> I was thinking of the musical, The Music Man, in which "Professor" Harold
> Hill, a salesman of many varied items over the years, comes to River City,
> Iowa to sell marching band uniforms. Maybe you did get it and it just
> wasn't funny
"Ya got trouble, I say, and it starts with T and it
I'll take my conveniences when and where I can get 'em these days, minor or
otherwise ;-))
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > This afternoon I discovered a neat feature of the A lenses.
> > Swapping one lens for another on the DS, the aperture
On Sep 28, 2005, at 3:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This afternoon I discovered a neat feature of the A lenses.
Swapping one
lens for another on the DS, the aperture setting remained the
same. While
I'm not so lazy as not being able to change the ap when changing
lenses, it
~was~ a nice s
s I already had the A50/1.4 and
have an F50/1.7 as well. Finally I caved, put my cellphone's email
address on the B&H notification list, and ordered one as soon as I
was sent a message. I waited 8 days. So they are still available,
although in limited supply.
I've pretty m
t: RE: Enabled with A50/1.4
I was thinking of the musical, The Music Man, in which "Professor" Harold
Hill, a salesman of many varied items over the years, comes to River City,
Iowa to sell marching band uniforms. Maybe you did get it and it just
wasn't funny
Shel
[Origina
Nope. it was funny, I just didn't get it! ;-)
dON
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:14 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Enabled with A50/1.4
>
>
> I was thinking of t
Don Sanderson
> OK, I'll bite, what WAS the point?
>
> Don
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:48 AM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: Enabled wi
This afternoon I discovered a neat feature of the A lenses. Swapping one
lens for another on the DS, the aperture setting remained the same. While
I'm not so lazy as not being able to change the ap when changing lenses, it
~was~ a nice surprise ;-))
Shel
OK, I'll bite, what WAS the point?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Enabled with A50/1.4
>
>
> I'm guessing that you bo
O, Wheatfield's going to take you to the woodshed for a spankin' for
this...
Fred wrote:
What, me personally? For a 75/1.4 to go on my 35mm? As much as I paid
for the 77. Nothing, it's too short to be of use to me, and at that
price.
YMMV :-)
I don't really see myself pl
It's a very nice size, as well. The A*85/1.4 was too big ;-))
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist
> That's a great lens for the Ds, since it gives you a stout manual focus
> barrel combined with full metering capability. Just think how much You
> would have to pay for a 1.4 po
Hello Fred,
Optically, I have not noticed any differences in my images.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, September 28, 2005, 4:01:42 AM, you wrote:
>> I know how you feel. I have one of those and I like using it more
>> than my FA 50/1.4. Mostly because I manually focus and it has such a
>
I'm guessing that you both missed the point of the comment ... whoosh!
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: P. J. Alling
> I'm sure you can special order them if he really wants them...
>
> Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> >Hm, not yet.
> >
> >Don
> >
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>Fro
> What, me personally? For a 75/1.4 to go on my 35mm? As much as I paid
> for the 77. Nothing, it's too short to be of use to me, and at that
> price.
> YMMV :-)
I don't really see myself planning on using my A 50/1.4 as a dedicated
portrait lens (at an effective 75/1.4) on my DS. 75mm is for m
>> But the A and FA versions do appear to be identical optically, though,
>> right, Bruce?
> I have both as well. While the focus ring is thinner on the FA, I
> don't find it to be any difficulty. Since I obtained the FA, I find
> myself using it a lot for both AF and MF. They are supposed to
> First quick comparison, this lens doesn't feel much different than my M
> wrt focus feel. Of course, the K is noticeably "sweeter" .
Interesting, Shel. Yes, now I remember the K 50/1.4 focus feel - .
I've actually had a number of the various Pentax 50/1.4's over time
(including some sweet scre
I'm sure you can special order them if he really wants them...
Don Sanderson wrote:
Hm, not yet.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:21 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Enabled with A5
On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:01 AM, Fred wrote:
I know how you feel. I have one of those and I like using it more
than my FA 50/1.4. Mostly because I manually focus and it has such a
nice feel and size of focus ring. The FA 50/1.4 has that small,
smooth ring that many of the FA lenses have and just
Hm, not yet.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:21 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Enabled with A50/1.4
>
>
> Do you sell band uniforms as well?
>
> She
Do you sell band uniforms as well?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson
> That's Cedar Rapids Lens Repair, Storm Door Company _and Surveys_
> to you fella! ;-)
Hi Fred ...
First quick comparison, this lens doesn't feel much different than my M wrt
focus feel. Of course, the K is noticeably "sweeter" . I'm starting to
like the A contacts with these newfangled cameras.
Well, off to make some tea and get started with the day ...
Shel
> [Original Mes
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's a great lens for the Ds, since it gives you a stout manual focus
barrel combined with full metering capability. Just think how much You would
have to pay for a 1.4 portrait lens for a 35mm film camera. That can make
anyone smile.
What, me per
That's Cedar Rapids Lens Repair, Storm Door Company _and Surveys_
to you fella! ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:31 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Enabled with A50
> I know how you feel. I have one of those and I like using it more
> than my FA 50/1.4. Mostly because I manually focus and it has such a
> nice feel and size of focus ring. The FA 50/1.4 has that small,
> smooth ring that many of the FA lenses have and just isn't as nice in
> that regard.
But
> Should be fun comparing this with the M and K versions ;-))
I think it'll compare very favorably optically, Shel, but I suspect you'll
be doing a bit of grumbling about the "feel" of the lens in use.
In my opinion, the A 50/1.4 is the best optically, but is just not as
pleasant to use as are it
nkoff wrote:
Today I received a gorgeous A50/1.4 from Don Sanderson Enterprises, aka
Cedar Rapids Lens Repair and Storm Door Company. It's a beauty! This
is
my first A series lens (except for a few of the fancy A* lenses), and
it
completes my collection of manual focus 50mm/1.4 optic
my FA 50/1.4. Mostly because I manually focus and it has such a
> nice feel and size of focus ring. The FA 50/1.4 has that small,
> smooth ring that many of the FA lenses have and just isn't as nice in
> that regard.
> Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 11:31:26 PM, you wrote:
>
>
egard.
Have fun with it!
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 11:31:26 PM, you wrote:
SB> Today I received a gorgeous A50/1.4 from Don Sanderson Enterprises, aka
SB> Cedar Rapids Lens Repair and Storm Door Company. It's a beauty! This is
SB> my first A series len
Love to see some shots with it.
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Enabled with A50/1.4
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:31:26 -0700
Today I received a gorgeous A50/1.4 from Don Sanderson Enterp
Today I received a gorgeous A50/1.4 from Don Sanderson Enterprises, aka
Cedar Rapids Lens Repair and Storm Door Company. It's a beauty! This is
my first A series lens (except for a few of the fancy A* lenses), and it
completes my collection of manual focus 50mm/1.4 optics. I'm so
-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:08 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
It's a nice shot, Don, but I think I'll need a larger version to see
the bugs and raindrop. ;-)
Godfrey
On Sep 5, 2
Look for two little black dots and a sparkle.
(Hint: They're ON the flower.) ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:08 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50
It's a nice shot, Don, but I think I'll need a larger version to see
the bugs and raindrop. ;-)
Godfrey
On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:
Here's a typical wide open shot with the FA50/1.7.
http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/fa50.htm
Can't see them too well on the web version bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:35 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
>
>
> Don,
> Took a few M50 shots @ f/1.4 and, as promised, am
> putting up one here. This shot using focusing
> indicator
On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Graywolf wrote:
... So it seems there is quite abit of variation in M50/1.4 lenses
(none of these showed any sign of damage). ...
Doesn't seem surprising.
Optical bench lens testing brand new Nikkor 50mm, 105mm, etc lenses
20 some years ago showed a goodly vari
I'll get focus right.
The FA and I seem to get along pretty good so far.
Thanks!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:35 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Pl
Some years back, some of you may remember, I threw some m50/1.4 against a brick
wall (tested). I used a tape measure and focused via the scale on the lens. I
did that because at f/1.4 the narrow depth of focus exacerbates any errors in
the mirror-groundglass v. lens to film paths. In those test
Don,
Took a few M50 shots @ f/1.4 and, as promised, am
putting up one here. This shot using focusing
indicator light. Also, shot one each; back and front
focus. Missed back focus a smidge.
Tripod, MZ-S, self timer/MLU, Fuji 100 Superia,
shutter 1/6000. Walgreen's CD.
I wish I could upload a larger
amined the exposure data for each pair of snippets.
From top to bottom:
lens - aperture - shutter - exp mode
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (AF)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (eye)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (mag)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (eye)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (mag)
K50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/6
tom:
lens - aperture - shutter - exp mode
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (AF)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (eye)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (mag)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (eye)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (mag)
K50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - M (eye)
K50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - M (mag)
A50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/50
bleck... sorry about the triple post. I'm not sure how that happened.
Godfrey
is at about 140x focal length.
BTW:
I went back and examined the exposure data for each pair of snippets.
From top to bottom:
lens - aperture - shutter - exp mode
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (AF)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (eye)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (mag)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (eye
is at about 140x focal length.
BTW:
I went back and examined the exposure data for each pair of snippets.
From top to bottom:
lens - aperture - shutter - exp mode
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (AF)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (eye)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (mag)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (eye
is at about 140x focal length.
BTW:
I went back and examined the exposure data for each pair of snippets.
From top to bottom:
lens - aperture - shutter - exp mode
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (AF)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (eye)
F50/1.7 - f1.7 - 1/320 - Av (mag)
A50/1.4 - f1.4 - 1/640 - Av (eye
ROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:43 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
>
>
> It looks like you back-focused. The small grey shed or garage behind
> the house looks more in focus then the center. I have simila
ion.
It may, in some cases, require that you get a new diopter thingy installed
just for your specific vision, although the D and DS, as well as the 5n,
seem to have a pretty wide range of correction - more than, for example,
the LX.
Shel
> Don Sanderson wrote:
> Here is a quick comparison
It looks like you back-focused. The small grey shed or garage behind
the house looks more in focus then the center. I have similar problems
with my 85 1.4.
rg
Don Sanderson wrote:
Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my
like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of
I have the same problem with my FA* 85 1.4. I consistently back focus if
I manually focus, but its pretty close with AF. It looks focused on my
screen but it ends up being back-focused. There is some type of
mis-alignment going on IMO. There are times when I cannot depend on AF
and would lik
vis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:09 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment
> Please
> >
> >
> > Don,
> > Have been casually following this thread and
> finally
> &
Godfrey ...
How tall is the text on the u-haul boxes?
I've done lens comparison tests with several 50mm lenses, and never have I
gotten such poor results. However, the subject was different and the
lenses were mounted on manual focus film bodies, so the results may not
translate fairly.
I'm ret
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:09 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
>
>
> Don,
> Have been casually following this thread and finally
> have a question. Your last post included the
> comment;"
again for the tests.
>
> Don
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:28 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment
> Please
> >
04, 2005 4:28 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
>
>
> Don,
>
> Your tests with the 50mm lenses made me interested to do a little
> testing, since I have F50/1.7, A50/1.4, A50/1.7, and A50/2 lenses at
> present. I al
Don,
Your tests with the 50mm lenses made me interested to do a little
testing, since I have F50/1.7, A50/1.4, A50/1.7, and A50/2 lenses at
present. I also have a K50/1.4 lens belonging to another PDMLer which
needed a quick test because the box it was shipped in was so crushed
in
ine when used
on the digital.
Live and learn. I happy now and I'm sure someone will enjoy the A.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Whitehouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 4:52 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: A50/1.4
t I can get great results with
portraits at f4.0 to f5.6 on both film and digital.
Rob W
-Original Message-
From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 September 2005 02:44
To: PDML
Subject: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
Here is a quick comparison of the "Wid
Pancho.
It's somewhat of a relief to hear you say that about the 85 and the 50.
I took the A50/1.4, the M50/1.4 and the FA50/1.7 out for a bit today
with the ist-D.
The A never seems to want to focus on the same thing I do.
The M has the same problem but not nearly as bad.
The FA kicked both
Godfrey,
that's interesting. I usually have a terrible fight against my A 1.4/85,
which never focuses where it seems to according to the focussing screen,
on my LX as well as on the KX or the MZ-S.
It's focus confirmation on the latter that gave me hope again. This
beast must focused closer
hough that if I _really_ need a shot I'll
most likely grab one of the 1.7s, they seem to like me. ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:54 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: A50
Hi Don ... When testing or comparing lenses, the camera is always mounted
on a strong, solid tripod or base, and I use a magnifier, such as a
refconverter, to help focusing accuracy. Whenever possible I use a fast
shutter speed and MLU. You might be surprised at how much difference the
magnifier
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 5:56 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
>
>
> It looks like neither one is in focus or else you have camera shake.
> The lenses can't be that bad. You have to sho
than
the
M. Have you tried changing the dust bag?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Don Sanderson
Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my
like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my rather dusty SMCP-M50/1.4
lenses.
Both at 1.4, both focused on the mailbox using the in
Hi Don ... They both look pretty bad, although the A hoovers more than the
M. Have you tried changing the dust bag?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson
> Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my
> like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my
Wide Open" performance of my
like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my rather dusty SMCP-M50/1.4
lenses.
Both at 1.4, both focused on the mailbox using the in focus indicator,
shots within a couple of minutes of each other.
Shot just before dusk in indirect light. On the ist-D.
JPEG straight from c
Sample variation.
Don Sanderson wrote:
Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my
like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my rather dusty SMCP-M50/1.4
lenses.
Both at 1.4, both focused on the mailbox using the in focus indicator,
shots within a couple of minutes of
Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my
like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my rather dusty SMCP-M50/1.4
lenses.
Both at 1.4, both focused on the mailbox using the in focus indicator,
shots within a couple of minutes of each other.
Shot just before dusk in indirect
I got a bargain on the F50/1.4, so the A is FS.
VGC
$75. + $5 shpg/ins.
Collin
Hi George,
> I could not detect differences between the SMC Takumar, K and M
> lens when comparing them.
> I would be supprised if they really are not the same optical
> design. The A is clearly different.
While I have tremendous respect for your opinion, I think that K != M.
I have received r
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
>
> That's not true! Pentax has published optical diagrams for ALL
> lenses in current production (including FA and some F and A
> lenses). You can find them in lenses catalogue from their Japan
> home page (in PDF file).
Well, while this is true (and I do have show som
on 22.07.02 6:21, Bojidar Dimitrov at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, not really. With the A lenses Pentax stopped publishing the optical
> diagrams, and it is very difficult to find any A-or-later ones. So
> unles there is an announcement of a new lens release or optical
> redesign, I assume t
> However, after careful studying of the optical diagrams of the K,
> M, and A 50/1.4 lenses, I have come to the conclusion, that all
> three of these emply different optical designs.
Very interesting, Boz. Just one question, though - have you been
able to ascertain that the F and FA 50/1.4's ar
Hi,
I have an A50/1.4 and it has developed a tight spot in the focus ring.
Could some one enlighten me as to what causes this? and is it easily fixable?
Thanks,
Paul Jones
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions
21 Dec 01, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Tim Engel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Last spring I bought a sad little ME Super & lens on ebay for
> > US$50. (Snip)... That's how I came by my second f1.2.
> >
> > Hate me if you must, but I could do without it.
>
> OK. I'll trade yo
f1.2. That's
how I came by my second f1.2.
Hate me if you must, but I could do without it.
Regards & Happy Holidays,
Tim Engel
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 8:46 PM
Subje
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:24:43 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>
>>> I hate you both ;-)
>
>Hate me too! Hate me too!
>
>I got a free K 50/1.2 about four years ago, and earlier this year
>snagged a free brand-new-in-the-box FA 50/2.8 Macro, to go with my
>free AF5
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:24:43 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>> I hate you both ;-)
Hate me too! Hate me too!
I got a free K 50/1.2 about four years ago, and earlier this year
snagged a free brand-new-in-the-box FA 50/2.8 Macro, to go with my
free AF500FTZ flash.
But if I worked a second job instead
Juan J. Buhler wrote:
> It's just a matter of checking the newly started ebay auctions every
> once in a while. I do so at most once a day, and so far I've gotten a
> $50 K1000+50/2, a $50 K24/3.5, a $30 M28/3.5, and this $65 Program
> Plus+A50/1.4.
Yeah I can join the
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Ken Archer wrote:
> I hate you both ;-)
It's just a matter of checking the newly started ebay auctions every
once in a while. I do so at most once a day, and so far I've gotten a
$50 K1000+50/2, a $50 K24/3.5, a $30 M28/3.5, and this $65 Program
Plus+A50/1.4.
Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Got a free A50/1.4
>
> Another bargain:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1311704013
--
Kenneth Archer + San Antonio, Texas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #24980801
Powered by Linux ++ Mailed by Kmail
-
This message i
Congrats.
Maybe now people will hate someone besides me. :)
Collin
-
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:11:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Juan J. Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Got a free A50/1.4
Another bargain:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayIS
>I already own the A50 1.7.
>Is the 1.4 better optically? What's a reasonable price for it?
The A50/1.7 is significantly sharper at wide open, but the A50/1.4 is much
better built.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Y
I seem to have built a stable consisting of the M50/2, the M50/1.4, the
A50/1.7 and A50/1.4. I'm anxious to perform my own tests as soon as I
can find the time. I fondly my SMCT50/1.4 was a splendid optic.
Steve S.
--
http://people.mn.mediaone.net/sscott2
Takehiko Ueda wrote:
>
Hi Jeff,
I don't know which is better optically, for I didn't "test"
them. It's just my impression that A50/1.4 renders colours
more vividly than A50/1.7.
In Japan, A50/1.4 costs around JPY20,000 which makes around
USD160 due to weaker Yen... :( I think in the US it&#
I already own the A50 1.7.
Is the 1.4 better optically? What's a reasonable price for it?
TIA, Jeff
-
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
Thanks Rob. I see it. I don't know if I deep down believe it, but I do see
it.
Stan
-
on 3/26/01 1:27 AM, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2001, at 23:09, Stan Halpin wrote:
>
>> on 3/25/01 10:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wis
on 3/25/01 10:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I wish to know whether the M 50/1.4 has the same quality as A 50/1.4.
>
> Please advise!
>
Yes.
Stan Halpin
=
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I finally received the above glass from the US!! However,
>> I di
I wish to know whether the M 50/1.4 has the same quality as A 50/1.4.
Please advise!
> Hi all,
>
> I finally received the above glass from the US!! However,
> I didn't have much time today, and moreover it was raining...
>
> Still, I just checked it with a roll of film, and found
> that it
Hi all,
I finally received the above glass from the US!! However,
I didn't have much time today, and moreover it was raining...
Still, I just checked it with a roll of film, and found
that it is excellent!! The light condition was poor due to
the rain, but it renders colours very well.
http://
88 matches
Mail list logo
