Frank - I went with a few U.K. and Australian colleagues to the game last
Tuesday. First night the dome was open, seats along the left field line with
a great view of the Tower, several of the many BoSox home runs landed near
us to the delight of my friends who had never seen a baseball game
I'm going on a trip soon might want to buy a good zoom (I know
that might be an oxymoron for some people). However, for the sake
of travelling light...Does anyone have a favorite SMC-A lens that
takes great pictures and is a good focal length for all-around
picture taking?
I'd suggest
Wrong, I'm afraid, Peter: the date/time imprint is in the lower right
fifth of the frame,as is common with most systems. The exposure
information is imprinted above the frame area, between the sprocket
holes.
That's what I meant. And of course what Frantisek asked. Ahem.
Forgive me, I was
Is the SMC-A 35-70 lens that you [Alan] recommend a macro, or a
non-macro lens?
The A 35-70/4 officially is called a macro zoom (as are so many
zoom lenses), but it is actually quite a decent macro (i.e.,
close-focusing) lens (reaching a magnification of 1:2.7 at a focus
distance of 0.25m at
Tim wrote This morning I had to renew my driver's license. Since mine is really old
and Oregon as since upgraded to the fancy credit-card style licenses, I had
to go in, get my picture taken and pay a bunch o' money. Hohum, I'm
thinking. But, I'm making that goofy only-on-your-drivers-license
(i mean, cannon 85/1.2 goes for the same $ as
pentax 85/1.8)? if (as i suspect) they are neither, wouldn't it make more
sense to get a similar cannon or nikon lens with a *free* body for this kind
of money?
FD 85mm F1.2L sells for GBP400 + minty. Can I really get that for 85mm F1.8K? Ebay
Thanks to all who replied and have helped (and confused!) my decision.
I do have one comment.
Is it not a *crime* to collect these (or any) lenses and not use them? I
weep at the thought that some wonderful glass will be stored behind glass
and never used for what it was made for.
I couldn't'
A US website listed a K28/2, same condition, same price, once in 1999,
again in 2000. Each time, I discovered it a few day after the lens was sold.
I also missed one in Finland.
I finally found one on a Kansas site for about $260. It's still the
costliest lens I own below 200mm.
I just
Is the SMC-A 35-70 lens that you recommend a macro, or
a non-macro lens?
I think it's the macro one, mine was gone many years ago. But there is only
one SMC PENTAX-A 35-70 f4 constant aperture zoom.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get your
I do have one comment.
Is it not a *crime* to collect these (or any) lenses and not use them? I
weep at the thought that some wonderful glass will be stored behind glass
and never used for what it was made for.
Well... that depends... If there was no one to collect those wonderful items
in the
If someone is interested: I surfed along from that japanes site (Link given by
JamesRel. 18 Apr 2002 20:51:51 )
to the pentax-fan site. There are some nice galleries on portraits done with
our beloved lenses.
http://www.pentax-fan.jp/sample.asp
Have a nice sunday!
Bernd
-
This message is from
Hi,
The SMC A 28-80/3.5-4.5 is very good, although a bit slow and rare.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sunday, April 21, 2002, 3:01:48 AM, you wrote:
I'm going on a trip soon might want to buy a good
zoom (I know that might be an oxymoron for some
people). However, for the sake of
All in all, you can't go past the 35-105!!!
The best of the A zooms.
Bob
-
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 .
Hi Albert,
Here is a PUG submission made with the 24mm f/2.0:
http://pug.komkon.org/01may/ghostown.html
There is a larger version (252Kb) at:
http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/abandoned.jpg
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:15:17 -0500, Albert Fekson wrote:
I am looking for some photos
Look down inside to be certain that the
inside terminals are clean.
Collin
What should I check when buying a MX Winder (with or without the camera)?
*
KC8TKA
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
Thanks for everythink guys, but unfortunatelly the man who had one for sale
didn't know anything about Pentax cameras (or tried to screw me), and tried
to sell me a Winder ME, despite earlier saying that he has a Winder MX.
Regards,
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok Cotty, send me your address... But I remember pretty well we did agree on
a frameless Colosseo's postcard. didn't we?
You are getting greedy, my friend! vbg
Picture of the month... Thank you Cotty, now I've something to oppose to my
Adorable Superior when she gets arguing there is a lot
Yesterday I was one of a group of five people that put on the first of five
sprint triathlons in our championship series on the beach. It was a hectic
day, but I had the major responsibility of photographing everyone who
crossed the finish line. We had just under 190 participants. A
IMHO, most of the 35-70 zooms are pretty good. A short zoom range, low speed
zoom is fairly easy to get right. I have a very cheap Sigma 35-70 3.5-4.5
that is adequate at all focal lengths and apertures. There is a bit of
barrel distortion at the short end, and pincusion at the long, but not
Come on Cotty!!! What is it? Or are you too ashamed?
Pretty ashamed. I wish I could stretch to a Pentax but, I need to keep
costs as low as possible for the time being. If I can live with MF then
doubtless in future I would consider a Pentax 645.
Regarding mirrors and TLRs - - *I* didn't say
The BIN price $200) was very fair. I've seen but two other PK specimens. In
1998 Wall Street Camera sold one for $169. In February of this year I
bought mine for about $132. I had authorized a maximum bid of about $250.
Judging from the high amount of feedback the buyer has gleaned (upward of
In a message dated 4/20/02 11:36:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i feel like i am completely missing something here. are these lenses
collectibles (i wasn't aware pentax glass has this status) or simply so
much better than competition (i mean, cannon 85/1.2 goes
Sure. The camera was a humble, tiny Yashica scale focuser. The picture was
taken by an employee at the motor vehicle bureau, who has earned a place in
my heart for exclaiming But you don't LOOK 45.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remember my recent posting about the importance of preserving
Hey, Stan,
It was great meeting you last Saturday BTW! Always nice to meet a list member.
I'm glad the weather got a bit (a bit?!?) better for you while you were here.
Weird that we should be at the same game, eh? Tuesday was a gorgeous night for
ball!
We were first base line, about 1/2 way
The 35-105/3.5 is the clear PDML favorite default choice, but if you
don't need the constant aperture, don't overlook the 35-135 f/3.5-4.5. It's
several ounces lighter and won't leave you wishing for more reach. Yes,
it's nearly impossible to fit such a lens with an effective hood, but SMC
So, which one? An ETRs or an SQ-A? Or something older?
Gianfranco
(do I win something??)
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
**A guy called ZAC told me that I'd need to use my BRAIN for
the ZONE
system**
=
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
-
This
Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to expand this question a bit: what's the best manual focus
(not necessarily SMCA) zoom for travel (in my case this is another city)?
weight and size are *very* important. i have (almost) no experience with
zooms whatsoever.
Wide range, lightweight,
narrow range (around normal), no need for const aperture, slow is OK, but
lightweight and sharp (comparable to primes). does it exist?
- Original Message -
From: Paul F. Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wide range, lightweight, fast--choose any two.
-
This message is from the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cesar
Matamoros II
P.S. TV - Minolta-girl was my assistant at the finish line...
There's a metaphor in there somewhere...also a couple of bad jokes.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
- Original Message -
From: Paul Jones
Subject: Re: The Don's Photo show
The camera handles very well also. All the controls are in
the good
positions and the it feels good in your hands.
It only goes to 400iso, where most others go to 800. Quality
probaly sucks
at 800iso, but it
C **A guy called ZAC told me that I'd need to use my BRAIN for the ZONE
C system**
C ;-)
C Cotty
Hah! Easy Cotty ;-)
Zenza Bronica.
Which one?
Frantisek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
On 4/21/02 6:41 AM, £ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for everythink guys, but unfortunatelly the man who had one for sale
didn't know anything about Pentax cameras (or tried to screw me), and tried
to sell me a Winder ME, despite earlier saying that he has a Winder MX.
WR 2.5 lcd. but does not take CF cards or microdrive probly has
No CF? Major disadvantage IMHO. But perhaps not so in the future. Now,
CF and SM cards are about 1/2-1/3 cost of most other types... at least
here.
WR Leica
WR price.
well, you got the little red Leitz logo, you gotta pay for it
On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 04:41 PM, Brendan wrote:
The local buyer would only want the ME Super, not the
50mm, But I may
let some one get a crack at it since after today my
heart is set on an
MZ-S
Actually, I'm not talking about you. ;)
I've got someone on the line for the whole
On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 04:13 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
If you hear of a great deal on the 67 Fisheye, let me know.
I'll keep my eyes peeled, but the deals I hear of are mostly bodies
because a couple of major Toronto P67 shooters just bought 67IIs. They
ain't sellin' their lenses.
Just solved a similar problem on my Epson printer. I was getting barely
noticeable, fine, parallel lines (parallel to the printer head movement),
more noticeable on solid dark colors. It turns out that simply changing
from the Micro Weave setting (under More Settings) to the Super Micro Weave
Coty,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my image - Rod's Reeds - and all
the others for that matter.
Just got some 16X20 enlargements made of this and it really sings in the
larger presentation.
May the light be with you,
Ken Waller
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL
How deep is the MH-RA67 metal screw-in lens hood?
I'm looking around for a screw-in metal hood for my Rikenon 300/4.5 lens
(67mm filter). My three leading candidates are the Contax No. 5 (67mm), the
Pentax RA-67, and a Nikon HN-23 (72mm, with a 67-to-72 step-up ring). A
seller has told me
Hi Paul ...
The MH-RA 67 is a scosh less than 2.5 inches deep. The Nikon HN-23 is
but 1.5 inches deep, and it does not have a 72mm thread - it's 62mm.
This might be the perfect hood for your needs:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1346667112
Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
How
How deep is the MH-RA67 metal screw-in lens hood?
I'm looking around for a screw-in metal hood for my Rikenon 300/4.5 lens
(67mm filter). My three leading candidates are the Contax No. 5 (67mm), the
Pentax RA-67, and a Nikon HN-23 (72mm, with a 67-to-72 step-up ring). A
seller has told me that
And I will play! I just won an auction on a 135 f3.5 preset Takumar - complete
with original caps and case. It is the 5 element chrome and black, and the
glass is clear.
Cost? about 20.00 US delivered! I can't wait!!!
Bob Rapp
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
-
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 .
Thanks for the PUG review and the kind words. I always look forward to
your monthly comments, as I'm sure many other list members do.
Paul
-
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
Hi,
Can anyone out there please give me some suggestions
for a good K-mount ultra-wide? I am looking for
something wider than 20mm, but which can still be
filtered.
The A/K-15mm f3.5 tragically dosen't even have a gel
holder behind the rear element.
The K-18mm f3.5 seems great (rear gel
what do you make of it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1347161751
is it just SMC-K 120/2.8? if so, then is the BIN price reasonable?
also, does anybody know what is the going (good) price for M135/3.5 (in US)?
(i just found today that although Viv. 105/2.5 is a great lens.
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Donald I was really hoping to get a Tokina 17mm f3.5
Get the Tokina MF 17mm. It may not be as glamourous at the ATX. I have one
and love it! They are about $230.00 from BH,
Bob Rapp
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
And that pretty much pushes me into the 3rd party
market. I really loath the idea of non-Pentax glass in
my bag, complete with backwards focusing aperture
rings, crappy plastic construction and poor optical
quality. I was really hoping to get a Tokina 17mm f3.5
ATX-Pro, but aparently it isn't
- Original Message -
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what do you make of it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1347161751
is it just SMC-K 120/2.8? if so, then is the BIN price reasonable?
It is a 135mm non-multicoated Takumar lens. It is a decient lens but no the
same
I really loath the idea of non-Pentax glass in
my bag, complete with backwards focusing aperture
rings, crappy plastic construction and poor optical
quality. I was really hoping to get a Tokina 17mm f3.5
ATX-Pro, but aparently it isn't available in a Pentax
mount.
Further comment. The
Thanks for the post Bob. I think James Nachtwey is the
best photojournalist working today, and one the all time
greats. According to the web site the movie will be
released here (US) in June 2002.
From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: War Photographer
Hi,
a rough translation from
Shel wrote:
This might be the perfect hood for your needs:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1346667112
I saw that, but it doesn't seem optimized for a long telephoto. Wouldn't it
be too short to offer real glare protection on a 300?
Paul Franklin Stregevsky
-
This message is
Does the focusing turn in the same direction as pentax lenses? Is it a
rectilinear design? Is it available new? Are there any photos around
that were made using this lens?
K is good g
Thanks!
Bob Rapp wrote:
Further comment. The Tokina manual focus is
Metal and very well constructed.
Jonathan,
There's an SMC 18/3.5K for $650 at http://www.kevincameras.com . Not cheap,
but that's what they're going for these days when you find one on EBay.
A similar Rikenon PK 18/2.8 or 18/3.5 went on German Ebay for less than
$250 a couple months ago. I understand that a PDMLer in Europe
thanx, i suspected so.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax 120/2.8 zoom?
- Original Message -
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what do you make of it?
Am I wrong or I have really seen that the Tokina 17mm is the same
lens as the (late) Sigma 18mm f/3.5 and the Spiratone 18mm f/3.5. I
have this last lens (Pluracoat multicoated) in PK mounts, very sturdy
metal construction indeed. It looks identical to the Tokina sold by
B H. I have not
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Tokina AT-X 17mm
Does the focusing turn in the same direction as pentax lenses?
Is it a
rectilinear design? Is it available new? Are there any photos
around
Mishka,
The lens is the least desirable 135/2.8? Takumar, pay under $50.
Better is the M135/3.5, pay $65+.
Better still is the K135/2.5, pay $115+.
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what do you make of it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1347161751
is it just
I just saw a listing in the used section at Henry's in Toronto
http://www.henrys.com/
USED PENTAX MF 18 F3.5 SMC 8+ WebCode: UU10001 8+ Your Price:
$599.99CAD
Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
Jonathan,
There's an SMC 18/3.5K for $650 at http://www.kevincameras.com . Not cheap,
but that's what
Shel,
It is not an AT_X lens. It is called SL-17.
Here is the fluff line:
Superwide: (103 degree) Sees more than the human eye. Sophisticated:
When you need a vast depth-of-field for special effects, or get a
perfect view of a land or city-scape, it's a cinch with this lens.
Technical
Hi,
According to the Lieca rep here, it was designed by Panasonic and Leica and
is made panasonic. So i would it definately not made in germany or canada
like Leica gear.
It still looks like a good camera, you can download 8meg full res files from
www.leica-camera.com
Cya
- Original
60 matches
Mail list logo
