Dick wrote:
>Has anyone tried a 1 stop push with Sensia 100? Because it tends toward
>more neutral/realistic colors and slightly lower contrast I would think a 1
>stop push would be ideal. If you have pushed it, what speed rating have
>you given it?
Yes, Sensia works very well pushed one sto
>Anyone use their Pentaxes on a boat?
I own this very fun boat with a 50hp outboard engine:
http://www.zodiac.ca/boats/models/futurasp.html
I've shot a lot with my 300/2.8 from this boat. I've also shot successfully
with my FA* 600/4 but only in totally calm waters while resting the lens on
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 n
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 unsubscrib
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,
>prob
Alan wrote:
>I don't think the Pentax polarizers are multicoated, at least the Japanese
>web site doesn't say so.
Mine isn't. I was quite disappointed considering it's high price.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow th
Chris wrote:
>Where does the "hand-made" info come from? Has Pentax actually said this?
>All the parts are still machine-made, I assume, so are you saying that
>some of them are assembled by hand? Do you know how many?
The MZ-S is "hand painted" (or sprayed) giving each camera an unique
fin
Alan wrote:
>Thanks Pål, and you said you would not tell what the next Limited lens would
>be? Now we know it's a prime lens way different from what we have so far.
I don't think that was what I said or implied.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to ht
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
Raimo wrote:
>Focusing wide-angles without focusing aids is hard indeed - e.g. trying to
>focus
>2.8/20 mm Pentax on a plain matte focusing screen of the LX is well nigh
>impossible
>but with the split-image rangefinder of the lowly ME it is easy.
I frankly don't know what you're talking abo
Alexander wrote:
>I was asking a leading question. You'd mentioned additional lenses. But you
>hadn't specified Photokina. I hoped by asking if there would be MORE then
>one you might confirm that there might be at least one.
There are at least one but don't know when it will be released.
Paul wrote:
>Remember in 2001 when the list was abuzz with reports of a Limited 18mm?
>Maybe that's one of them.
That was not a Limited lens but a plain FA lens. The lens got so far that
it had gotten a product number and a price (the same as the 31 Limited). I
don't know why this lens has b
Fred wrote:
>Gee whiz, back in February, when I mentioned the greenish color of
>some of the big A* lens barrels, Pål asked ~me~ "Are you suffering
>from some kind of weird color blindness?" Hmmm... ;-)
I swear I can't see this green color.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
Bruce wrote:
>Right now
>the US and Canada make up almost 50% of the entire world
>market for digital cameras.
I seriously doubt these numbers (can anyone check this up?). Not long ago
numbers were published that showed another scenario; the US were quite a
bit behind Europe and Japan as the
>How do you focus a 13.5 lens?
Basically, it's close to impossible. You need to do focus bracketing. I
used to own the 1000/11 Reflex and it was a pain to focus even with the
special LX finders.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and
Rob wrote:
>I don't know about the colour miraculously making a cream to yellow green
>transition as you move from indoors to out however they definitely are a
>light
>green in colour (mine is anyway).
Did this lens turn green after it arrived in Australia? I can swear it was
white when I ow
Alexander wrote:
>A number of new Limited lenses? Are you trying to tell us that Pentax may
>release MORE then one Limited lens at Photokina in September?
Huh? I don't think I've said anything of the sort. Pentax people have
suggested that there will be many Limited lenses. When they will be
Dave wrote:
The cost for them.. if they are THAT good (I'm comparing them to the
Contax > Zeiss G Series lenses) would be about the same as most "high end"
excellent > glass but if they're even BETTER and the cost is reasonable..
then they'd be > a bargon :)
REPLY:
Look here for an asse
Bruce wrote:
>Olympus,
>although strong now is relying on other manufacturers to
>produce their products and has little of their own
>technology or engineering in their cameras, although it
>is rumored that they will have a new camera with
>dedicated lenses on the market in the fall. "
Accordi
> >They are truly things of beauty. Every Pentaxer should own at least one ;-)
>
>You mean "one of each"? :)
>
>regards,
>Alan Chan
One of each has been a fine choice so far but there are Limited lenses in
the plans that don't "fit" in with the current ones in terms of a matching
set. This su
>First off, let me say that I own many Pentax lenses including the 15mm, 35mm
>K 3.5, 28mm K 3.5, 30 mm 2.8, 120mm 2.8, 100mm f4, 200 f2.5mm, 300mmf4A*,
>400mm f5.6, just to name a few. But I don't for a minute think that they are
>far superior to other lenses.
It's not about far superiority but
Steven wrote:
>I really don't think film will disappear anytime soon.
No, it won't disappear. The are literally hundreds of millions 35mm film
cameras out there and some are going to want to use them. Therefore,
somebody is going to provide film for these cameras.
>The interesting
>questi
Bruce wrote:
>"Pentax and Minolta are on life support. Olympus,
>although strong now is relying on other manufacturers to
>produce their products and has little of their own
>technology or engineering in their cameras, although it
>is rumored that they will have a new camera with
>dedicated lense
Mishka wrote:
>there are tons of very good used 3rd party macro lenses (i personally
>have a pka vivitar ser. 1 100/2.5 -- terrific glass, terrific build,
>does 1:1, and $135 is hard to beat; my only complain is that it focuses
>"the wrong way"). unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare
Alan wrote:
>To those who has the FA31/1.8 (don't have this lens yet so need some help),
>can it take very thick polarizer filter without causing vignetting? I am
>think about something like B+W (as thick as it can get). Also, does anyone
>has the Pentax CIR-PL give some comment (compared to HOY
Peter wrote:
>Hi all. I on the verge of making a medium format purchase decision. It
>will be
>either 645N II or a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. My first lens will be a 55 mm,
>since 35 mm is
>my favorite in my 35 mm kit. Is there any chance Pentax will be releasing
>an update
>AF version of the 55/
Cesar wrote:
>This is great to hear! Who needs NPS and whatever Canon calls their
>service? I guess Pentax does stand behind their well-built products. We
>have read the stories of the abuse some of us have given our gear (yes, my
>original LX is beat-to-hell) and how they keep on working.
>The Limited lenses.
>Designed for
>an autofocus rangefinder that was shelved.
I beileve this is strictly mumbo-jumbo. As far as I know, the Limited
lenses were designed for SLR's to start with. The rangefinder speculation
simply started because the Limited lenses looks like certain rangefinde
Alan wrote:
>I think the black marks could be the little "hair" from the same material
>used on recent Pentax hoods.
No. They look like small fingerprints. Both on the inside on the back
element and correspondingly on the inside of the moving focusing lens
group. It's almost certainly damage
Bill wrote:
>I got to use the new 33-55mm 645
>lens,
Did you actually shoot with it? If so, how does it perform?
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 ht
Raimo wrote:
>In a Chasseur d´Images test (August/September 2000) even the Pentax MZ-30
>managed to
>do 145.305 shutter cycles.
1. CDI is a junk magazine whose tests are generally worthless.
2. Testing one camera and finding out when it stops has no value whatsoever
(didn't the Dynaxx 9 only
Wendy wrote
>Ended up buying a brand new Minolta outfit. Saw no reason to remain with
>Pentax at the
>time, even though the ZX-50, 10 and 5 were available at that point.
The Z-1(p) was perceived as too similar to the competition, mainly Nikon
and Canon. When the ones who wanted to switch to
Alexander wrote:
>I've shot B&W exclusively for so long I'm gun shy of trying color! :->
>I'm used to thinking in B&W Zones and placing values where I want them to
>fall. Is there a color previsualization approach similar to the B&W Zone
>System? Perhaps using 1/2 stop steps?
Yes. Exposure
Artur wrote:
>IMHO "professional level camera" means "the camera used mostly by
>professional
>photographers".
No. For a camera manufacturer it means built to certain standard, typically
more than 100 000 shutter cycles without need for service.
>Err, what I think is that Pentax lost time
Mark wrote:
>FA*17-35mm f2.8 or f3.5
>(with 77mm filter thread like Canon/Nikon/Minolta, not 82mm like Sigma)
But isn't the larger filter thread used in order to avoid vignetting when
using filters? Particularly polarizers and filter holders. Seems like a
good idea to me.
Pål
-
This message
Alan wrote:
>Consider the relatively limited resource that Pentax has when compared to
>Canon, I doubt this will ever happened in the near future.
I don't think Pentax have limited resources. However, like Canon, they have
to get profit back when investing their resources.
Pål
-
This message
Taka wrote:
>How about upgrading the MZ-S to 4.5-5.0 fps drive?
That would require another power source. This power source will need more
space so that the camera body needs to be redesigned.
>Does this camera
>show all exposure info in the viewfinder- aperture, shutter speed,
>mode?
Yes
Artur wrote:
>No, by proper marketing strategy I mean the ability to convince customers
>that the own
>product is better than the others and that they should buy it.
That seems like a hopeless task. You need something to convince them with.
Not even those with large pool of Pentax lenses were
Artur wrote:
>Yes, I heard about the SSM lenses. As they have recently announced it, the
>time is too
>short for the users to switch systems, don't you think? But they will, I
>assure you. Dynaxxes 7 and 5 are sold at VERY interesting/competitive
>prices and once
>customers are able to mount S
Alexander wrote:
>Is Pentax ever going to release the black Limited lenses in the US?
I've been told that they are working on it. Whether they succeed or not is
another issue...
I suspect that Pentax plan to market them i Europe at some stage since they
are distributing the parts for black L
Cameron wrote:
>It's been what, a year and a half since the 31mm limited was introduced, as
>well as the MZ-S, and it has been mighty quiet in Pentaxland in the 35mm
>departmewnt. I think something BIG is afoot.
Well, 1. June is gone but Pentax Japan page hasn't been updated yet. One
can hope
Bill wrote:
>I heard a rumor while at the Grandfather Mountain Photo Weekend that an ISO
>100 Velvia with grain similar to Provia will be available this fall.
If this is to be taken literally, it's bad news indeed. This means a film
that's significantly less sharp than Velvia (judging from Pro
William wrote:
>So, Pål, which internet forum has the most validity for
>believable comments? I have read a few of the other forums,
>quite often, the comments are a rehash of the "sky is pink, I
>read it on the internet". By this, I mean, the comments are
>often coming from people who have no f
Dave wrote:
>I would hope for the camera to go with the Limited series lenses (and I
>would not be happy with a silver MZ-S). We haven't heard any rumours about
>this Limited camera lately :)
Who knows if Pentax ever intended to make a matching camera for the Limited
lenses? The existence of
Jim wrote:
>I think Pentax should produce two commemoratives. A Spotmatic would be
>nice. As for a k-mount camera I guess another LX would be cool.
Well, if Pentax wants to go really retro a new commemorate version of the
Asahiflex would probably make more sense, although the market for such
Dave wrote
>If I remember some of the 645 posts, on a roll of
>120, you get more than 12 pictures as in 6x6
>format.I believe the 645 gets 15 or 16.I take
>it from this that the 6cm side runs portrait and
>the 4.5cm side runs landscape.
>If so do the 645 owners shoot the camera mostly in vertica
I wrote:
>They even celebrated the 20th anniversary of the
>LX with a black titanium version.
Correction. I believe it was the 15th anniversary.
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
Fred wrote:
>. . . and not just a "special edition" LX (i.e., another
>different-color, re-badged LX - as much as I love the LX, it does
>Pentax NO good to produce another collector's version of the LX),
>but a true, state-of-the-art, rugged, pro or semi-pro body that
>would be the modern equival
William wrote:
>I don't see weight as being an isuue, a 6x7 and a few lenses is
>easily carried, and a Manfrotto 055 tripod will support the 6x7.
The Manfrotto 055 is borderline for even the 645N. I would certainly
recommend something stronger for the 67.
There are conflicting opinions about
Fred wrote:
>I just had this thought cross my mind, though: Wouldn't it be sad
>if 2002 passed without anything really special to celebrate about
>from Pentax itself? Hmmm...
Yes, it would be sad and quite frankly a bit strange as Pentax usually
commemorate such events. They even celebrated
Jonathan wrote:
>I have been following the
>ZX-5N in Africa discussion, and wanted the groups
>opinions concerning which Pentax bodies are the most
>durable. Which ones are the real die-hards? What are
>your recommendations for use in extreme heat and dust?
>Cold? What body (or bodies) would
Jan wrote:
>Question: Is it really true that the 67 with standard lens (say 2.4 105mm)
>must be used on a tripod all the time to get sharp images ?
Regardless of what's true or not; you need more of a tripod with the 67
than the 645 adding to the bulk. Now we are at the main differences betw
I've received the first user report on the new FA645 33-55/4.5 AL. It says
it's tack sharp and no vignetting. Better start saving
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 U
Will a gyro stabilizer work for shooting with a 600/4 from a boat? The
ability to shoot from my Zodiac inflatable with the 600/4 is extremely
tempting. I've only once succeeded with it and that was in complete calm
waters. The power for the stabilizers could be provided by the outboard
engine
I was visiting the Pentax distributor yesterday and was informed that the
two mentioned lenses are now available.
I haven't ordered mine yet but the 33-55 is first on my shopping list.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow
Bob wrote:
>And, less quality loss due to the format size.
Yes. Theres far more to go on. 35mm is so compromised that compromising it
even further with anything but the best lenses is unacceptable (to me).
I do, however, expect the FA645 33-55 to be sharper than the FA645 FA
45/2.8 which I'm
Bryan wrote:
>My second question is whether anyone has the SMCP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited?
>It seems like a very nice lens. I would be interested in any thoughts
>about the lens from anyone who owns it or has used it. I have the SMCP
>FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited and the SMCP FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited and like
Mishka wrote:
>Now, seriously: the price argument is ridiculous.
Huh? For whom? The popularity of zoom lenses is due to their versatility
and their low price. That's why they are bundled in kit form with the cameras.
>You comparing the
>cheapest zooms to the most expensive primes. I dare yo
Mark wrote:
>I can suggest a short answer: In these circumstances a prime won't be sharper.
>Using long focal lengths under conditions like these, technique (camera
>steadiness) will totally overwhelm all but the grossest diferences in lens
>sharpness. Michael Reichmann (the Luminous Landscape g
Shel wrote:
>What is this penchant people have for zooms?
Maybe because it's more versatile: many lenses in one? Speed of operation;
don't have to change lenses. It may even be cheaper than many primes!
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://ww
Alan wrote:
>Actually I showed one picture only few weeks ago. Perhaps it was some other
>guy you remembered?
No, it's just me finding that time goes slow :-)
>I think I shall do some tests with the 77 and see how it
>differs.
Remember that the 43 Limited will have more DOF than the 77 at
Jim wrote:
>Why "expensive"? There are some, like me, who would go for a moderately
>priced new Pentax SLR.
Because I feel that a real top-of-the-line model is what's missing in the
Pentax 35mm slr line-up. Something that can fill the heritage of the LX.
Personally, I want a camera l would
Peter wrote:
>Are these bodies for sale?
I think Peter at camera direct still has one for sale. Otherwise, I
wouldn't surprise me much if it still can be found in some camera shops in
Japan.
We can of course hope that Pentax have something equally nice up their
sleeves for the Asahiflex 50t
>Sorry, I don't have a link to photos of the LX Limited.
Ooops! It's pictured on that same page!
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.or
Peter wrote:
>very beautiful!!
It's sure doesn't beat the LX Limted made in titanium and marketed in 1996.
Now that's a real beauty. I wish I had one of those!
Sorry, I don't have a link to photos of the LX Limited.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Alan wrote:
>Perhaps someone might ask the reason for their marketing decision too
>and report back to us. :)
I believe many of us have been asking that already. At least I have. Not
even the Pentax distributors know why just that this is a decision made by
the marketing people in Japan.
BTW
Bob wrote:
> How does the 31 Limited compare to the 30 f2.8 K?
Sorry, I have no idea as I've never used or seen the 30/2.8
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
Jim wrote:
>I've been reading lately about the MZ-S body and Limited lens line. Several
>reports have mentioned that Pentax has only released a black MZ-S in the US,
>but it's available in a black/silver version in Japan. The same with the
>Limited lenses...silver in the US and silver or black in
Jim wrote:
>Does anyone have experience with both lenses? Is the 31 Ltd. worth the extra
>bucks or does the 35 f2 hold it's own optically? I know there are also
>size/weight differences and possibly some other factors. I tend to go for
>fast lenses and bokeh is important as well as sharpness. An
Dick wrote:
>Pal, have you heard anything about when we can expect an updated MZ/ZX-5n,
>MZ-3?
I haven't heard anything and frankly don't expect to. I guess it's
reasonable to expect an MZ-5n/MZ-3 replacement but then the MZ-5n is a
camera that could stay long in the line-up. Perhaps the mai
Isn't the MZ-3 discontinued?
>The MZ-3 was originally intended for the Japanese domestic market only where
>they were going to sell the MZ-5 and the MZ-3, but not the MZ-5N. The -5N
>was meant for export. Pentax Corp. in the US made the decision not to sell
>the MZ-3 in the US because of the pr
Sombody wrote (no idea who):
>Has anybody thought about making petition for Pentax headquarters with
our >opinions about MZ-S, and what could they do to make it better (in
MZ-Sn???) >Has anyone technical possibilities to make such a www site,
where evereone >interested could leave his comment
Patrick wrote:
>As said by someone else, don't hold your breath -- the MZ-S itself took
>nearly 6 years of this-conference-that-event rumors before it was real. I
>don't know what took them so long to perfect on it, so it was probably some
>sort of delay for the proper market.
Actually, the M
Now this one look pretty expensive!
http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/sougan/big/p250sd.jpg
-
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 .
Ron wrote:
>But I don't understand how the *flash sync* shutter speed can influence
>battery usage.
Because both the flash synch and max shutter speed is related to how fast
the shutter travels. Faster travelling shutter = faster max speed and flash
synch. Cocking a fast shutter needs more e
Shel wrote:
>Oh, the M400/5.6 and the A400/5.6 as well. So that's a total of five
>that I can remember.
And the FA* 400/5.6 ED IF. This one gives you ED glass and the inner
focusing helps manual focusing.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http:
George wrote:
>That must be very irrational, because pentax has more interresting
>telescopes in that focal range.
>And these have the additional advantage, that they can be used for medium
>format !
How are these telescopes for ordinary photography? Do they compare in
quality and price?
Pål
Ron wrote:
>Last but not least, can you tell us which features of the MZ-S got your
>sold?
Apart from the features mentioned by others, one of the best features on
the MZ-S is how well aperture priority and manual mode are integrated. I
believe many Pentax users use aperture priority and man
Ron wrote:
>o 1/180 flash sync speed - I can't understand how Pentax could go backward
> on this! The PZ-1 has a nice 1/250!
The reason for the MZ-S max shutter speed of 1/6000s, flash synch of 1/180s
and max FPS rate at 2,5 is that Pentax wanted to make a compact camera. In
order to make
Bruce wrote:
>Basically there is a using size and a transporting size. The two are
>not the same
The problem isn't necessarily size (within reason) but weight. I have yet
to meet anyone who doesn't wish that their super telephotos were smaller
and lighter.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pe
Rob wrote:
>Neither do I fully accept the notion that the new digital interchangeable
>lens
>SLR concept previously under discussion will provide a truly compelling
>advantage due to it's slightly smaller relative size over 35mm compatible
>digital SLRs. Lets face it many people lug about a Nik
Warren wrote:
>Further they find that they can
>design and sell an equivalent 17-35/2, 35-100/2,
>80/200/2, 300/2, 400/2.8 & 600/4 lens for half what
>the competition is doing in a system that not only has
>the same resolution and capabilities and weighs a
>fraction of the traditional systems.
Mishka wrote:
>To the point: if there'll be small and light and fast and inexpensive
>wide angle glass for the new format, hell, I wouldn't mind spending a
>hundred bucks for a top-notch equivalent of 35mm 20/2 that's half the
>size and weight.
That's my position as well. I never been convince
Jeremy wrote:
>Can I be relatively confident that *at some point less than 5 years from
>now* Pentax will release a Digital SLR that can take all my nice Pentax
>lenses?
In a nutshell yes. Pentax is working on a K-mount digital slr. According to
Pentax people, they expect something to be show
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/Photogear_Page.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 http://pug.komkon.org .
From Photo Industry reporter:
While Olympus expects to talk with other digital camera makers about
standardization of lenses, it will reveal at photokina 2002 a sensationally
new interchangeable lens digital AF SLR that uses a 4/3-inch CCD sensor,
roughly half the size of that used by present
The 645N has spot and matrix metering, much better interface and exposure
data readout. It also has data imprinting and one more frame a roll (for
120 film).
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forg
Tom wrote:
>The nII has compensation in 1/3 stops. The n uses 1/2 stops.
Huh? Certainly not. The 645N has exposure compensation in 1/3 stops.
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 th
Enough
-
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 .
BTW I see that in Japan the A* 1200/8 cost only 10% more than the FA*
600/4. At least around here the price difference is much larger.
It seems to cost $8500 in Japan. Not too bad relatively speaking.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.p
Fred wrote:
>I can just imagine the tripod stability and strength needed for a
>1200/8 lens. I find that the A* 600/5.6 is big enough as is, and I
>assume that the 600/4 users must really have their hands full, and I
>can only imagine what's involved in using a 1200/8.
Actually, my interest i
Has anyone actually used or even seen this lens? Just curious...
(I admit having an irrational lust for this lens...)
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
Paul wrote:
>There are other 17 and 18mm choices out there:
There are but I would strongly advice against all of them. In a super wide
is where Pentax SMC really shine. All the Pentax super wides can be shot
directly into the sun. You'll need good flare resistance in a super wide
angle lens
Bruce wrote:
>Wheatfield, Aaron and others pointed out that if I really
>wanted to make a difference in my photos, I should go to a bigger
>negative.
I don't think this is such a good idea considering that the original poster
wanted DOF. A super(?) wide for the 67 is a 45mm with DOF similar t
>Is it possible that this is a sample variation? Have
>other owners noticed this? One poster on Stans lens
>comment site said it was identical to his K20/4 in
>respect to color rendition with the skylight filter
>selected (or maybe the K20/4 is warm too?). At any
>rate, I dont think the warm cas
Jonathan wrote:
>#1)I was inspired to save up and hold out (look
>harder?) for a Pentax K18/3.5 until I learned its true
>focal length of 19mm.
Where did you learn that? Mine seem awfully wide
>Can it take the Cokin P system without vignetting?
The 18/3.5 can take it if you're careful
I use grid screens in all my cameras.
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 .
Fa 31/1.8 Limited
-
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 .
It is a switch that's broken. Fairly common with LX bodies. It happened to
mine after being (mis)used for 19 years.
Fairly cheap to fix and should be within the cost of a regular CLA.
Pål
Mike wrote:
>Having finally got some time to take more than the odd picture,
>I discover a problem with
Tiger:
>Is everyone's the same as mine:
Yes
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 .
1 - 100 of 388 matches
Mail list logo