Hey, frank was supposed to answer that one, I guess it's into he gorge
with 'im...
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>With that size sensor and total pixel count, you've got approximately
>246 photosites per millimeter, so around 120 LP per mm resolution in
>linear terms, not taking aliasing into acco
, wich don't seem to
>>> matter at
>>> all - except it's cheaper ;-)
>>>
>>> Since many pro's seem to be going to the dark side (Canon), a
>>> used one
>>> should be available somewhere ...
>>>
>>> REGARDS
>>>
e available somewhere ...
> >
> > REGARDS
> >
> > Jens Bladt
> > http://www.jensbladt.dk
> > +45 56 63 77 11
> > +45 23 43 85 77
> > Skype: jensbladt248
> >
> > -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
be available somewhere ...
>
> REGARDS
>
> Jens Bladt
> http://www.jensbladt.dk
> +45 56 63 77 11
> +45 23 43 85 77
> Skype: jensbladt248
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Send
//www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. juni 2006 23:56
Til: pdml@pdml.net
Emne: Looking for FA* 80-200mm f/2.8 Lens
I am trying to figure out where
With that size sensor and total pixel count, you've got approximately
246 photosites per millimeter, so around 120 LP per mm resolution in
linear terms, not taking aliasing into account.
BTW: I think you've got an African swallow in your eye.
Godfrey
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:14 PM, P. J. Alling
What is the liner resolution of a 36.3mp sensor with the dimensions of
30x20mm?
frank theriault wrote:
>On 6/25/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>What is your quest? You seek the Holy Grail, seek well...
>>
>>
>
>Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper, I am not afraid.
>
>chee
On 6/25/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is your quest? You seek the Holy Grail, seek well...
Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper, I am not afraid.
cheers,
Sir Robin
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 2006/06/25 Sun PM 09:56:00 GMT
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Looking for FA* 80-200mm f/2.8 Lens
>
> I am trying to figure out where I might find a Pentax FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
> lens. Any ideas? Thank you.
>
Go to PentaxUK, ope
What is your quest? You seek the Holy Grail, seek well...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am trying to figure out where I might find a Pentax FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
>lens. Any ideas? Thank you.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>
>
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run
I am trying to figure out where I might find a Pentax FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
lens. Any ideas? Thank you.
Bryan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I know it's not quite the same, but that's exactly why I bought my M-42
SMC Takumar 105mm f/2.8.
This is a jewel of a lens, and no imposition to any sort of use. Small
and capable.
Goes with me most places I go. Of course, I always have an M-42 to K
adapter in my kit [doesn't everyone?] and it's m
Which is why I bought your M100/2.8, Stan. Somehow my Tokina ATX
80-200/2.8 did not seem to be the lens to use for steet portraits.
Stan Halpin wrote:
As others have noted, it is heavy. However, it does have a tripod mount
which, combined with a monopod, makes it quite usable for long periods. It
Yes, of course! That's what I meant!!
Grooan..
-Original Message-
From: Jan van Wijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 01, 2003 4:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
Hi Mike,
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:54:02 +0100, mike.w
Ouch! I meant the power zoom function!! Honest !!!
Old age is not for sissies
-Original Message-
From: mike.wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 01, 2003 3:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
Hi,
Bill Sawyer wrote:
> It IS he
On 1/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>At 12:30 PM 10/1/03, throwing caution to the wind, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>>>"mike.wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Mark R wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Man, sometimes I'm net even sure what *I'm* talking (writin
Fortunately their closefocusing ability is about the same.
/Paul
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[2]: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:17:26 -0700
One thing to always check into is close foc
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One thing to always check into is close focusing before switching from
>prime to zoom. It is quite commonfor the prime to focus closer than the zoom.
>If one needs/wants close focusing then the prime might be the better choice.
>Seems I recall someone ment
let me know when you decide to ditch those. i will
gladly accept a donation, cost free for you.
i don't have any problem whatsoever justifying the
primes. especially the fast ones and the macros.
mishka
-Original Message-
> Once you get a hold of a high quality 80-200 F2.8
> lens, it'
> it would replace my 200m f/2.8 (any interest?).
you bet!
mishka
; course this is not the only reason, the zoom function will be handy as well.
PE> But a big question is if I will have to give up to much in performance
PE> switching to the zoom.
PE> /Paul
>>From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>&g
You can pick one up a good to mint condition F 70-210 for between $90-$160.
Two weeks ago, on eBay, a LNIB went for $100, a Mint one for $90 and
I just mailed a $61 M.O. for an Exc+ one. I just discovered here
that this is a very fine lens.
Andre
--
This is a silly question, look at what you're comparing, a fast sharp macro
with a very fast zoom
and a much smaller lighter prosumer zoom.
I've never used the first two, I have the F 70-210. It's a very nice lens
well built, (lots of metal).
It's manual focus characteristics are like the 43mm
Hi,
Mark R wrote:
> Man, sometimes I'm net even sure what *I'm* talking (writing) about!
Seconded... 8-
m
"mike.wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jan wrote:
>
>> If you refer to the "never use the zoom function" part, I suspect Bill
>> actually means the "POWER-ZOOM" feature of that lens.
>
>I suspect so, too, but have come to realise that the one thing you
>cannot do on this, or any other, forum is
Hi,
Jan wrote:
> If you refer to the "never use the zoom function" part, I suspect Bill
> actually means the "POWER-ZOOM" feature of that lens.
I suspect so, too, but have come to realise that the one thing you
cannot do on this, or any other, forum is to assume that you know what
people are ta
What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA* 200mm f/2.8,
F 100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6? What about the weight?
And also if I can ask what you paid for yours used (of list if you want)?
I'm trying to determine what a reasonable price is. Any info about this
I have an example of this lens. It's heavy, big, and produces sharp,
contrasty images. I got mine (almost new in condition) from another PDML
lister about 4 years ago for about $1100.
--Mark
Paul Eriksson wrote:
What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA* 200mm
f/2.8, F 100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6? What about the
weight? And also if I can ask what you paid for yours used (of list if
you want)? I'm trying to determine what a reasonable price is.
Thanks Mark,
Paul
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:59:48 -0400
"Paul Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's the general opinion of this lens
Stephen,
tanks for the info
/Paul
From: Stephen Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:43:29 -0400
Paul Eriksson wrote:
> What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA*
&g
"Paul Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's the general opinion of this lens?
Totally amazing. Changed my opinion of zooms completely.
>Compared to the FA* 200mm f/2.8,
Don't know - I don't have this lens.
>F 100mm macro f/2.8
Comparable as far as optical quality goes - but just in
September 30, 2003 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
> Paul Eriksson wrote:
>
> > What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA*
> > 200mm f/2.8, F 100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6?
> > What about the weight?
>
> In three words: p
Paul Eriksson wrote:
> What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA*
> 200mm f/2.8, F 100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6?
> What about the weight?
In three words: pretty darn nice. I can't compare it to any of the
lenses you cite, but compared to my SMCA 70-210/f4 i
What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA* 200mm f/2.8, F
100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6? What about the weight? And
also if I can ask what you paid for yours used (of list if you want)? I'm
trying to determine what a reasonable price is. Any info about this
35 matches
Mail list logo
