frank theriault wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:52:48 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L
Despite his one-liners here, Cotty is quite a decent person though those who
have not actually met him may not believe that (g).
...and some of us who have met him may not believe it, either...
On 7/12/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty takes a hacksaw to the K mount and forceably grafts the alien eos
mount to them...
Peter would make an excellent headline-writer for a UK tabloid newspaper
or The National Enquirer.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
On 7/12/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
Despite his one-liners here, Cotty is quite a decent person though
those who
have not actually met him may not believe that (g).
...and some of us who have met him may not believe it, either...
LOL. Hey, you talkin about me, you lookin
On 8/12/04, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
Bwah! Instead of modifying lenses, you should have drilled enough
space in your 1DmkII body!
the thought did cross my mind.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Hi,
Cotty takes a hacksaw to the K mount and forceably grafts the alien eos
mount to them...
Peter would make an excellent headline-writer for a UK tabloid newspaper
or The National Enquirer.
I read the other day that the Washington Post headline over their
piece about the Blunkett affair was
- Original Message -
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I read the other day that the Washington Post headline over their
piece about the Blunkett affair was London britches falling down.
LOL.
Poor Blunkett. Veered off and straight into the ticket
(ok... poor pun. apologies for not
Well I was once the photo editor on a very very bad little rag. I
had to write quite a few photo captions, (unfortunately the editor in
chief often overruled me, who knows they might still be in business...).
Cotty wrote:
On 7/12/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty
).
Everything I shoot is 135mm or less. can I get some thoughts on some of the
great M42 lenses that I should consider buying.
Once again, sorry.
Gateway (of that is indeed your name, or can I call you Col. Bat Guano??)
You Do Not Want To Look Here:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, William Robb wrote:
That looks really very nice. I don't know if it's true or not, I had
heard that Mamiya wanted to emulate the smooth look of their RB
lenses in their 35mm glass.
Looking at the rendition that lens is giving, I can well believe it
is so.
Even I (who
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7
FYI,
I added a couple of BW images at the bottom of the page.
I wouldn't mind seeing how it does as a portrait lens.
I bet it rocks.
William Robb
On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No problem. You're not the only one on this list who uses Pentax
lenses on a Canon body.
Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount
lenses work
I'd love a shootout against the A100/2.8
The rendering looks good.
What have you been able to gather about the optical formula?
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount
lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more...
:-)
K mount lenses do not work
, December 07, 2004 9:11 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount
lenses work also? This is so
: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:11 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Jon Glass, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount
lenses work
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
since the canon EOS bodies have such a large throat, I do
not understand why a simple EOS(body) to PK(lens) adapter would
not be possible including infinity focus
do these adapters exist now or not?
Well, I did see an auction pointed
On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hang on a second, I lost the sense in the thread. Can I get a K mount ot
work on my Canon 20D?
I don't know, but I can.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Jon Glass wrote:
On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No problem. You're not the only one on this list who uses Pentax
lenses on a Canon body.
Sorry, but you all sparked my curiosity! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K
On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a
1DsM2 and really enjoy it.
My EOS K mount creations reach infinity no problem at all.
Hey Ryan, I get my mounts back from the fabricators this week - you're in
luck. I
Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK
lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs
as a previous post implied?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 11:13 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK
lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs
as a previous post implied?
Yes.
Details:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/details.html
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
On 7/12/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
Did you have to remove rear levers of your PK
lenses to enable infinty usage on the Canon EOS slrs
as a previous post implied?
Not to enable infinity focus, rather to enable the lenses to be attached
- there is physically no room for the
Cotty wrote:
On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Only M42s reach infinity and they work great. I'm now using them on a
1DsM2 and really enjoy it.
My EOS K mount creations reach infinity no problem at all.
This is with your mod to the coupler, or no?
-R
Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had custom K to EOS mounts made up
from his design. They apparently work quite well. What do you have now Cott, 3-4
of them?
He did post a link to a photo, but it may have gotten lost in the shuffle.
Despite his one-liners here, Cotty is quite a
On 7/12/04, Ryan K. Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
This is with your mod to the coupler, or no?
You'll see.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 7/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had custom K to EOS mounts
made up
from his design. They apparently work quite well. What do you have now
Cott, 3-4
of them?
Yeah, they are not adapters, they are mounts. That is, once the mount is
to read through it yet.
Gareth
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:59 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
On 7/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Let me clarify Cotty's position here. He has had
Canon AF-to-M42 brass adapter, drilled
out to EOS spec for mounting on the lens, and a small round plate
fabricated from scratch to maintain the register distance. Longer
mounting screws are also needed. All details on that web page I gave you.
HTH
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O
On 7/12/04, Gateway, discombobulated, unleashed:
Can you share with us where you ge these things made and how much.
The cost of each mount (modified Canon AF / M42 adapter + fabricated
spacer ring) about 65 GBP plus cost of Canon AF / M42 adapter, about 20 USD.
SRB have the jig and specs, just
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
Well, I did see an auction pointed out to me with such an adapter,
but
the crucial thing is the aperture lever on the back of the lens -
it must
be removed as there is no space for it inside the camera body
On 7/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well, I did see an auction pointed out to me with such an adapter,
but
the crucial thing is the aperture lever on the back of the lens -
it must
be removed as there is no space for it inside the camera body,
despite
such a deep, er
! Somehow, I haven't heard this
before... How does this work? Do only M42 lenses work, or do K-mount
lenses work also? This is so weird, that I just have to hear more... :-)
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war.
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:52:48 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L
Despite his one-liners here, Cotty is quite a decent person though those who
have not actually met him may not believe that (g).
...and some of us who have met him may not believe it, either...
cheers, etc,
frank
vbg
thoughts on some of the
great M42 lenses that I should consider buying.
Once again, sorry.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
No problem. You're not the only one on this list who uses Pentax lenses on a
Canon body. Scurrilous behavior to be sure, but tolerated here vbg. In any
case, you're going to want the Super Multi Coated Takumar 85/1.8. It's a
magnificent M42 lens, one of the best ever built. (In general, you'll
You've pretty well covered all I'd have suggested with the exception of the
28/3.5, another little jewel ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12/6/2004 4:31:31 PM
Subject: Re: Your best M42 mount lenses.
No problem. You're not the only one
PROTECTED]
Subject: Your best M42 mount lenses.
My apologies for infiltrating the group. I don't shoot with a Pentax, I
shoot with a Canon.
There, I got it off my chest.
Wait, it gets worse, it's a Canon digital.
Now the bit where I try and score some brownie points. I love using manual
focus
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ditto the SMC 105/2.8 and 120/2.8.
I dont have the 120,but i have the 105 f 2.9 bought new in 1975. I think its my
bestest
lens in M42.
The 28mm i purchased form Chris Brogden last year is also quite nice
FWIW,
After many years of hearing about but never actually
seeing ( not even pix of it) , I finally scored a Mamiya Sekor SX 85mm
F1.7
Lens in M42 mount.
I just created a little page with some pix of the lens,
and a few test samples taken with it. Check it out:
http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: My Latest M42 Lens, Auto Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F1.7
After many years of hearing about but never actually
seeing ( not even pix of it) , I finally scored a Mamiya Sekor SX
85mm
F1.7
Lens in M42 mount.
I just created a little page
Sekor SX 85mm
F1.7
Lens in M42 mount.
I just created a little page with some pix of the lens,
and a few test samples taken with it. Check it out:
http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/85mmf17.htm
Comments welcome,
JCO
FYI,
I added a couple of BW images at the bottom of the page.
JCO
FWIW,
After many years of hearing about but never actually
seeing ( not even pix of it) , I finally scored a Mamiya Sekor SX 85mm
F1.7 Lens in M42 mount.
I just created a little page with some pix of the lens
usual 2 month money-back guarantee for faults not listed
(3 for the 85).
Asahi Pentax Takumar 17/4 Fisheye (M42) Mint
In its original cardboard box, only missing the dedicated case (but
the strap is in its original nylon bag!). No blemish of any kind
Hi!
KK Asahi Pentax Takumar 17/4 Fisheye (M42) Mint
KK
KK In its original cardboard box, only missing the dedicated case (but
KK the strap is in its original nylon bag!). No blemish of any kind.
Kostas, I wonder what is your price tag for this lens
Hi Boris,
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Boris Liberman wrote:
KK Asahi Pentax Takumar 17/4 Fisheye (M42) Mint
KK
KK In its original cardboard box, only missing the dedicated case (but
KK the strap is in its original nylon bag!). No blemish of any kind
Hi!
KK Asahi Pentax Takumar 17/4 Fisheye (M42) Mint
KK
KK In its original cardboard box, only missing the dedicated case (but
KK the strap is in its original nylon bag!). No blemish of any kind.
Kostas, I wonder what is your price tag
guarantee for faults not listed.
Asahi Pentax Takumar 17/4 Fisheye (M42) Mint
In its original cardboard box, only missing the dedicated case (but
the strap is in its original nylon bag!). No blemish of any kind.
SMC Pentax-A 70-210/4 EXC
I know I said I would try and keep OT noise down, but at least this is
about M42 gear...
Years ago when I was but a lad, the first camera I owned was a Practika
(MTL-3 i think) but after that I had Fujica ST605n - and now I'm going
to have one as a paperweight. Might even put film through it.
I
: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: OT - M42 Fujica sought
I know I said I would try and keep OT noise down, but at least this is
about M42 gear...
Years ago when I was but a lad, the first camera I owned was a Practika
(MTL-3 i think) but after that I had Fujica ST605n - and now I'm going
I've never seen one in black. I have seen the Fujica ST901 in black but
not the ST605.
Cotty wrote:
I know I said I would try and keep OT noise down, but at least this is
about M42 gear...
Years ago when I was but a lad, the first camera I owned was a Practika
(MTL-3 i think) but after that I
Hi,
thank you all for your replies !
Now, I'm a bit smarter again :)))
BR, Margus
Margus Männik wrote:
Hi there,
do we have any M42 Asahi web resource similar to mr. Dmitrov's K-mount
page? Or at least any site where ALL (ok, more or less...) produced
M42 bodies would be described?
BR, Margus
http://www.aohc.it/
http://212.187.14.19/spotmatic/index2.html
Dave Hi there,
do we have any M42 Asahi web resource similar to mr. Dmitrov's K-mount
page? Or at least any site where ALL (ok, more or less...) produced M42
bodies would be described
Hi there,
do we have any M42 Asahi web resource similar to mr. Dmitrov's K-mount
page? Or at least any site where ALL (ok, more or less...) produced M42
bodies would be described?
BR, Margus
Tallinn, Estonia
Margus,
Dario's incredible site should tell you everything you might wish
to know.
http://www.aohc.it/
Other good sites are
http://www.pentaximaging.com/world_of_pentax/history_of_innovations/index.jsp
http://www.concentric.net/%7Esherfy/special1.html
Try this. There are a couple more but I don't have them bookmarked on
this system.
http://www.shmgo-zwolle.nl/spotmatic/index2.html
Margus Männik wrote:
Hi there,
do we have any M42 Asahi web resource similar to mr. Dmitrov's K-mount
page? Or at least any site where ALL (ok, more or less
i wouldn't hold your breath. the limit is yield and that isn't going to
change very quickly.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:33 PM
Subject: M42 ultra-wide
Eventually, I should think
, October 28, 2004 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
snip
Stopping the lens down (to F22, only option with no aperture ring...)
slightly reduces the image circle.
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
Director of Development, eyeon Software
On 28 Oct 2004 at 18:38, Raimo K wrote:
That´s just the opposite of all lenses I know of. Usually coverage improves by
stopping down. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
In the case of the DA14/2.8 I assume the vignette is caused by the
-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
The Nikon 14 is actually a Tamron 14 clone, with ED element. At least
that's
what Tamron HK said.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com
A week or so ago one sold for about $700 (K version).
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
There is a 15mm SMCT on ebay now but the bids over $1100.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Homme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
One doesn't know what a 14/2.8 non-DA Pentax would look like. The
12-24 APS-format Nikkor isn't small, light, or cheap as most people
assumed an APS-format
Do you think that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR? As
others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not staggering,
apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass? You could get a
better wideangle for a cheaper price probably. IMO g
Good light!
fra
On 26/10/04, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
Maybe someone with better memory can have the final word. A15/3.5 was my
dream lens back in early 90's and I saw it advertised in PopPhoto Magazine
at US$6xx. I don't have any old magazines to double check now of course.
When I bought one
On 27/10/04, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
Do you think that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR?
Yes.
As
others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not staggering,
apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass?
I wanted a K15 3.5 to use on a DSLR for several
On 27/10/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
When I bought one (15 3.5) brand new back in 1984, it cost me 350 GBP.
That was a
*lot* of money back then.
Of course that was a K15 3.5
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
C 1. SMC glass will better resist flaring - my largest problem at this
C focal length.
C 2. SMC glass will better resist flaring - my largest problem at this
C focal length.
C 3. SMC glass will better resist flaring - my largest problem at this
C focal length.
I see your point ;-) Flaring with
On 27/10/04, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
I see your point ;-) Flaring with the Sigma (which I use as well) can
be sometimes quite bad. Few solutions - use the removable lens-cap
(the barrel thingy) on it. If it vignettes in the corners, file them
away a bit. Works well (but still will
On 26 Oct 2004 at 23:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming it's useful wide open, which I've heard that it might not be
for some people's standards--if the 14 is better wide open then it's more
like a two stop difference. I haven't had the money to fiddle with
anybody's 15mm lens to know
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
Secondly, isnt a 15mm F3.5 A lens like $2000 list?
Well, US$6xx not that many years ago. :-) It is expensive now
probably because they are made on order.
I hate giving out specific prices, but I paid CAN$1700.00 for my
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
It is going to be more than you suggest, see my last post.
You werent comparing KA lenses of same
focal length and speed in your
comparison. the Nikon has a different
flange distance, not sure which way,
and a hate
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
the contention was APS lenses have a lot
of advantages over FF lenses on APS bodies. FF ability is
not an advantage on a APS body.
FF ability to switch between the two is an advantage.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
Wrong comparison. The 15/3.5 Pentax dates optically to 1974.
It's what's out there on the shelves, so it is about the only
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wides
Do you think that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR? As
others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not
staggering,
apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass? You could get a
better wideangle
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
The following lack lustre images were shot quickly hand held using
my *ist D
with multi-segment metering and focus at infinity stop, they are
about 1.5MB
each and will only be up for a day or two:
Useless pictures.
To be valid, there has to be a
of the post
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
the contention was APS lenses have
,
weight, cost, etc. You don't need on the shelf items to
know that simple fact of optical life.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
- Original Message
that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR? As
others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not staggering,
apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass? You could get a
better wideangle for a cheaper price probably. IMO g
As I said, I've heard rumblings that its performance
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
FF lens is not an advantage on a APS camera.
APS lenses have some very good advantages over FF lenses on APS
camera.
That was the point of the post. If a lens
is FF it doesn't provide any of the APS lens advantages
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
Fart theories? Are you that ignorant of basic lens design?
For the same level of quality and same speed and focal
length, a FF lens which has an image circle diameter 150% of
an APS lens will always require a higher
And who says they don't? i.e. Isnt the DA 14mm F2.8
lens smaller and lighter ( and cheaper ) than
any FF 14mm F2.8 lens on the market?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42
no existing lenses, I still would not buy the APS
matched lenses.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:24:07 -0600
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra
, 2004 4:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
FF lens is not an advantage on a APS camera.
APS lenses have some very good advantages over FF lenses on APS
camera.
That was the point of the post
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
I wasn't the original poster but I still hold to what I said. If a FF
body
comes out that I can use my lenses on (assuming I could afford
for
TC the first time and had no existing lenses, I still would not buy the APS
TC matched lenses.
TC Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:24:07 -0600
- Original Message
On 27 Oct 2004 at 9:20, William Robb wrote:
Useless pictures.
To be valid, there has to be a swimming pool in the foreground.
Yes, my mistake. I guess that's why all the listers who have never owned/used
one are still discrediting its performance. From what I've seen of test pics
from the
have aperture cams (assuming they have rings)???
Curious...
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
On 27 Oct 2004 at 9:20, William Robb wrote:
Useless pictures
You're making me cry.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:39:50 -0400
What about the 14mm DA 2.8 also being wider, faster, and costs a lot
less?
QUESTION: Do the APS Pentax DA
On 27 Oct 2004 at 18:39, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
What about the 14mm DA 2.8 also being wider, faster, and costs a lot
less?
Well yes it does cost less and it's faster but I'm not yet sure if it's
actually wider in practice, I've found FL designations to be wildly misleading
in the past.
Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
availible now and then?
Very hard to come by...
I've seen a Sigma 18/3.2 listed in M42 mount, but I'm
reluctant to commit money to a lens that may not have an A/M lever
and probably has old Sigma quality as well.
DJE
The one I have does have an A/M lever
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
On 27 Oct 2004 at 18:39, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
What about the 14mm DA 2.8 also being wider, faster, and costs a lot
less?
Well yes it does cost less and it's faster but I'm not yet sure
Thanks for the info on the DA lenses. Would be neat to
try one on a film body to see how much margin they
have over the APS boundaries...
First (well second :) thing I did when I got mine was stick it on the LX.
Through the viewfinder the image circle is clearly visible; its size varies
with
Does the image circle get any bigger (less black in corners ) as you
stop it
down using DOF preview? Curious again
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Peter Loveday [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
Does the image circle get any bigger (less black in corners ) as you
stop it down using DOF preview? Curious again
Sorry, I was actually incorrect in what I thought happened, I just did some
more playing.
So, at infinity focus it doesn't fill the view horizontally, by the time you
get to
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide
I wasn't the original poster but I still hold to what I said.
Yours must just have been the first post I read on the subject.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
And who says they don't? i.e. Isnt the DA 14mm F2.8
lens smaller and lighter ( and cheaper ) than
any FF 14mm F2.8 lens on the market?
Check the specs, cheaper for sure, lighter, somewhat, smaller,
somewhat
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide
What about the 14mm DA 2.8 also being wider, faster, and costs a
lot
less?
How about if a person already has a 15mm lens, then the 14 seems a
bit redundant?
And it won't work on a full frame camera..
William
the 16-45 and the 12-24 are not a lot different in size. the length is
roughly the same, but the 12-24 has a larger diameter.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: M42
--
Tom C. said:
IMO, the whole marketing of APS digital lenses is a shennanigan. Knowing
what I know (which may not be alot), if I was buying into Pentax digital
for
the first time and had no existing lenses, I still would not buy the APS
matched lenses.
I'm not
Here is the difference between a Nikkor 14/2.8 full frame and the
Pentax DA 14/2.8:
Nikon
street price: $1399.00
weight: 23.6 oz
size: 3.8 X 3.4
Pentax
Street price: $700.00
weight: 14.8 oz
size: 3.3 X 2.7
As I've said, I bought a used Sigma 14/3.5 (for $500-ish) instead of the
What other options have I got? Are the 15/3.5 SMC-Takumars actually
availible now and then? From what I've seen I'd probably pay less than
$1000 if I could find one. Nobody seems to make a 14mm in adaptall or
http://www.kevincameras.com has several. His prices are at the high end of
the
701 - 800 of 1105 matches
Mail list logo
