On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> The 35mm
> sounds nice, but I've never worked with anything quite that wide. I
> have seen some results from the SWC and it seems to be a camera you'd
> want to keep close to level if there's anything in the foreground.
That's why all SWCs hav
On 10/31/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses.
>
>
> For what its worth I found the FA645 45/2.8 to be a pretty weak performer.
> It is no b
On 10/31/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Make that: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg
>
Mark, that's a wonderful photograph. I remember when you first shared
it with us. I'm currently leaning toward the 45. Thanks!
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Shoot
On 10/31/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I asked a similar question just the other day. Mark Roberts offered
> this:
>
> ---
> "The manual focus 45/2.8 is the lens I have and it's probably my
> favorite (though I only have the 45, 75 and 200mm lenses).
> I'm not much of a lens tes
On Nov 1, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Walter Hamler wrote:
>> "So Walter, what did you think of the 45mm? Which one did you have?"
>
> I had the 45mm f/2.8 manual focus version. I bought it used and my
> only
> complaint was the focus was a little stiff to me. All the others
> were bought
> new and were
Godfrey posted a question:
"So Walter, what did you think of the 45mm? Which one did you have?"
I had the 45mm f/2.8 manual focus version. I bought it used and my only
complaint was the focus was a little stiff to me. All the others were bought
new and were like "butter".
Another post referred
On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Walter Hamler wrote:
> I used a couple 645 bodies and lenses when I was actively shooting
> weddings.
> I also used them for other types of photography as well.
> In addition to the two bodies, I had several inserts, 120 and 220.
> Having
> more than one is almost
Make that: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7D501705.jpg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Scott Loveless wrote:
>The wide lenses I'm considering are the 45/2.8 and 55/2.8.
>Landscapes and street use for those. Differences in focal length are
>not a big factor. I currently use 28 and 35mm lenses in 35mm format
>and find that either suits my needs. Contrast and resolution are more
>im
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Others also complimented the performance of the 45 and 35 mm lenses.
For what its worth I found the FA645 45/2.8 to be a pretty weak performer.
It is no better than the zooms covering this range (the FA645 45-85/4.5 i
I used a couple 645 bodies and lenses when I was actively shooting weddings.
I also used them for other types of photography as well.
In addition to the two bodies, I had several inserts, 120 and 220. Having
more than one is almost a necessity. I had at various times the 35mm, 45mm,
55mm, 75mm,
I asked a similar question just the other day. Mark Roberts offered
this:
---
"The manual focus 45/2.8 is the lens I have and it's probably my
favorite (though I only have the 45, 75 and 200mm lenses).
I'm not much of a lens tester, so I can't give you a detailed report -
I just love using this
Howdy gang!
If you don't my my picking the collective brain once again, I have a
question about wide angle lenses for the Pentax 645.
The enablement bug continues to bite pretty hard and I find myself
considering a new (used) medium format system a little earlier than I
anticipated. My current d
13 matches
Mail list logo
