On 14/2/17, Stanley Halpin, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I like the look and feel of the lens, I like the results. But do I
>really need this when I have the D FA 24-70mm f2.8?
>Well, but then I think about fixed-focal shooting, and what a nice set
>of primes I have in the 20/2.8, 24/2.0, 35/2.0,
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Stanley Halpin
> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I have a ZK 35mm f2.0 T* which I have used sparingly. Never having
> owned a Pentax 35mm, I can’t make any sort of comparison.
>
> I like the look and feel of the lens, I like the results. But do I
FWIW, I have a ZK 35mm f2.0 T* which I have used sparingly. Never having owned
a Pentax 35mm, I can’t make any sort of comparison.
I like the look and feel of the lens, I like the results. But do I really need
this when I have the D FA 24-70mm f2.8?
Well, but then I think about fixed-focal
A planar is sharp enough to create wood shavings...
On 1/24/2017 2:42 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
On 24 Jan 2017, at 10:34, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 24/1/17, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
I used to have an M 50/1.4 and a Zeiss T* 50/1.4 when I had the Contax
kit. I
On 24 Jan 2017, at 10:34, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>
> On 24/1/17, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I used to have an M 50/1.4 and a Zeiss T* 50/1.4 when I had the Contax
>> kit. I preferred the Zeiss,
>
> What's the difference between a Planar and a Tessar?
No
On 24/1/17, Ralf R Radermacher, discombobulated, unleashed:
>The Tessar is a four-element lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8, the
>Planar has six or seven elements and opens up to 1.4.
>
>The Tessar had its hayday when a lack of efficient lens coatings acted
>in favour of designs with less
Purely coincidentally, Planar optical scheme was invented by Zeiss. So,
like it or not, most if not all 50/1.4 lenses have some Zeiss Inside (tm).
On 24 Jan 2017 13:17, "Ralf R Radermacher" wrote:
Am 24.01.17 um 11:34 schrieb Steve Cottrell:
What's the difference between a
Am 24.01.17 um 11:34 schrieb Steve Cottrell:
What's the difference between a Planar and a Tessar?
The Tessar is a four-element lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8, the
Planar has six or seven elements and opens up to 1.4.
The Tessar had its hayday when a lack of efficient lens coatings
On 24/1/17, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I used to have an M 50/1.4 and a Zeiss T* 50/1.4 when I had the Contax
>kit. I preferred the Zeiss,
What's the difference between a Planar and a Tessar?
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Video
On 24/1/17, Bob W-PDML, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I used to have an M 50/1.4 and a Zeiss T* 50/1.4
[snip]
Thanks Bob - much appreciated
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Video Production
--
_
--
PDML
One can't disagree with you Zos especially if one had pots of money or
were a PRO or were an old fart like me.
But foot in mouth, may I add that in todays use and throw world -
repairs difficult & expensive - plastics are just as good as metal.
In fact space age plastics are stronger than steel -
> On 22 Jan 2017, at 16:36, Steve Cottrell wrote:
>
> On 22/1/17, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> KEH.com has a ZK 50mm f1.4 T* for a not outrageous price. "A" mount
>> equivalent. I'd buy it but I'm broke at the moment.
>
> How do you think it compares
Taken with
Pentax K5 with Zeiss ZS 50mm f1.4 T*
https://flic.kr/p/LWcBnk
Philip Northeast
www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au
On 23/1/17 3:35 am, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 22/1/17, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
KEH.com has a ZK 50mm f1.4 T* for a not outrageous price. "A" mount
Leitz on a Leica, not Zeiss.
regards, Anthony
On 24 January 2017 at 01:30, Godfrey DiGiorgi
wrote:
> Bipin,
>
> Is there some point to this post? I'm mystified.
>
> G
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
> >
> > 70 Years or more
Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 23/1/17, Zos Xavius, discombobulated, unleashed:
Which is going to be worth more in 10 years? Plastic samyang lenses or
bulletproof metal and glass zeiss ZK glass? Zeiss is a good investment
no matter what.
I agree.
But I would point out that my Samyang 12/2 is
Fair enough. :)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
> On 23/1/17, Zos Xavius, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Which is going to be worth more in 10 years? Plastic samyang lenses or
>>bulletproof metal and glass zeiss ZK glass? Zeiss is a good investment
On 23/1/17, Zos Xavius, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Which is going to be worth more in 10 years? Plastic samyang lenses or
>bulletproof metal and glass zeiss ZK glass? Zeiss is a good investment
>no matter what.
I agree.
But I would point out that my Samyang 12/2 is not made of plastic.
--
Hmm. Well, what is your personal experience in proof of this allegation? I have
used Pentax lenses extensively, as well as lenses from Nikon, Olympus, Canon,
and Panasonic amongst others, as well as a number of both Leica and Zeiss
lenses.
My experience shows me that: Regardless of
Which is going to be worth more in 10 years? Plastic samyang lenses or
bulletproof metal and glass zeiss ZK glass? Zeiss is a good investment
no matter what.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
> Sorry Godfrey for mystifying you.
>
> The last line is pretty
Sorry Godfrey for mystifying you.
The last line is pretty clear "go ahead and buy a Zeiss Lens for $
when you can buy
similar or better ones for much less".
Someone was expounding the Zeiss Lens for Pentax DSLRs. No doubt Zeiss
make great
lenses. But all I was saying is that you can buy
Bipin,
Is there some point to this post? I'm mystified.
G
> On Jan 22, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
>
> 70 Years or more ago Zeiss and the Germans made good lenses - perhaps
> the best - as there were no others making lenses then!!??
> The Russians and the
70 Years or more ago Zeiss and the Germans made good lenses - perhaps
the best - as there were no others making lenses then!!??
The Russians and the Japanese stepped in to slowly match Zeiss and
later exceed them.
They were followed by the Koreans who made equally good optics.
And now the Chinese
On 22/1/17, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I don't have direct evidence for the Zeiss only reviews and reputation.
>That said, the Pentax, in fact all Pentax 50mm/55mm* are classic
>designs. A bit soft wide open, softer in the corners on film. Stop down
>to f4.0 or 5.6 and they
I don't have direct evidence for the Zeiss only reviews and reputation.
That said, the Pentax, in fact all Pentax 50mm/55mm* are classic
designs. A bit soft wide open, softer in the corners on film. Stop down
to f4.0 or 5.6 and they become sharp as hell, but I expect you noticed
this. This
On 22/1/17, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>KEH.com has a ZK 50mm f1.4 T* for a not outrageous price. "A" mount
>equivalent. I'd buy it but I'm broke at the moment.
How do you think it compares optically to the Pentax M50/1.4 ?
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast,
KEH.com has a ZK 50mm f1.4 T* for a not outrageous price. "A" mount
equivalent. I'd buy it but I'm broke at the moment.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
26 matches
Mail list logo