On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:26 PM,
wrote:
> I bought mine in the late 90's used for around $800. Last time I saw one for
> sale it was around $2000 IIRC.
Sounds like it'll be featured on Antiques Roadshow before long.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/l
I bought mine in the late 90's used for around $800. Last time I saw one for
sale it was around $2000 IIRC.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "mary pitrone"
Subject: Re: Macro recommendation
Yes, I was ta
Yes, I was talking about the A200mm F4 macro. A friend of mine has one. He has
not been on the list for a while. Ann knows him ang I think Paul also knows him.
--- On Wed, 2/15/12, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> From: Paul Stenquist
> Subject: Re: Macro recommendation
> To: "Pentax-Dis
4.html
>> Regards, Bob S.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:52 PM, mary pitrone wrote:
>>> What about the 200mm F4 A lens
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 2/15/12, JC O'Connell wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: JC O'Connell
>>>> Subjec
l wrote:
>>
>>> From: JC O'Connell
>>> Subject: RE: Macro recommendation
>>> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>>> Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 7:07 PM
>>> I forgot to mention I preferred the
>>> early v
t;
> --- On Wed, 2/15/12, JC O'Connell wrote:
>
>> From: JC O'Connell
>> Subject: RE: Macro recommendation
>> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>> Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 7:07 PM
>> I forgot to mention I preferred the
&
That's a $2,000 lens. I think CB said he couldn't afford to spend a lot on this.
On Feb 15, 2012, at 8:52 PM, mary pitrone wrote:
> What about the 200mm F4 A lens
>
> --- On Wed, 2/15/12, JC O'Connell wrote:
>
>> From: JC O'Connell
>> Subject: RE:
What about the 200mm F4 A lens
--- On Wed, 2/15/12, JC O'Connell wrote:
> From: JC O'Connell
> Subject: RE: Macro recommendation
> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
> Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 7:07 PM
> I forgot to mention I preferred t
-
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of JC
OCONNELL
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:05 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Macro recommendation
Ive owned both versions of the tamron adaptall2 90mm/2.5
macro a
-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
knarftheria...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:48 PM
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: Macro recommendation
I have the manual focus Tamron 90mm (adaptall) and I agree with you.
Cheers,
frank
"What can be asserted without proof can
List"
Subject: Re: Macro recommendation
Quoting Collin Brendemuehl :
> While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
> there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
> Small bearings come out just "ok" bu
I bought the D FA 50 f2.8 macro a few years back and it does a very
nice job for me. had to have the lens and K10D set up, but seems fine
on the K-5
Dave
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
wrote:
> While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
> there
On 2/14/2012 2:07 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
I'm thinking of bringing
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM, JC OCONNELL wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me, I forgot to mention the recommended A35-70/4
> is dirt cheap, under $90 most of the time on ebay. I also forgot to
> mention it operates just like a true macro lens at 70mm, just turn the
> focus ring from infinity all
t: Re: Macro recommendation
On 15 February 2012 12:08, JC OCONNELL wrote:
> I know of a good sleeper for macro. Its the A35-70/4 zoom ( not to be
> confused with the lame A35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom). Its full macro range
> at 70mm which is a good focal length on aps digital. Sharp, contrasty,
>
On 15 February 2012 12:08, JC OCONNELL wrote:
> I know of a good sleeper for macro. Its the A35-70/4 zoom ( not to be
> confused with the lame A35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom). Its full macro range
> at 70mm which is a good focal length on aps digital. Sharp, contrasty,
> and nearly zero geometric distortion.
for trial exhibits. I've always felt it is a
very good lens for this kind of work and can still be had cheaply.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: Macro recommendation
> While almost ev
#x27;ve always felt it is a
very good lens for this kind of work and can still be had cheaply.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: Macro recommendation
While almost everything that I'
On 2/14/2012 2:07 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
I'm thinking of bringing
I like a slightly longer macro -- a 90 or 100 at least-- because camera and
lens are less likely to get in the way of your light. I use a Vivitar Series 1
90/2.5, first version. It will do 1:2 on its own or 1:1 with its supplied
optical adapter. I found mine for a bit more than $100, but they us
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
> Quoting Collin Brendemuehl :
>
>> While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
>> there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
>> Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a littl
On 15 February 2012 06:07, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
> there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
> Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
> I'm thinking
Quoting Collin Brendemuehl :
While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
I'm thinking of bringing in my FA28-80 macr
I'll second that vote. I use mine all the time when shooting beads &
other small jewelry items, and it does a great job on those tiny
specimens . I see them frequently at KEH...
:)
-c
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> I have the last-gen Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 (since superse
t] On Behalf Of
Collin Brendemuehl
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:07 PM
To: pdml
Subject: Macro recommendation
While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
Small bearings come out just "
I recommend Sigma EX 70mm f/2.8 without reservation.
I shoot macros frequently and my other toy, Vivitar Series 1 105mm
f/2.8, rarely leaves its box.
The Sigma is also a nice portrait lens even on APS-C; plenty sharp wide open...
Bulent
---
I have the last-gen Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 (since superseded by the
"WR" version) and it does a fine macro. It also has the virtue of
being a WONDERFUL portrait lens. -T
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
> "Collin Brendemuehl" wrote:
>
>>While almost everything that I'm shoot
"Collin Brendemuehl" wrote:
>While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
>there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
>Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
>I'm thinking of bringing in my FA28-80 ma
Raynox 150 on one of your primes.
Or look around for a used adaptall macro
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the
>18-55
>there are some small items which would look much better with a macro
>lens.
>Small bearings come out just "ok" but we
You may be surprised by the macro on the little Pentax-F 35-70mm,
which you may already have, and if you don't you may find one in a
ditch on the way home. Very common, very inexpensive, very under-rated
IMHO.
If you need to get closer than that, the Takumar 50mm f4 (or one of
it's later incarnati
While almost everything that I'm shooting looks great with just the 18-55
there are some small items which would look much better with a macro lens.
Small bearings come out just "ok" but we want a little bit of improvement.
I'm thinking of bringing in my FA28-80 macro just to see how well it perfor
31 matches
Mail list logo
