Samples taken with various lenses, including the 31 Limited, are linked from
the Digital Photography Review Pentax forum here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028message=6426577
Brian
This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use
of the intended
Mark wrote:
It appears that the FA85/1.4 has less contrast than several of the
other lens. It is really noticeable in the Boston Skyline. Is that
you opinion also, or my imagination or maybe due to some other
reason.
Fred replied:
I would say that you are correct, Mark. As much as I like the
Check out Mike's essay on the best autofocus lenses at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sm-02-05-02.htm
-
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
Mark Roberts wrote:
Horseman has pretty well debunked the standard 35mm lenses won't work with
full-frame CCDs nonsense by making a camera that uses Nikon lenses with
Megavision T32 and H2O digital backs (it is, of course, hideously
expensive). Here are some shots taken with an 18mm.
Perhaps Pentax historians will correct me, but something like this may have
occurred during the great days of the SLR. The Olympus OM-1 (1972)
introduced a small form factor and used a series of relatively small,
lightweight lenses. Pentax, of course, followed a with small (K and M)
cameras,
I happened to be looking at a web site which included some graphs
apparently lifted without permission from CdI, and, unfortunately, the
information didn't include any description of the ordinate.
So, whhat does outstanding, very good and on down to poor mean in CdI
parlance, anyway?
-
This
Regarding some ugly boke, Alan Chan wrote: Perhaps put a Leica lens in
the same situation and see how it performed? If Leica couldn't do it,
nobody could. :)
Brand names aren't magical talismans. Check the out of focus regions of
this shot from a Leitz_APO-Telyt 180 f3.4:
Two excellent resources on medium and large format photography are:
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/
-
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
Shel wrote: . . . . Michael recently purchased a black Mamiya 7II. What a
beauty! It's virtually silent, has a big, bright viewfinder, and the image
jumps sharply into focus. But here's the thing ... with its normal lens it
doesn't seem to weigh any more than the LX with its normal lens. And
Regarding prices of the Mamiya 7 kit:
Robert White has a special on Mamiya gear running through the end of this
month. The body is less than $1100, while the standard 80mm lens is around
$730. The Bronica RF645--including the standard lens--is less than $1,100.
Add about 8-10% for shipping
Tom wrote, You're evil, and so is Mamiya USA.
Come to the dark side, tom.
-
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 .
Bill Piefer was good enough to write:
. . . OK, so if you want a color sensor array, you have a few design
options Option (1): Throw out all of your existing lens designs, and
redesign from scratch. . . . Option (2): Keep all your time-tested lens
designs, and save all the money you'd
Regarding the compatibility of older wide-angle lenses with full-frame
CCDs, this on the red herring of CCD illumination from optical supplier
Sunix, Inc. at http://www.optics-online.com/literature/CCDlens.htm :
The light collection ability of all lenses falls off with increasing field
of
Mark wrote: Nope, that wasn't anything to do with the redesign of the lenses.
Are you quite certain that the Carl Zeiss lens designers feel (as Olympus
lens designers apparently do not) that CCD imaging characteristics need not
be considered in the design of lenses meant to be used with a CCD?
Mark wrote: . . . I decided to conduct my own tooth counting exercise.
That's a cute story, and you can be commended for actually calculating the
angles at which light projected from a point at the axis of the lens at the
lens flange would strike the edge of a CCD, but your tooth counting
Mike Johnston wrote: More pixels doesn't always mean better. The 3 mp
Canon D30 beats the crap out of the 5 mp Nikon Coolpix 5000 for image quality.
The D30 is actually quite a camera. I'd be quite happy if Pentax produced a
camera as good as the D30--and if I could afford it.
One sticking
I almost bid on that. I thought it was the 67 II.
-
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 .
A wise man wrote wrote: I want an autofocus 80-200 zoom lens that has the
optical quality of the FA* 80-200 F2.8 zoom, but with a maximum aperture of
F3.5 or F4.
If it might rival the excellent Canon 70-200/4 L (or, well, if it will at
least come in K mount. . . ) I'll buy one.
In the hope
This is a bit too revealing. I feel like I just wandered into the Pentax
restroom and I'm suddenly feeling. . . inadequate.
-
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
Paul Ewins wrote: . . . The plan was to get a Epson 2450 (2400 dpi with
firewire usb) for 6x9 and 4x5 and a Canon FS4000 (4000dpi wth scsi usb)
for 35mm. The reviews of the FS4000 place it a little below the
corresponding Nikon and Polaroid models, but the price is a LOT cheaper. . . .)
I
Shel,
Since your inquiry is so wide-ranging, you might check Danny Gonzales's
reviews of many medium format systems, as well as the other articles at:
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/
I've happily used the Mamiya 7 and four of the six available lenses for the
past four years. If your
At portrait distances (say 4 to 6 feet) or at mid-range say 10 feet),
just how different is the angle of view of the subject lenses? I've seen
test reports that suggest that the 77 is actually a bit longer than that,
and the 85 is not quite that (at least close in, due to the IF), so they
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over the years I've encountered two or three male
calicos. They were all
alive. However, calicos have a very, very strong tendency to be female,
but as with most other things in life, it is not absolute.
Those of you who really need to run this into the ground might be
pen just saves burning in the edges of my prints. Works for me.
YMMV.
Brian Walsh
Brian
-
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 .
s, or does the condition of the rear element
suggest that the "pristine, like new" lens was given (too large) a
dollop of grease just before I purchased it?
Thanks for any input.
Brian Walsh
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and f
it on eBay
as "exceptionally smooth focusing" and make a killing.
Brian Walsh
-
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 .
you don't like the
printer, Epson will buy it back within one year.
http://www.bluelight.com/
Brian Walsh
-
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 .
s too good to be true.
Brian Walsh
-
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 .
measurements posted by Pop Photo (April, '93): 81.39mm. Not bad.
Brian Walsh
(BTW, I thought that Amateur Photographer put the 77 Limited at just
over 78mm, and not far from the 79 that would have made sense in Reverse
Pentax Notation, or something. . . )
-
This message is from the Pent
Well. . . I wrote: "Those of us who can't read Italian. . . " in
response to Gianfranco's post, before I clicked past the first page.
Unfortunately, the accessories don't seem to include a disguise kit. A
blimp case might do it.
Brian
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
5, as nice as it may be,
should be termed a new lens, not lenses, shouldn't it? What's next?
Brian Walsh (who thinks that a constant aperture, autofocus, and smaller
80-200 (read "Canon 70-200/4L") without the power zoom might be
something that could be smuggled into the house without
Thanks for the help. It should be fun to shoot such a fast film in
medium format :)
Brian
-
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 .
e D30 at ASA 100 and
400, compared to straight scans of Provia 1004 and 400F.
You can find this at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
Brian Walsh
-
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 P
mentioned; the closest match is a 70-210/3.5 from the (late?) '80s.
Available reports date back into the 60's.
Brian Walsh
-
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
Thanks, Doug. The old list allowed following the list via the archives
while still retaining the ability to post. Do you think that will be
possible here, as well.
Brian Walsh
Doug Brewer wrote:
For those who wish to read the list on the web, I've started an
archive at the following URL
35 matches
Mail list logo
