Except that we weren't necessarily referring to long
primes but the convenience of using the thumb wheels
with big zooms.
With long primes, many have even larger aperture
collars making them even easier to use. My A 400mm
ring measures 1 9/16. Simple to operate.
-Brendan
--- Adam Maas [EMAIL
I sold my *istD for $666 US two weeks ago. Put that saw away.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 18/09/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with many long telephotos - the FA*80-200/2.8 comes to mind - the
aperture ring is damned difficult to get at when
On 18/09/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I can see the argument for
simplifying the interface (and it's a lot more than just the
cost of the mechanical linkage).
Tech support costs? Do you think this is why aperture ring support is
disabled by default in the settings? Are we at
Three that I know of. Ken, Bill, and Pal. But many of us shoot with
an A 400/5.6 or similar on a regular basis. An aperture ring is among
my worst nightmares. Keep it.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
How many of us are using 600mm lenses...handheld or
otherwise?
I would be very happy with that, but if I have to choose, I'll go for
the on-camera dial.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I agree 100% with that statement. ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Digital Image Studio
Now wouldn't it be just dandy if the user had
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 18/09/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I can see the argument for
simplifying the interface (and it's a lot more than just the
cost of the mechanical linkage).
Tech support costs? Do you think this is why aperture ring support is
disabled by
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now wouldn't it be just dandy if the user had the
choice to operate
both ways? This is my point, not that one mode of
operation is far
superior that the other but that the exclusion of
one mode of
operation has eliminated a comfortable
I shudder to think that I would have to use the aperture ring on my
A400. My left hand is always out toward the end of the lens. How do
you support yours?
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
Except that we weren't necessarily referring to long
primes but the convenience
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John
Francis
Sent: 18. september 2006 01:51
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
Enough of us to point out the problems inherent in your
(quite frankly tiresome and arrogant) insistence that the
way
I never castigated Pentax. I stated my preference
and said, in effect, wouldn't it be nice if.. since
many folks prefer one way of shooting over another. I
stated one method was cumbersome, that's all. I never
said that my method was superior; that was your
inference. Then many folks simply
That would amount to self flagellation. Each to his own.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't really shoot aperture priority using an
aperture ring with
the K10D. You will get only wide open ap priority.
You'll have
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's just telling it like it is time. John is a
working pro, and
he speaks from considerable experience.
Paul
Pro's are never wrong I suppose? Or in this case, over
the top...
-Brendan
__
Do
On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:38 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
I find the DA40/2.8 to be mind-boggling. Has it sold well?
I do not know but I thought it was rather a novelty.
I thought so too, but I know several people who've bought one and
they seem to like it a lot.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
On 18/09/06, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and did I really storm onto this list? I first
subscribed so long ago I don't recall.
I have posts of yours back as far as Dec 01 in my archives. :-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL
Wow, I thought it was 1998. I could've sworn it was
just before I got married.
Hum...a mystery ;-]
-Brendan
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/09/06, Brendan MacRae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and did I really storm onto this list? I first
subscribed so long ago I
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shudder to think that I would have to use the
aperture ring on my
A400. My left hand is always out toward the end of
the lens. How do
you support yours?
Paul
By whispering sweet words of encouragement.
No, seriously, with a Wimberley
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:38 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
I find the DA40/2.8 to be mind-boggling. Has it sold well?
I do not know but I thought it was rather a novelty.
I thought so too, but I know several people who've bought one and
they seem to like it a lot.
On 18/09/06, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I thought it was 1998. I could've sworn it was
just before I got married.
Could be, I've only been subbed since mid 1998 and my archives aren't complete.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
On 18/09/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shudder to think that I would have to use the aperture ring on my
A400. My left hand is always out toward the end of the lens. How do
you support yours?
I've used my A*300/2.8 hand held but only to prove that it could be
done. Mostly it's
And in case you meant something different...no, I
wasn't being a wiseacre...
I've shot with hand held a few times but mostly on the
tripod. I focus and then go the aperture. Then I kinda
flatten out my hand directly under the barrel to
support it and fire away (at this point birds fly away
and I
You're tilting against windmills. But so be it.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's just telling it like it is time. John is a
working pro, and
he speaks from considerable experience.
Paul
Pro's are never wrong I
You never shoot handheld? On a tripod, the location of controls
matters naught. I frequently shoot handheld with the 400.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shudder to think that I would have to use the
aperture ring on my
Brendan was here many years ago and recently resurfaced.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
Wow, I thought it was 1998. I could've sworn it was
just before I got married.
Hum...a mystery ;-]
-Brendan
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/09/06,
And why would it be more difficult to keep that left hand on the
focus ring and select your aperture with your right hand? Other than
for the sake of argument, it serves no purpose.
paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
And in case you meant something different...no, I
Very few actually use lenses long enough to be a problem. In fact my
longest lens is a good thirty years old but doesn't have an aperture
ring since it's a 600mm mirror tele. My most used long lens is the
SMCP-A*300mm f4.0. It balances very nicely with my hand well within
reach of of the
On Sep 17, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I find the DA40/2.8 to be mind-boggling. Has it sold well?
I do not know but I thought it was rather a novelty.
I thought so too, but I know several people who've bought one and
they seem to like it a lot.
Considering the price these days, I'm
I'm not saying it would be more difficult, but with
such a lens, some support is generally needed except
at faster shutter speeds.
If you've found that it isn't difficult (when using
the wheel) I'd be suprised but I'll certainly take
your word for it.
-Brendan
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
How many of us are using 600mm lenses...handheld or
otherwise?
-Brendan
--- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:09:22AM -0700, Brendan
MacRae wrote:
--- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
FWIW, I normally control the aperture on my 600mm FA using the camera
control wheel.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
Three that I know of. Ken, Bill, and Pal. But many of us shoot
Hi Ken Maybe with shake reduction?
http://tinyurl.com/e6kla
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=19956019
Just throwing this out to fuel the flames LOL
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
How many of us are using 600mm lenses...
handheld or
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
How many of us are using 600mm lenses...handheld or
otherwise?
Me.
Otherwise. A 600mm FA on a Gitzo 1548 with a Kirk King Cobra Head.
I defy anyone to hand hold a prime 600mm consistently get acceptable
results.
Kenneth
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens. That seems like a big
hole in the lineup. I'd like to see such a lens - smaller and lighter
perhaps than the FA etc., with that focusing clutch thing, and, of course,
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well
for.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses
On 17/09/06, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The small 70mm f2.8? shown on the new K10D photos has me thinking.
It is a pancake size lens.
Perhaps Pentax feels it can seriously change lens design with shake reduction.
Maybe they think we don't need the fast/big glass any longer.
I don't
I don't see that they'd be able to make a 50mm f/1.4-1.2 lens much
smaller than the current FA50/1.4 and it is a great performer. It
would be much more to my liking if they released the same optics in a
D-FA lens mount. A compact, pancake DA50/2.8 Limited might be neat,
but I'd rather they
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens. That seems like a big
hole in the lineup. I'd like to see such a lens - smaller and lighter
perhaps than the FA etc., with that focusing
] On Behalf Of Bob
Sullivan
Sent: 16. september 2006 16:03
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
The small 70mm f2.8? shown on the new K10D photos has me thinking.
It is a pancake size lens.
Perhaps Pentax feels it can seriously change lens design with shake
] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens. That seems like a big
hole in the lineup. I'd like to see
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens. That seems like a big
hole in the lineup. I'd like to see such a lens - smaller and lighter
perhaps than the FA etc., with that focusing clutch
I didn't know that. I thought Ltd meant/implied higher quality optics, not
particularly pancake format.
A 31/1.8 wouldn't work for you?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
Sure. But.
These days it seems a Limited means a pancake.
Is that what we want?
Pancakes are cool, but
I don't think we need _big_ glass, but faster glass is always beneficial.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bob Sullivan
The small 70mm f2.8? shown on the new K10D photos has
me thinking. It is a pancake size lens.
Perhaps Pentax feels it can seriously change lens design with
shake
Why couldn't they make a smaller 50/1.4?
Yes, a nice, fast 28 would be wonderful, and a 35/1.4 would be a kick as
well.
Jumping to a 50/2.8 would seem like a real step backwards for any number of
reasons.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
I don't see that they'd be able to
Talk like what, Rob? Do you mean the more ready acceptance of slower
lenses? I think we've seen that dumbing down with the prevalence of
slower, variable aperture zooms.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Digital Image Studio
The small 70mm f2.8? shown on the new K10D
photos has me
Haven't they done something like that with the PS cameras - Pet mode and
child mode?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
On the other hand, if Pentax came up with a
Moving Subject Stopper, MSS...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 9/16/06, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SR will never stop a moving subject.
Moving subjects is main reason for my lust for fast glass.
On the other hand, if Pentax came up with a Moving Subject Stopper, MSS...
Wrong company.
Winchester or Remington come to mind. Though Pentax could
There's is a huge hole in the line up for lenses above 100mm.
Though I guess this was because they were waiting to implement SSM.
Dave
On 9/16/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would seem redundant as there's already F/FA 50mm lenses, and making a
DFA would require a larger
That would seem redundant as there's already F/FA 50mm lenses, and making a
DFA would require a larger lens than just a DA, right? I'd accept a 60mm
DA ... what I really think is that there's a hole in the current lineup
that's equivalent to, or approximates, the standard portrait lens - 75mm -
Because you need a 35.7mm diameter front element for a 50mm f1.4, or a
41.6mm front element for a 50mm f1.2. The Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 is already
about the smallest on the market, at it's size, I'd suspect the size of
the optics necessary for the speed are more of a limiting factor than
the
are
what I'd go for.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm
Sent: 16. september 2006 17:23
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
I didn't know that. I thought Ltd meant/implied higher quality optics, not
particularly pancake format.
A 31/1.8 wouldn't work for you?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
Sure
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: 16. september 2006 17:48
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
On 9/16/06, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SR will never stop a moving subject.
Moving subjects is main reason for my lust for fast glass.
On the other
and compact lenses, fast lenses are
what I'd go for.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has
You didn't!? Didn't Boris bring his when he came to visit?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
I don't know for a fact that a 31 f:1,8 wouldn't do. I've never tried it.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I'm not sure that's correct ... I'll have to check the diameter of my Leica
glass. It seems to me that the lenses for my Leica, compared to the same
focal length/aperture of my Pentax glass, are smaller.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Adam Maas
Because you need a 35.7mm diameter front
It's obviously not the case. Witness the new fast DA zooms. We're
going to see a lot more than consumer lenses from Pentax. I think a
fast 50 will eventually make the lineup, although for now Pentax
probably figures they have that niche pretty well covered with the DA
40.2.8 and the FA
Shel, They are, because they have a far simpler aperture design. No
aperture coupling or full-aperture mechanism is required for an RF lens,
not to mention a smaller-diameter mount (which allows smaller-diameter
barrels). But even so, fast RF glass isn't all that much smaller than a
Pentax
Faster + bigger. We also need big glass in the sense of long
lenses. SSM 400 and 600 mm lenses will probably appear some day.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't think we need _big_ glass, but faster glass is always
beneficial.
Shel
[Original Message]
I'd like to see a 50mm 1.4 Limited in the DA series. I
would prefer that to the 40 2.8 pancake.
Of course, since I'm old fashioned, I'd like it to be
an FA-DA with an aperture ring...but I could live
without it...maybe.
How about this: Instead of a 50mm, how about bringing
back the 55mm f1.8?(in
Tim Øsleby wrote:
On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan
The small 70mm f2.8? shown on the new K10D photos has me thinking.
It is a pancake size lens.
Perhaps Pentax feels it can seriously change lens design with shake
reduction.
Maybe they think we don't need the fast/big glass any longer.
SR will never
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
At f2.4, the 70 is about perfect for me. Essentially the same length and
speed as the legendary Nikon 105 f2.5, which is a superb portrait lens.
You are getting more DOF with the 70mm though.
Not true. Not at the same subject magnification, anyway. (And
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 18:07
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
You didn't!? Didn't Boris bring his when he came to visit?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
On 16/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
A 50mm f1.2 D-FA Limited would be a dream lens. Especially if it came
out for less money than the Canon 50 f1.2L.
You mean the 50mm f/1 ?
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Rethink that, Adam. You need center elements bigger than that. The front
element has to be larger still. The aperture openings are the size you
state. And since they outlawed the use of stuff like thorium glass, the
elements have to be larger than they did in older lenses (that is one of
the
But a really good rangefinder would.
tiny grin
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Mark Roberts wrote:
A bright viewfinder in dark shooting conditions - before sunrise or
after
Cotty wrote:
On 16/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
A 50mm f1.2 D-FA Limited would be a dream lens. Especially if it came
out for less money than the Canon 50 f1.2L.
You mean the 50mm f/1 ?
No, he means the 50mm f/1.2
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082415canon50f12lens.asp
On 16/9/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
You mean the 50mm f/1 ?
No, he means the 50mm f/1.2
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082415canon50f12lens.asp
D'oh. Yep, forgot that was introduced recently, along with a 70-200/4 IS IIRC.
Daaah. 5o mil lenses, waste of bloody time !
Cotty wrote:
On 16/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
A 50mm f1.2 D-FA Limited would be a dream lens. Especially if it came
out for less money than the Canon 50 f1.2L.
You mean the 50mm f/1 ?
No, The 50 f1.2L they announced last month. $1699 list.
The f1L was ridiculous
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Talk like what, Rob? Do you mean the more ready acceptance of slower
lenses? I think we've seen that dumbing down with the prevalence of
slower, variable aperture zooms.
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture zooms, and
that's
I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) is about
1-inch while the front element of my Pentax 35mm f/2.0 is 1.5-inches. I'd
be curious what the diameter of the front element is on an M or A 35mm 2.0
Fast primes ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture zooms, and
that's fast primes. What is the way out of slow primes?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 16/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) is about
1-inch while the front element of my Pentax 35mm f/2.0 is 1.5-inches. I'd
be curious what
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:28:26PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
At f2.4, the 70 is about perfect for me. Essentially the same length and
speed as the legendary Nikon 105 f2.5, which is a superb portrait lens.
You are getting more DOF with the 70mm
The 50mm focal length for an SLR is generally implemented as a
symmetrical lens design because there's enough room for the moving
mirror behind it, so the size is dependent upon the f/stop and light
path desired, coupled with the bulkiness of the mount that supports
the features you want.
Not just the PS cameras - the K100D has those modes as well.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 08:40:34AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Haven't they done something like that with the PS cameras - Pet mode and
child mode?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim ?sleby
On the other hand, if
John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:28:26PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
At f2.4, the 70 is about perfect for me. Essentially the same length and
speed as the legendary Nikon 105 f2.5, which is a superb portrait lens.
You are getting more
The glass showing inside the retaining ring on the M35/2.0 is almost
exactly one inch. The barrel is bigger than the Summicron's due to the
larger diameter mount. Considering that the M35/2.0 is a slight
retrofocus design it is amazingly compact. Also remember that the
aperture on a 35/2.0 is
I almost argued with John on this. But upon reflection, he is correct,
the reason for that is simply that the shorter lens has a smaller
diameter aperture. As I have mentioned several times on the list, when
everything is factored out the only thing that affects DOF is
magnification and
Just to clarify my other post on this, a 70mm on the digital has exactly
the same magnification as a 105mm on on 35mm film if the images are
framed the same and printed the same size (and they would necessarily
have to be taken from the same distance), and thus has no effect on the
DOF. In
between fast lenses and compact lenses, fast lenses are
what I'd go for.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: 16. september 2006 13:20
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR
What I'd like to see is a 35/1.4 or 40/1.4.
Preferably to cover film as well, because larger sensors will
certainly come over time.
But even if for digital only, sure would be nice.
Sincerely,
Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
He is no
to be 50, then it should be a D
FA so that it is compatible with analogue cameras like my MZ-S.
Mike.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: September 16, 2006 3:20 AM
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True
Sent: 16. september 2006 19:17
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
Boris had it with him, off course.
I think he brings it along wherever he goes. At night I saw him down by the
water fumbling with it, whispering my precious. I really had trouble
falling
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: September 16, 2006 3:20 AM
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well
on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens
The front glass on my M35f2.0 seems to be about an inch even. I don't
have any precision measuring gear to available to be more precise.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron
Shel, I mention later design solely because the SMC-M series were the
first Pentax lens series designed with compactness as a major feature
across the line.
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
the diameter of the front
PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Shel
Belinkoff
Sent: September 16, 2006 3:20 AM
To: PDML
Subject: 50/1.4 or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
True, Pentax has a number of 50mm/1.4 lenses that will work well
on the
DSLR's, but I wonder why there's no 50mm DA lens. That seems like
a big
hole in the lineup. I'd
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture zooms, and
that's fast primes. What is the way out of slow primes?
Fast primes ...
Yup, and the last one such that Pentax issued was?
Yes, I understood that, but my thinking was that perhaps now a redesign
with the smaller sensor and mirror areas in mind, and perhaps newer, more
advanced construction techniques and materials, could yield even smaller
lenses. Just wondering ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Adam Maas
Godfrey,
Kiron did make a quite good 28/2 in K mount. You may want to look around
to see if there is an SMC-A version of it (Mine's in plain K mount). I'm
not entirely sure, but suspect the Vivitar 28/2 is also the same design.
-Adam
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The 50mm focal length for an SLR
I could be wrong but I think it was the 31mm Ltd. f1.8 a few years ago.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture zooms, and
that's fast primes.
The FA limited lenses. All in the last few years. More will follow to
be sure.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture
or 1.2 for the DSLR Bodies
Yes, I understood that, but my thinking was that perhaps now
a redesign
with the smaller sensor and mirror areas in mind, and
perhaps newer, more
advanced construction techniques and materials, could yield
even smaller
lenses. Just wondering ...
Shel
Vivitar built a Series 1 28/1.9 in both screwmount and K-mount.
Always wanted one. Couldn't afford it new and haven't found a used K
version. But it's reportedly a superb lens.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
Godfrey,
Kiron did make a quite good 28/2 in K mount. You may
Steve Larson, who used to frequent the list more frequently, had one I
believe. And if my failing memory hasn't let me down, I had a chance to
use it while we were in Santa Barbara a few years ago. Nice lens, although
I'd much prefer the SMCP-A 28/2.0 that, for some reason I stupidly sold a
year
The Pentax lens is undoubtedly quite a bit lighter, and of course it
gives you all the metering options on a DSLR. I suspect that the
Vivitar, like all the early Series 1 lenses, is an all-metal little
tank. Probably quite heavy. But there's something to be said for
that. I love my Series
On 17/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you need a 35.7mm diameter front element for a 50mm f1.4, or a
41.6mm front element for a 50mm f1.2. The Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 is already
about the smallest on the market, at it's size, I'd suspect the size of
the optics necessary for the
On 17/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talk like what, Rob? Do you mean the more ready acceptance of slower
lenses? I think we've seen that dumbing down with the prevalence of
slower, variable aperture zooms.
Yes, I fear the fastest lenses we'll see from Pentax from now on are
Seems we've visited this place before... Reminding me there was a 38mm
f/1.8, 40mm f/1.4, 60mm f/1.5, and 70mm f/2 all made for 18x24mm coverage...
by Olympus for the Pen F. They didn't do as much with wide angles; their
fast 25mm coming in at f/2.8. Unfortunately these lenses are not
applicable
On 17/09/06, Eric Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) is about
1-inch while the front element of
101 - 200 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
