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?
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?
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?
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: 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?
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 PS 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 PS 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?
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?
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 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?
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?
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?
[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?
- 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?
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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. Come on guys. Bokeh smokeh. Get real. I don't know about Canon, but I used to have some AF Nikkors. The colour reproduction from some of them appeared very different from the rather pale SMC lenses. I'd say they were particular great for landscapes. About the bokeh, most of my Pentax lenses don't have good bokeh (imo). But one thing remains true, SMC lenses are far more flare resistance than Nikkors. Unfortunately, Pentax don't mention that in their ads (so don't blame the customers didn't choose Pentax). 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?
interesting. i would have guessed that 6x7 and 35mm are so vastly different that those things wouldn't simply matter at all. that's something to remember. anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a completely different game with completely different rules, many not so obvious. i don't know if the original poster was a pro, but i suspect, if he were, he would have just went out and bought whatever he needed, end of story. 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. best, mishka From: William Robb Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:09:41 -0700 Here is where it matters, and is something that would probably not occur to non professional print film users. If one is shooting a job on chrome film and has a mish mosh of lenses from different manufacturers, then it will be impossible to get a consistent look. Art directors have a funny way of noticing little things like changes in colour rendition. I found this to be such an issue that I changed from Nikon to Pentax, partly to get similar rendition between my medium format and 35mm work. Interestingly, clients who had been with me for the transition from Nikon to Pentax noticed the difference in my chromes, in a positive way. William Robb Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
I'm sure Pentax is surpassed at times, but I'm surprised at your statements concerning the following comparisons: 1) FA 35/2.0 AL versus Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (M42) I would bet that resolution will be better for the Pentax, especially in the corners at at any f-stop below f4. I'm not sure in what 'overall' qualities the FA would be inferior to the Zeiss, since it also is extraordinarily contrasty and has surprisingly good bokeh (see Takinami's website). 2) The Pentax F/FA 50/2.8 macro is quite an extraordinary lens - what is the evidence, that the Sigma 50/2.8 is better? 3) Curious: do you have the source for the comparison of the A 135/1.8 and Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3? The A 135/1.8 is not quite as sharp as the A 85/1.4 -but I always thought that this is as sharp as 135mm lenses get. Would be interested to know if the Vivitar is really better (comparing same f-stops of course). Knut PS: Carl Zeiss Jena did produce some quite extraordinary lenses! I do think they are great! But the limitations of non-autodiaphragm screw mounts must be considered as well. At 10:18 14.06.02 -0400, you wrote: I won't even get into which third-party lenses are as good as Pentax; there are too many. But based largely on testimonials, I'd vouch that the following third-party lenses are superior to their Pentax counterparts: Carl Zeiss Jena 20/4 (M42) vs. Pentax 20/4 or 20/2.8 in rectilinearity Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (M42) vs. any Pentax 35/2 or 2.8 in overall qualities Sigma 50/.28 and 100/2.8 vs. Pentax 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 in sharpness Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (M42 or K) vs. any Pentax 135 (even the 135/1.8 PKA) in sharpness Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar (latter, autodiaphragm version) and 200/2.8 Sonnar vs. Pentax 200/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 300/4 Sonnar Auto Electric (M42) vs. Takumar 300/4 in sharpness, linear correction, and color, and bokeh I've sold off six of my Pentax lenses. Of the 12 lenses that I still have, only three are Pentaxes, and of those, only one below 200 mm. In fairness, I parted with some of these because I had duplicates and felt that I didn't need the Pentax advantage in that focal length. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
In a message dated 6/14/2002 8:24:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Art directors have a funny way of noticing little things like changes in colour rendition. I found this to be such an issue that I changed from Nikon to Pentax, partly to get similar rendition between my medium format and 35mm work. This is the best reason I've heard for sticking to one maker of lenses. -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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Just to add: Formally tested the F 50/2.8 is definitely better than the Sigma 50/2.8 EX in contrast as well as resolution according to the www.photodo.com website. Knut - 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?
William Robb Here is where it matters, and is something that would probably not occur to non professional print film users. If one is shooting a job on chrome film and has a mish mosh of lenses from different manufacturers, then it will be impossible to get a consistent look. Art directors have a funny way of noticing little things like changes in colour rendition. I found this to be such an issue that I changed from Nikon to Pentax, partly to get similar rendition between my medium format and 35mm work. Very true. This is one of the reasons I've sold off all but two of my non-Pentax lenses. I'm keeping the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 partly because of Pål's warning of the fragility of the Pentax 28-70 and partly because I like being able to share 77mm filters with my FA*80-200/2.8. If Pentax replaces their present 28-70/2.8 I'll be most interested. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm2.8 long)
One reason many Pentax users covet their lenses as they do is simply because the finest Pentax lenses are not a dime-a-dozen as they are with other makes. This gives us the feeling that when we are able to acquire a good lens, say the 20mm f2.8 vs. the more commom f4, we want to dance. I just did an informal check on eBay searching for pentax 20mm. One russian lens came up. The same search for c produced 5 lenses and N produced 11. At KEH right now, there are 2 20mm pentax lenses for sale, one auto, one man. C has 4 man leses listed and 1 auto, N lists 10! manual (plus 5 21mm lenses) and 3 autos. And as we all know this is nearly always the status quo. How often do you find shops that only carry Leica, N and C in 35mm? It's enough to make you scream. Pentaxians are a diehard group. Period. We look at our gear and hear strains of sometimes it feels like you and me against the world. Along with all of the other reasons for choosing Pentax lenses one cannot be amazed at one's luck to come across a K85 f1.8 (at any price) or a 50mm 1.2 for less than $250. Were the best gear found all over the place we wouldn't think of Pentax the same way. Who else but a Pentax user would spend years searching for a particular lens? - 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?
This would also seem to be the definition of masochist. It feels sooo good when I stop banging my head against the wall! It's not like Pentax is the only company that makes/made decent lenses and bodies. If you're into the joy of collecting, then this is satisfying. If, on the other hand, you just want a decent piece of gear at a reasonable price, it's a PIA. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One reason many Pentax users covet their lenses as they do is simply because the finest Pentax lenses are not a dime-a-dozen as they are with other makes. This gives us the feeling that when we are able to acquire a good lens, say the 20mm f2.8 vs. the more commom f4, we want to dance. . Pentaxians are a diehard group. Period. We look at our gear and hear strains of sometimes it feels like you and me against the world. Along with all of the other reasons for choosing Pentax lenses one cannot be amazed at one's luck to come across a K85 f1.8 (at any price) or a 50mm 1.2 for less than $250. Were the best gear found all over the place we wouldn't think of Pentax the same way. Who else but a Pentax user would spend years searching for a particular lens? - - 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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Knut, You're right about the 35/2 FA; I had forgotten about this autofocus lens. I guess I stand corrected about the Sigma 50 macro being sharper than the Pentax 50/2.8 FA. It sharpness is nothing short of phenomenal. Yoshihiko Takinami writes: This macro is excellent not only for macro work but also for normal use. Better than Sigma EX because the SMC coating is better In my experiences, FA50/2.8 macro seems the *sharpest* with great resolving power and contrast. And David Collett of Oxford University: My top two sharpest primes (from a subjective rather than objective measurement) are the FA50/2.8 macro and my k35/3.5. My A50/1.4 is a pretty close third. In favor of the Sigma, Tanya wrote, Took the most three-dimensional-looking pictures I've ever seen. And there are also numerous superlatives, as I recall, by users at the various lens rating sites. I think Tanya's comment and others I've read left me with the impression that the Sigma was the macro to beat. Now to the 135mm contest: Pentax 135/1.8 vs. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. Somehow, all my collected comments on the Pentax have been erased. The comments I've collected about the Vivitar state that it's sharp at all apertures. The Pentax, as I recall, must be stopped down a bit to become truly sharp. Not surprising, since it's about two-thirds stop faster but only 5mm wider in filter size. I was drawing an inference that it can't be sharper than the Vivitar. I also agree with you that the lack of an autodiaphragm can be a big drawback. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 6/14/2002 11:42:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it's a PIA huh? Exactly; it is masochistic! -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? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
On 14 Jun 2002 at 15:06, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: Now to the 135mm contest: Pentax 135/1.8 vs. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. Somehow, all my collected comments on the Pentax have been erased. The comments I've collected about the Vivitar state that it's sharp at all apertures. The Pentax, as I recall, must be stopped down a bit to become truly sharp. Not surprising, since it's about two-thirds stop faster but only 5mm wider in filter size. I was drawing an inference that it can't be sharper than the Vivitar. Paul, You'd be wise not to draw solid conclusions on lens performance based on throw away comments by third party users or filter size. As you know I have the SMCPA*135/1.8 and I also had Contax equipment CZ135f2AE and CZ135f2.8MM. You can look up the CZ site and view the superb MTF diagrams for the 135f2.8 (the 135f2 I can send you) however more practically I can tell you that I tested these three lenses under controlled conditions (one film K25, ML, solid tripod, 40x mag etc). I found that the Pentax was better WRT flare resistance and absolute resolution at any aperture, I still own the Pentax lens and the CZ are long gone. 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 .
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 .
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 .
