beater or not. It has to do
> with spending your money
> where it will do the most good.
>
> Len
> ---
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: R
12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
I don't know but $600 US seems a bit high to be sending a seller with 0
feedback.
Ok, I'll admit it, I have too much time on my hands. Did anyone else check
out the
current high bidders previous purchase
Well, it's the glass that does the job...
Regards,
Bob...
"Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity,
and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us
from the former, for the sake of the latter.
The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls
for our utmost cir
I don't know but $600 US seems a bit high to be sending a seller with 0
feedback.
Ok, I'll admit it, I have too much time on my hands. Did anyone else check
out the
current high bidders previous purchases. Defiantly a Pentax fan. His
previous camera
body purchase was a 'Beater' LX for $165.
> Take a look at the U.S. EBay listing mentioned at the start of this
thread. It was indeed a star lens, issued during the A series; I should have
said 135/1.8 PKA*. Last year a pair of them sold back-to-back on EBay for
$1800 and $1810. They are among the very scarcest and sought-after Pentax
K-m
>> How is the bokeh with that Vivitar S-1 135/2.3 ?
> People forget that bokeh is heavily influenced by the aperture used,
> the subject distance compared to the background distance, and the
> background subject matter.
Well, sometimes some of us are aware of that, John - .
> At f2.3 is not "sh
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
>
> > Fred wrote:
> > How is the bokeh with that Vivitar S-1 135/2.3 ?
> >
> > I guess I'm not a bokeh fanatic; I
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:07:43 -0500, you wrote:
>Fred wrote:
>How is the bokeh with that Vivitar S-1 135/2.3 ?
People forget that bokeh is heavily influenced by the aperture used,
the subject distance compared to the background distance, and the
background subject matter.
At f2.3 is not "sharp"
Here`s a wide open shot with the 135/2.3:
http://pug.komkon.org/01may/WoodDuck.html
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Paul F. Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: R
Fred wrote:
How is the bokeh with that Vivitar S-1 135/2.3 ?
I guess I'm not a bokeh fanatic; I haven't paid attention. I use this lens
exclusively to shoot indoor school events, and I'm just happy if the kids
and sets look sharp. I've just reviewed some JPEGs of a recent production I
shot, an
The K135/2.5 is among my most used lenses, and it appears to yield results that
are similar in color and sharpness to the K85/1.8. And, as I've stated earlier,
I've also had great success with the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. However, there's
a big "but" attached to that. I rarely make any wet prints
Do you really want to know the answer to that? Chips get soft because
they contain less moisture than bread, and when left out, they absorb
moisture. Bread, OTOH, contains more moisture, which, in time,
evaporates, and the bread gets harder.
CBWaters wrote:
> why does bread get hard when left
uary 19, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
> did you mean to send this to Steve or are you part of the conspiracy to
> drive me insane?
>
>
> BTW, Sunday morning (Feb 10) sounds of AFAIK. What's to do? Also, I'll
be
> at the Marriott
shoot.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
> Steve, if you recall, I used your
> Fred, The SMC 135/2.5K is a fine performer from f/5.6 onward. But
> it has not lived up to my hopes at f/2.5 to f/4.
Of course, Paul, even the A* 135/1.8 is softer wide open than at
f/5.6 - . How is the bokeh with that Vivitar S-1 135/2.3 ?
> That's why, though I already owned the K, I bought
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:03:16 -0500, you wrote:
>Looks like you should have taken them and offered them on e-bay you would
>have doubled your money.
I would have bought both of those A* 135/1.8 lenses on speculation,
but at the time $450 - 600 was the going rate for that lens, even
though it rare
Looks like you should have taken them and offered them on e-bay you would
have doubled your money.
At 06:51 PM 1/18/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:00:47 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >>From what I have read, these are the Pentax-compatible superfast 135s
> arranged in descending order of
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:00:47 -0500, you wrote:
>>From what I have read, these are the Pentax-compatible superfast 135s arranged in
>descending order of optical quality:
>
>1. Pentax SMC 135/1.8K (77mm filter)
>2. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3K and M42 (72mm filter)
>3. Soligor 135/2 in M42 and K (72
Rob Studdert wrote: "
> I wonder what Freud would say.
"The people bidding on these lens are keen to own one of the best fast 135mm lenses
ever made" :-)
"...and are prepared to spend a 1000% premium to gain a 20 percent improvement."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Fred wrote:
Almost as fast as the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (and more plentiful
and often less expensive), and a superb lens in its own right, is
the K 135/2.5 ("the poor man's A* 135/1.8").
Fred,
The SMC 135/2.5K is a fine performer from f/5.6 onward. But it has not lived up to my
hopes at f/2
Bob,
Sometimes a lens is just a lens! ;-)
Brendan MacRae
-
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 .
Hi,
>> I wonder what Freud would say.
> "The people bidding on these lens are keen to own one of the best fast 135mm
> lenses ever made" :-)
No, no, no. Nothing Freud ever said was empirically testable.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
Rob...
I have heard (many times) this one is the best lens Pentax has made.
But I'll never find out unless someone gives me one.
LOL!!
Brendan MacRae
-
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
> From what I have read, these are the Pentax-compatible superfast
> 135s arranged in descending order of optical quality:
> 1. Pentax SMC 135/1.8K (77mm filter)
> 2. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3K and M42 (72mm filter)
> 3. Soligor 135/2 in M42 and K (72mm filter)
>and SigmaTel XQ 135/1.8 in T-mo
>1. Pentax SMC 135/1.8K (77mm filter)<
Paul...
I've not heard of this lens. I thought the K135mm f2.5 (and the cheaper TAKUMAR
K-mount version) was the next fastest lens in this focal length.
Pentax made a f1.8 K lens that wasn't a green star? Is this an M42 lens?
???
Brendan MacRae
-
This m
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: "What is the optical quality of this Porst lens?"
>From what I have read, these are the Pentax-compatible superfast 135s arranged in
>descending order of optical quality:
1. Pentax SMC 135/1.8K (77mm filter)
2. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3K and M42 (72mm filter)
3. Soli
Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
>
> I think you should have labeled this post "insanity test."
>
> Would you buy a 135/1.8 from someone with a (0) feedback rating?
>
> Stan
>
> > From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> &
At 07:50 18.1.2002 -0500, you wrote:
>If the Pentax is too rich for your blood, a Porst multicoated Tele-Auto
>135/1.8K just went for 133 Euros on German EBay at
>http://cgi.ebay.de/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1318774532
>
>This lens can fairly regularly be found in M42. Last year I saw f
If the Pentax is too rich for your blood, a Porst multicoated Tele-Auto
135/1.8K just went for 133 Euros on German EBay at
http://cgi.ebay.de/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1318774532
This lens can fairly regularly be found in M42. Last year I saw four at
once, ranging from $95 to $395, al
At 19:45 17.1.2002 -0500, you wrote:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1323693450
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, prices of this lens have gone
insanely high in ebay. Also, the seller only ships to US (and Canada).
(Actually, I do not mind the high price of this item :)
Hi, Rob,
I do to. And, I've gotten some good bargains. But if they have 0 feedback,
I only buy things real cheap. Not $310US! It's one thing to be out $15...
regards,
frank
Rob Studdert wrote:
> I buy regularly from sellers with (0) feedback ratings and have got some
> incredible bargains,
>But it has a depth of field scale!
And not only that but it's a PEMTAX!
LOL!!
B.MacRae
-
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 .
32 matches
Mail list logo
