Hi,
I finally decided to part with my MZ-5n and just keep
my well used MZ-M as a MZ series representative.
The camera is in very good condition and working
order. Of course I'll take pictures of it and send
them to anyone interested.
The 28-70 zoom is in KEH bargain condition, with a
small mark
Op Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:02:00 +0200 schreef Aaron Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tell me why I'd want to keep it.
It's small, light, sharp, autofocus and it has very nice bokeh. Shoot
something with trees/shrubbery in the background to see what I mean...
--
Regards, Lucas
--
PDML
Well, if it's rear AS lens element hasn't begun to separate, its sharp,
with good contrast, to my eye flair free, very light weight and
extremely convenient. Damn, I miss mine. On digital it would make a
very nice true normal to short tele, (maybe a bit slow for a real
portrait lens, but it
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:02:00 +0200, Aaron Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(sorry for any double posts: I didn't get my first attempt, and neither
did the archives)
my 67). I have an SMC-M 28mm f2.8, a Super Takumar 35mm f2.0 and an
SMC-F 50mm f1.4 in the range this fellow covers.
] On Behalf Of
Aaron Reynolds
Sent: 26 July, 2006 6:22 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: FA 28-70 f4 AL
So I hear that a lot of people like this lens, other than its tendency
to split apart.
I've never been one for zooms, and so I never considered buying it.
However, I've come across one. Someone
On 7/26/06, Henk Terhell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I switched more than 2 years ago to the *istD I have used my FA
28-70 AL only once and was not impressed as compared to my DA 16-45. I
liked the lens on the film bodies though, and it has not yet fallen
apart.
An ideal walk about lens
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Tell me why I'd want to keep it.
Its smaller and lighter than your other three lenses combined, ergo its
convienent when you are packing for size and weight considerations. Also,
sometimes its just more convienent to have an all-in-one answer.
That's
: 10
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 0:22:00 -0400
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FA 28-70 f4 AL
To: pdml@pdml.net
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
So I hear that a lot of people like this lens, other
than its tendency
to split apart.
I've never
So I hear that a lot of people like this lens, other than its tendency to split
apart.
I've never been one for zooms, and so I never considered buying it. However,
I've come across one. Someone convince me to keep it, or not keep it. I'm
unlikely to ever use it on film (because it won't fit
Why did Pentax choose to make a f/4 constant zoom using the diaphragm to maintain
that, rather than
making a f/2.8 - f/4 zoom on this lens.
Am I making sense? :-)
Yep sure. One answer is that the constant relative aperture makes it much easier to
use with non-ttl flash. Another answer is
All this discussion is based on assuming that the lens would open to
F2.8 to begin with, which may not be the case at all. Sure, you can see
the aperture mechanism reduce itself as you zoom toward the short end,
but how do you know it would go to F2.8? What if it only went to F3.5?
In that
. tammikuuta 2002 21:24
Aihe: RE: FA 28-70/f4 AL why not F2.8?
All this discussion is based on assuming that the lens would open to
F2.8 to begin with, which may not be the case at all. Sure, you can see
the aperture mechanism reduce itself as you zoom toward the short end,
but how do you know it would
12 matches
Mail list logo
