Thanks Joe. I think I'll go for the faster lens. Power zoom isn't important
to me. I'm a zoom neophyte. I've been shooting with manual focus primes for
thirty years and will continue in that vein, but I thought I ought to have
an autofocus zoom for snapshots and lazy day walkarounds.
Paul
Joe Wile
Very true. I recently used my 28-70mm to shoot fireworks, and because of
the flexibility, my shots came out a lot better than they would have if
I'd been stuck trying to swap primes, with limited time, in the dark.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I
Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark, I have the Pentax auto tube set, two third party auto tube
>sets, and the original Pentax "non auto" set. The last is the one
>I like the best for macro shots. No fiddling with a dof button.
>It also contains, AFAIK, the shortest tube Pentax made
They all do that, Alan, especially when focused close.
They are excellent in the 80-135mm range, increasingly
mediocre after that unless focused at infinity and
stopped down more than one stop.
Actually I shot them at near infinity. But one stop down, the improvement
was dramatic. It made me wonde
Just a few thoughts on zoom photography in general...
I have just recently "discovered" the ease a small zoom gives me when
I'm on vacation, and the help in framing it provides.
As I get older, while I still love walking among the rocks and along the
seashore, camera at the ready, I am not as much
"whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan Chan wrote:
>
>> My friend's Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8D sucked when shooting at
>> 200/2.8. Everything was diffused. Didn't know what's wrong.
>They all do that, Alan, especially when focused close.
The FA*80-200/2.8 performs wonderfully wide open, even
That's very true indeed, but we started out discussing sharpness only. In
fact, I found a lot of zooms which perform well stopped down at infinity.
Many of these are weak at close range and/or wide open, though. If a
manufacturer wants to look good on a lens test report, they just optimize
for
Mark wrote:
Bit of a "straw man" argument there, since the A 3.5 f2.8 has been singled out by
several users (you in particular) as a dog.
REPLY:
Not really. I was trying to illustrate my opinion that todays good zoom are equally
good or better than yesterdays primes. The A 35/2.8 is fairly typ
Frank wrote:
Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
REPLY:
I didn't actually say that. That was something I quoted.
Pål
frank theriault wrote:
Well, there has to be some trade-off, doesn't there?
Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
They're bigger, heavier, slower, more complicated, take more time
le here who have the same lens.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:00
Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ (now
abit long))
>
ent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6
PZ (now abit long))
> right on all counts, but my sharpest lens is my FA 50mm macro but only
very slightly behind it is my FA* 80-200. my FA* 24 and my FA 24-90 are
n
ent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 06:30
Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ (now
abit long))
> Well, there has to be some trade-off, doesn't there?
>
> Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms
Well, there has to be some trade-off, doesn't there?
Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
They're bigger, heavier, slower, more complicated, take more time to use (since
you hav
It is being said that todays best zooms are every bit as good as primes.
You can find it even in several photo books like the ones by John Shaw
(who in earlier books only recommended primes), Charles Campbell etc. I
would modified it to todays best zooms are better than yesterdays primes
and
th
There are still "Hi-Fi" magazines around?
Well I'll be darned!
If you insist! :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom-phobia. I
have always thought that the since 28-105 PZ has an
excellent reputation as a very sharp lens but it
still wasn't sharp enough when compared to any of my
primes, I have to stick with prime lenses only.
Turns out I was very wrong indeed.
REPLY:
"I will give that Tokina 28-80/2.8 a closer look."
The Tokina is more prone to flare than a corresponding Pentax. I rarely
shoot into the sun, so for me this is not a problem.
I did notice one weakness with the Tokina, and did some rigorous testing
to track it down. I will post about it soon, w
But that is one lens, in particular, where there seems to be a lot of
sample variation.
So to Pentax every lens that I have come accross since last October...
regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
At 11:27 AM 7/9/2003 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have had 2 samples of these lens, which is the
only zoom lens I have at the moment, they couldn't
be both bad I suppose, but I always find them
lacking the "snap" of my prime lenses.
I have a 28-105 f4 - 5.6 as well. I used it last spring as m
> I'll repost below the result of some lens tests I
did that
> included the
> PZ 28-105. I have two of these and used them as my
basic zoom for
> a
> while. Then I discovered how much sharper is the
Tokina 28-80
> f2.8, so
> it is now my basic zoom.
Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom
Alan, are there already owner reports about this lens? What about
flare? - that is, by the SMC standards, from someone who's actually
seen more than Canon glas...
Not exactly any report, but a few asian users of this lens said that lens
was pretty sharp even wide open, and they didn't expect
Alan, thank you for your quick reply and comment. If
I go for that route, I would gladly pay extra for
the FA*28-70/2.8. I used to have that lens but I
sold it because it was too big (though not too heavy
for such a big lens) and consume too much space in
my camera bag. But as Caveman has pointed o
> I have never had this powerzoom and know many
people have prasied
> this lens.
> However, from what I read in an Australian
magazine many years
> ago, they
> specifically said the sharpness was pretty low at
the long end.
> They wren't
> impressed by this lens and didn't rate it that
well.
2002 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: 28-105/4-5.6 IF
> > Hallo,
> > could you give a short summery. It is hard to get in Germany the Pop
Photo
> > and the test is not on the web.
> > Thanks
> > Rüdiger
> >
>
> From Popular Photography, September 2002:
>
> Actu
Rüdiger, the new 28-105 is tested in the current issue - September.
Joe
-
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 .
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: 28-105/4-5.6 IF
> How much can I expect to pay for the 28-105 powerzoom model used?
> (And does anyone have one for sale or trade?) It looks like B&H still
> has the powerzoom model new -
Hallo,
in which issue of Pop Photo is the test of the new 3.2-4.5 28-105?
BTW, in Germany you can have this lens in black an silver. 6 month after the
introduction of the silver version can the black version.
Regards
Rüdiger
-
>Joe, I have the Pop Photo lens tests of both. The old FA Power Zoom
Joe, there might be a power zoom model at KEH. There's usually one or two.
Good Luck,
Chris L.
-
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 .
B&H and $190 at Adorama.
Joe
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:26:48 -0600
>From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: 28-105/4-5.6 IF
>
>Joe, I have the Pop Photo lens tests of both. The old FA Power Zoom may
>be just slightly sharper overall, but the differenc
Joe, I have the Pop Photo lens tests of both. The old FA Power Zoom may
be just slightly sharper overall, but the difference is so small that
you would be hard put to notice. Go by other considerations:
- the old PZ will balance nicely on your PZ-1 and gives you power zoom
functions, if you need
or two. (The digital
milieu isn't exactly a repository of permanence.)
I recommend you buy the zoom!
Rob
>Hi All,
>
>I was wondering if anybody has used this lens (Pentax 28-105 4 5.6 >Power
>Zoom Auto Focus lens) or could comment on it. I have a friend >who knows a
&
Want a sigma 28-105 F2.8-4, real cheap only $100 and
it's yours :-)
--- Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The older version. With the success of my previous
> WTB posting, I thought
> I'd try here again before committing elsewhere.
> Thanks in advance,
> jerome
> -
> This m
The older version. With the success of my previous WTB posting, I thought
I'd try here again before committing elsewhere. Thanks in advance,
jerome
-
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
Hi!
I plan to buy old, good SMC FA 28-105 Powerzoom. Unfortunately I have used
FA 28-80/3.5-4.7 PZ, which build quality was... erghhh not so good (loose
zoom ring etc). What about build quality of this 28-105? Is it better? Can
users of it confirm that it is ok after years of use? Thanks!
--
Bes
John Glover wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> I just got a used one a few days ago, they are not that difficult to find but you
>pay a premium for them, even used. I'd guess they are discontinued, since Pentax is
>now selling the rebadged Tamron 28-105's. did you get this off of Pentax's web site
>abo
ses still being current?
John
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Pentax 28-105/4-5.6 Power Zoom
> According to Pentax, this is still a current lens. Does anyone know if it
> has been discon
You're right, it's the best there is. Therefore it's probably
discontinued.
Frankly, I have been expecting Pentax to discontinue this lens. It
appeals mainly to serious users, and Pentax has the Tamron rebadge for
other (most?) buyers. Plus the Power Zoom has - let's not mince words -
power zoom.
According to Pentax, this is still a current lens. Does anyone know if it
has been discontinued? Many retailers no longer seem to have it in
stockyet its the best of the 28-105s! Any information out there?
Robert James
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
At 02:16 PM 1/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
>2) If I set the aperture at 5.6 or 8, will the aperture remain constant
through out the zoom's range (28-105)?
>
Depends, if you set the aperture via the aperture ring to 5.6, it will only
be at F5.6 at 28mm, and one stop less at 105mm (F8). All focal len
Three questions about the Pentax 28-105/4 - 5.6 Power Zoom:
1) Is this lens quick to focus in indoor lighting situations such as a wedding
reception?
2) If I set the aperture at 5.6 or 8, will the aperture remain constant through out
the zoom's range (28-105)?
3) The photodo.com revi
41 matches
Mail list logo
