Same here. I use my FA135 much more now with DX format.
>>> "Jens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/10/2008 2:28 AM >>>
Hello Peter. This is how I always felt about a 135mm - in the film days
:-)
Regards
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On Aug 10, 2008 05:48 "P. J. Alling" <
Hello Peter. This is how I always felt about a 135mm - in the film days :-)
Regards
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On Aug 10, 2008 05:48 "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a copy, I've always found it to be wonderful. Unfortunately
> ~150mm FOV w
I have a copy, I've always found it to be wonderful. Unfortunately
~150mm FOV when used on Pentax digital cameras. A bit too long for an
indoor tele, but not long enough if you really need one, IMHO.
Jens wrote:
> Hello Guys
> Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
> I've been ask
Used one for a while...wasn't too happy with its bokeh.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bongmanayon/2621185974/
Nothing compared to the M 135/3.5...
Bong
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Jens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Guys
> Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
> I've been
Carrying this to the (il)logical extreme ...
If you leave the lenscap on it produces results indistinguishable
from those take with lenses that are far more expensive.
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:36:37PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> It's a good lens. Not a great lens, but a good lens. Wide open
Thanks, Jostein. I'm glad it's good.It's rather expensive. I've thought it
would sell for perhaps 75-100 USD. I had never heard of this lens before, when
the guy asked me. I thought it was an f4 100mm macro lens. Anyway, I'll
announce it on the list before submitting it to ebay along with some o
It's a good lens. Not a great lens, but a good lens. Wide open it's
soft, as you might expect. At f4, it's useable, and it gets better
from there.
Paul
On Aug 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Jens wrote:
> Thanks, Walt
> Perhaps I should buy it myself. I already got the 200mm f4 and a
> 2.5 135mm (yummy
I have one. Haven't used it since going digital, so I can't really
tell you how it performs with a chip. With film, however, it was my
favourite lens for a long time. It is not very sharp at f/2.8, but
improves very nicely when stopped down to f/4. At least if my sample
was anything to go by. It is
Thanks, Walt
Perhaps I should buy it myself. I already got the 200mm f4 and a 2.5 135mm
(yummy)...
I thought perhaps it was like the 2.0 85mm - not sharp below f.5.6 og 8... Got
rid of mine years ago. But I guess it's better than that?
Regards
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treate
Rrght...
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On Aug 7, 2008 20:41 "Scott Loveless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jens wrote:
> > Hello Guys
> > Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
> > I've been asked to sell one at ebay. Is it a dog, average or
> > excell
I'll trade you a SMC 135 3.5 and a SMC 200 f/4 for it! :-)
Walt
On 8/7/08, Jens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Guys
> Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
> I've been asked to sell one at ebay. Is it a dog, average or excellent?
>
> Regards
> Jens
> --
> Treat others as you
Jens wrote:
> Hello Guys
> Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
> I've been asked to sell one at ebay. Is it a dog, average or excellent?
>
> Regards
> Jens
It's a dog. Send it to me and I'll do everyone a favor and dispose of
it properly.
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Penns
Hello Guys
Have anyone got good or bad "news" about this lens?
I've been asked to sell one at ebay. Is it a dog, average or excellent?
Regards
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pd
13 matches
Mail list logo
