Pentax lenses. There are about 26 million Pentax lenses made. If you want to include medium format lenses (that can be used on Pentax 35mm bodies) you can add another 700 000 (approx). In comparison, Canon have made 20 million. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
Mishka wrote: >anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a >completely different game with completely different rules, many not so >obvious. I don't think so. I believe the run-of-the-mill pro is less concerned about lens quality, as long as it is good enough, than the average enthusiast or connoisseur. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? > Guys: Face the facts. How many of us shoot for top notch magazines that use > art directors that would notice the difference. Maybe there's a little bit of > splitting hairs here. I know the art directors where I work would never > notice such a minute difference in the look of pictures, and by the time it > came out in print, any minute difference would not be noticed anyway.. Don't know the answer to that Vic, you asked for a reason why a person would want or need to use lenses from one family, and you got one. This sort of thing was important to every AD I worked with, to the point where sometimes they would not want lens changes at all within a job. Minute differences have a way of becoming very noticable differences between the light table and the delivery end of the printing press. Mind you, I was shooting fashion and jewelry, a genre where anal retentiveness reigns supreme. For some people, professional or not, it is important that there is some colour consistency and general "look" from lens to lens, or even from format to format within their lens kit. Others don't care or even consider the difference. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
On 14 Jun 2002 at 9:44, Mishka wrote: > as for me, an amateur, the rules are really simple: maximum quality for > minimum money. for truly critical things, M/LF is the answer anyway. so > apart for exotics (600mm tele or 15mm short, tilt/shift, etc), 35mm > (leica included) is really a convenience compromise, so i see very > little point of bashing non-oem glass in favor of "certain" things > untangible. or, spending truckloads of dough on it (btw, K85/1.8 costs > more than Zeiss T*85/1.4 -- go figure!) > > but, feel free to disagree. I must disagree, my MF gear only whips the 35mm kits' ass in certain applications, namely landscape (I'm not an MF portrait shooter). I'm going to blaspheme here but really unless you've shot a new Leica ASPH Summilux 35f1.4M in marginal light you'll never know what the advantages of Leica are. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
