The pz 28-105 takes 58mm filters, and is *not* internal focus.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:37:32PM -0400, cbwaters wrote:
> Is that the 62 or the 58 mm front? Internal focus or not?
>
> CW
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lucas Rijnders"
>
> >On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:47:50 +0200, Mark St
Is that the 62 or the 58 mm front? Internal focus or not?
CW
- Original Message -
From: "Lucas Rijnders"
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:47:50 +0200, Mark Stringer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FA 28-105 f4-5.6 pz model was a favorite of mine for a film camera.
Seconded.
I still have it.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:47:50 +0200, Mark Stringer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FA 28-105 f4-5.6 pz model was a favorite of mine for a film camera.
Seconded.
I still have it. Very good lense, not much heavier than the 35-135
But not exactly light either :o)
--
Regards, Lucas
FA 28-105 f4-5.6 pz model was a favorite of mine for a film camera. I still
have it. Very good lense, not much heavier than the 35-135 and nearly half
the close focus. Still around, cheap $100-120 at KEH.
Mark Stringer
ameta via Ebay.
Hooroo.
Regards, Trevor.
Australia
-Original Message-
From: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 7 April 2006 5:58 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: F 35-135 NOT good in the aquarium
We went to the new aquarium in Atlanta today. (A very good outing!)
CW bummed.
Needs a new walk-around zoom.
When I first read your subject line, I thought maybe you had dropped
the lens in the tank. Or something.
Based on the rave reports here, I bought the FA 28-105 f3.2-45 for my
walkaround zoom, and like it a lot. Very sharp, and a glance at
Bojid
We went to the new aquarium in Atlanta today. (A very good outing!) The
lens simply won't focus close enough for this application.
If I'd have thought about it before we left, I'd have figured it out
but...um I didn't
CW
bummed. Needs a new walk-around zoom.
7 matches
Mail list logo
