Re: DA Lenses, Entrance Pupil
I found this on the panotools list: http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Tokina_10_17/NPP-Tokina.jpg On 8/8/07, jon carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > I've been using a couple DA lenses in panoramic shots > and was hoping to compare the results of my experiment > to determine the location of the entrance pubil of two > lenses: > > DA 40 f/2.8 Limited > DA Fisheye Zoom 10-17 > > I'm using a K10D and Nodal Ninja. The 40 seems to like > a 62mm offset from the rot. axis and the Fisheye > (@17mm) seems to like a 90mm offset. Has anyone out > there using these lenses in pano's found similar > results? > > TIA, > -Jon > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Toine http://leende.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA Lenses, Entrance Pupil
The poster also posted this: Please take note that for six shots and 17 mm, the NPP is some millimeters backwards from the shown position. To put it simply: the NPP is about fixed from 10 mm (four shots around) to 17 mm (six shots around). On 8/9/07, Toine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found this on the panotools list: > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Tokina_10_17/NPP-Tokina.jpg > > On 8/8/07, jon carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I've been using a couple DA lenses in panoramic shots > > and was hoping to compare the results of my experiment > > to determine the location of the entrance pubil of two > > lenses: > > > > DA 40 f/2.8 Limited > > DA Fisheye Zoom 10-17 > > > > I'm using a K10D and Nodal Ninja. The 40 seems to like > > a 62mm offset from the rot. axis and the Fisheye > > (@17mm) seems to like a 90mm offset. Has anyone out > > there using these lenses in pano's found similar > > results? > > > > TIA, > > -Jon > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > Toine > http://leende.net > -- Toine http://leende.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA lenses on 35mm (found some info)
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Juan Buhler wrote: > On 3/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Makes a great 24x24 mm Pentax Superwide on a 35mm body ... >> >> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA14FF-sq.jpg >> > > Which brings to mind... There's really no specific reason for DSLRs > sensors to be rectangular, except for the size of mirror and prism, > right? > > How about a 24x24mm DSLR? > > Not that I'd care for one--I like 3:2 myself. Square sensors cost more to manufacture, that's why you rarely see anything like that in a production camera. But I like square format and wouldn't be unhappy with a 24x24 mm format sensor. ON the other hand, a 4:3 format sensor fits my compositon and prints most of the time best and would enable me to get the most from the camera's resolution. Cropping to either square or 3:2 from 4:3 invokes less wasted area than cropping to either 4:3 or square from 3:2 capture. So if they're going to make any change at all, I'd prefer they fitted a larger sensor with a 4:3 proportion. Looking at the image circle of the DA14, I think they could do an 18x24mm sensor which, at the same density as the K10D sensor, would net almost 2.4 Mpixel more resolution for my 11x14 inch and similar format prints with no increase in noise over the current sensor. That's what I'd like to see. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA lenses on 35mm (found some info)
On 3/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Makes a great 24x24 mm Pentax Superwide on a 35mm body ... > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA14FF-sq.jpg > Which brings to mind... There's really no specific reason for DSLRs sensors to be rectangular, except for the size of mirror and prism, right? How about a 24x24mm DSLR? Not that I'd care for one--I like 3:2 myself. j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com a book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA lenses on 35mm (found some info)
Makes a great 24x24 mm Pentax Superwide on a 35mm body ... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA14FF-sq.jpg G On Mar 12, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Richard Day has posted a scan of an image taken with the DA 14 on > film: > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=22421936 > > It clearly won't work with any sensor much larger than what we > have. In > my mind, this greatly diminishes the possibility that Pentax will ever > bring out a camera based on a 1.3x crop sensor. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA lenses on 35mm (found some info)
Richard Day has posted a scan of an image taken with the DA 14 on film: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=22421936 It clearly won't work with any sensor much larger than what we have. In my mind, this greatly diminishes the possibility that Pentax will ever bring out a camera based on a 1.3x crop sensor. Joe - Hi, Some time ago I asked for the 35mm coverage of the DA70, but it seemed that nobody could check it on a film camera. I have found a thread on dpreview with info about this and other lenses that may be of your interest. (I know that Pentax is only at APS-C, but for us that don't make a living on our hobby, it may help that a lens is also usable in 35mm format...). The link: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=22325926 An abstract of the content: --- 10-17 FE - Usable from 14mm up DA 12-24 - Usable from 16mm up DA 16-45 - Usable from 20mm up DA 50-200 - Not usable, vignettes at varying (small) amounts, never quite clears DA 14 - Unusable, large image circle visible DA 21 - slight corner image circle DA 40 - Usable, no vignetting DA 70 - Usable, no vignetting --- IIRC, the 18-55 vignettes up to around 24mm. Hope you find it useful. Regards, Jaume -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA* Lenses
Cameron Hood wrote: > http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/news/2006/press-image/200646-05.jpg Now if they'll just come out with quality 1.4X and 2X teleconverters similar to the A-XS ones, that are compatible with at least the supersonic AF, but also (hopefully) the older "blade" AF ... -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: DA lenses on FF
> Looks like it's fine past 24mm. I've just checked it through the view > finder though. > > Thibouille wrote: > > What about DA18-55 ? Thanks for checking ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DA lenses on FF
Looks like it's fine past 24mm. I've just checked it through the view finder though. Thibouille wrote: What about DA18-55 ? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ... .
Re: DA lenses on FF
What about DA18-55 ? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DA lenses on FF
DA 40 - I have heard yes. I bought a DA 40mm to use on 35mm -- works fine, it's a great lens. *> UncaMikey
Re: DA lenses on FF
- Original Message - From: "Pawel Czarnul" Subject: DA lenses on FF Hello All, I would like to know which DA lenses can be used on FF (i.e. film) and what focal lengths. I refer to covering the entire frame. In particular: 1. DA 16-45 2. DA 10-17 FE 3. DA 12-24 4. DA 50-200 5. DA 14 ??? - I assume no here. 6. DA 40 - I have heard yes. DA14 no. DA10-17 will cover the 35mm frame from about 14mm to 17mm, though I don't know if it's sharp or not, I've just looked through the viewfinder of an LX with it mounted. William Robb
Re: DA lenses on FF
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Paweł Czarnul wrote: 1. DA 16-45 Covers 24x36 from about 22-24mm up. 5. DA 14 ??? - I assume no here. Covers 24x24. 6. DA 40 - I have heard yes. Many have said yes. Godfrey
Re: DA lenses and Stan's site
Alright, thanks for the information. BTW I take the opportunity to thank you for your site and the work you do. It gives a very interesting source of information on lenses. Thanks! 2005/4/20, Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am accumulating the comments as they occur. The DA lenses (and the > several other "missing" newer lenses) will be incorporated next time > around. > > Stan > > > On Apr 20, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Thibouille wrote: > > > None of the DA lenses are on Stan's site. Is that deliberate or are > > they just too recent to have any comments on his site? > > > > -- > > Thibouille > > -- > > Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ... > > > > -- -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DA lenses and Stan's site
I am accumulating the comments as they occur. The DA lenses (and the several other "missing" newer lenses) will be incorporated next time around. Stan On Apr 20, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Thibouille wrote: None of the DA lenses are on Stan's site. Is that deliberate or are they just too recent to have any comments on his site? -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DA lenses : quote :The Fifth element :was it Green ?
Hi, Clover I agree with you. It's not a nice colour, but I think it's traditional. The A* lenses had a rubber ring of the same colour to mark it's "asterisk-ness". At least my 645 A* 300/4 has one. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:02 AM Subject: DA lenses : quote :The Fifth element :was it Green ? > > Hello everybody, > > I do not like Green. ( But Hulk is still a good comics, sometimes ) > > But I do not agree(n ? ) with the choice of green, for the color of the DA > Ring. > > And You ? > > ^_^ >
re: DA lenses
> From: edwin > > I think the answer is that the DA lenses are smaller than they would be if > they were not DA. Does anybody make a 16-45 that covers 35mm format? > Sigma's 15-35 is not exactly small. by the same reasoning lenses in 35mm format and, say, 6x6, covering the same angle, should be about the same size. well, apparently (luckily!) my SMCA 24mm/2.8 is *much* smaller than hassy's 50mm/2.8 best, mishka
