Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

but, despite the lack of protection, it does work! i have bough quite a few thingies there, before and along with ebay, and it worked out just fine (maybe i am lucky, but the mere fact that those places survive for that long tells you something!) mishka On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:09:09 +1000, Rob Stu

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh?, are you saying that since the seller overgraded it > or made gross errors ( gross meaning big, not distusting) then the > buyer shoul

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh?, are you saying that since the seller overgraded it > or made gross errors ( gross meaning big, not distusting) > then the buyer should be happy/lucky to get only some of his > money back? That's absurd. When I run into that type situation > I

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7 Jan 2005 at 17:13, Alan Chan wrote: > --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You've got to be kidding, you've absolutely no recourse whatsoever in any > > use > > group market-places. > > Luckily, all my purchases from the marketplaces group before eBay (many years > ago) went s

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

m to begin with. JCO -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 7:55 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I said "in

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7 Jan 2005 at 17:11, Alan Chan wrote: > --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > eBay can't confirm a cash payment has been made however they could always > > instigate a policy whereby the seller had to leave feedback before the buyer > > and sellers could be de-registered if they didn'

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You've got to be kidding, you've absolutely no recourse whatsoever in any use > group market-places. Luckily, all my purchases from the marketplaces group before eBay (many years ago) went smoothly. Considered myself lucky. = Alan Chan http://w

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > eBay can't confirm a cash payment has been made however they could always > instigate a policy whereby the seller had to leave feedback before the buyer > and sellers could be de-registered if they didn't leave feedback for 95% of > sales? Since eBa

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7 Jan 2005 at 19:35, Mishka wrote: > i doubt that feedback has that much effect. i have an impression that people > usually resort to negative feedback when they are *really* pissed. many > sellers > that i was disappointed with, had great feedbacks. Even with a blemish free record you can ge

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > huh? if that's a joke, wheres the ":)" ??? Nope, not a joke. :) = Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7 Jan 2005 at 16:51, Alan Chan wrote: > --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I was under the impression that the whole reason eBay works is > > because of the feedback system. > > But I am afraid the feedback system is not working the way it was intended to > be, because most seller

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

huh? if that's a joke, wheres the ":)" ??? JCO -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 7:55 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAI

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i doubt that feedback has that much effect. i have an impression that people > usually resort to negative feedback when they are *really* pissed. many > sellers that i was disappointed with, had great feedbacks. > i suspect that ebay works for much the same

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I said "in the case of gross errors in the listing" > Of course if it was listed properly the buyer does > not have a valid reason to return it, > he agreed to buy it when he bid on it in the first place > and cannot just "change his mind" and ask

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was under the impression that the whole reason eBay works is > because of the feedback system. But I am afraid the feedback system is not working the way it was intended to be, because most sellers do not leave +ve feedback until the buyers do so. I

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

cribed (seller error). JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) On 7 Jan 2005 at 8:52, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Sorry you are very misinform

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

i doubt that feedback has that much effect. i have an impression that people usually resort to negative feedback when they are *really* pissed. many sellers that i was disappointed with, had great feedbacks. i suspect that ebay works for much the same reason usenet alt.*.marketplace works. but

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

i wish you had bothered to read my whole message. or, at least, the second paragraph. best, mishka On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:52:51 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry you are very misinformed if you think that "almost all ebay > listings" have no return priviledges in the case o

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7 Jan 2005 at 8:52, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Sorry you are very misinformed if you think that "almost all ebay > listings" have > no return priviledges in the case of gross errors in the listing. If > that were > true then there would be no ebay. The whole reason ebay works is the > sellers >

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) Not sure I had gotten it yet or ever got it. ( what did it say?) "Must remember to put mind in gear before hitting send." It was 6:30 in the morning when I posted t

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Not sure I had gotten it yet or ever got it. ( what did it say?) JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:34 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) Evidently, you didn't read my next

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Evidently, you didn't read my next post, same subject. William Robb - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) What does the new price of the A version have to do with the price of the SMCTS? They are not same form, fi

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Pentax originally designed this lens with an aspheric element. But it was too hard and expensive to make so they switched the design to a purely spherical one. Apparently quite a few of the Taks (900) were made aspherically, and a few of the K (100) were that way. Then the formula switched a

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7/1/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis, discombobulated, unleashed: >This is an auction we are talking about. All it takes is 2 people >salivating enough. There's one for you Mark. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

12 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) that's still better than no such privilege at all. whch seems to be the case with almost all ebay listings. and there are *very few* people who would agree to refund the whole payment (bid + s/h). otoh, if an item i

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:54 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare to warrant so high a price as this one sold for. Is this a reasonable price for a K15/3.5?

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Hum..? I thought all 15mm/3.5's had an aspheric element in them. Weren't the early ones ground, and the later ones molded? That may be the difference you are thinking about. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Peter J. Allin

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

M To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) >I don't know about the K versions but the 15mm SMCTs have all been >selling for over a $1

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

just ship whatever they feel like shipping and leave the buyers with no recourse. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 7:12 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) that's still bett

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Mishka wrote: > but, imo, the price is (way) too high, no matter what. perhaps the > buyer just wanted the lens that much :) This is an auction we are talking about. All it takes is 2 people salivating enough. Kostas

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

B&H has it listed for $1447.00 Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/7/2005 4:33:22 AM > Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) > > > - Original Message - > From: "J. C. O'Connell&

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 7/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >Now why didn't i think of that. So, here's the big question: how does the >AL compare to the standard version optically? > >Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On 6/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated,

Fw: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Must remember to put mind in gear before hitting send. William Robb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" Subject: Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) I don't know about the K versions but the 15mm SMCTs have all been selling for over a $1000 lately on ebay. I find that absurd, since the A versions are selling brand new fo

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

elinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:54 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) > > AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare > to warrant so high a price as this one sold

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare to > warrant so high a price as this one sold for. Is this a reasonable price > for a K15/3.5? Wasn't there a SMC Tak 15/3.5 as well? I'd like to learn > more about the various

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

Now why didn't i think of that. So, here's the big question: how does the AL compare to the standard version optically? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 6/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >AL version? What's that? > >

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

On 6/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >AL version? What's that? HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _

Re: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

I think there was a SMC Takumar, a SMC Pentax [K] and A. If I remember correctly the Takumar and SMC Pentax K versions for a short time had an aspheric element but Pentax changed the optical formula to a more conventional type due to manufacturing difficulties. Maybe the K 15mm could have bee

RE: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

t: K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?) AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare to warrant so high a price as this one sold for. Is this a reasonable price for a K15/3.5? Wasn't there a SMC Tak 15/3.5 as well? I'd like to learn more about the v

K15/3.5 (was Re: ok, who got it?)

AL version? What's that? I didn't think the K15/3.5 was all that rare to warrant so high a price as this one sold for. Is this a reasonable price for a K15/3.5? Wasn't there a SMC Tak 15/3.5 as well? I'd like to learn more about the various iterations of this lens. Anybody an expert on these