Thats why i'm holding out for the 60-250 or Tammy 70-200
Dave
On Feb 14, 2008 7:18 AM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DA*200/2.8.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of co
When I had my Canon gear, I had the 100/2, 70-200/4L and the 300/4L
IS lenses. I found myself preferring the primes most of the time, and
it wasn't because of the image quality or focal length. The prime
lenses just let me work the way I want to. I had the 200/2.8L in my
sights ...
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I remember translating the tale of Mucius Scaevola, a left handed
> soldier in the Roman army, who distinguished himself by taking
> advantage of his opposite handed-ness to protect his commander in
> unusual circumstances way back when in Latin IV classes.
They mu
ough I am a bit disappointed by its non-improved AF.
>
> Regards,
> Jaume
>
> - Mensaje original
> De: Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Enviado: viernes, 15 de febrero, 2008 10:48:02
> Asunto: Re: Oh, the temptation...
&g
original
De: Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Enviado: viernes, 15 de febrero, 2008 10:48:02
Asunto: Re: Oh, the temptation...
AlunFoto
escribió:
>
The
lure
of
the
K20D.
>
And
the
DA*200/2.8.
>
>
Saw
them
both
today,
at
Pentax
:-)
Jostein
2008/2/14, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Toralf Lund wrote:
> > AlunFoto wrote:
> >
> >> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> You know you want to... >>> shoulder>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
> >>
> >>
The prime should be quite a bit better than the zoom, particularly
wide open. Fewer compromises. It might also be more compact.
Paul
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Cotty wrote:
>> DA*200/2.8.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a
AlunFoto escribió:
> The lure of the K20D.
> And the DA*200/2.8.
>
> Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway.
>
> Oh well...
>
I understand you, Jostein. Right now, the temptation for me is a K10D at
the present low prices. I keep telling myself that the *ist DS I have
now is enough for my mode
>
> From: Beaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/02/15 Fri AM 02:45:45 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation...
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
>
> > 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
Hmmm...
Which hand would be the more sinister, I wonder?
:-)
Jostein
(who's signing off today for 10 days of winter mid-term holidays and
to keep an appointment with a certain Mouse.)
2008/2/15, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> LOL ...
>
> On the one hand there are people saying that
The 200mm prime should be quite a bit lighter.
Cotty wrote:
>> DA*200/2.8.
>>
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to th
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:18 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> The current crop of digital sensors aren't able to capture the full
> resolution that the best prime lenses are capable of. That kind of
> levels Primes and Zooms as far as resolution is concerned. ..
LOL ...
On the one hand there are people
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: 15 February 2008 03:54
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation...
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> >> Left in Latin is
On 14/02/08, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question.
Funny, a lot of people have told me this over the years.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
he flat field lens does on the K20D. I'm expecting very good
resolution and sharpness to compensate for the lack of OA metering.
Adam Maas wrote:
> On 2/14/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Cotty
The current crop of digital sensors aren't able to capture the full
resolution that the best prime lenses are capable of. That kind of
levels Primes and Zooms as far as resolution is concerned. I expect
that the new 14mp sensor in the K20 will more readily show the
difference. On film I only
Toralf Lund wrote:
> AlunFoto wrote:
>
>> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You know you want to...>> shoulder>
>>>
>>>
>> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
>>
>>
> Hmm... Hard to tell...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/wat
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:27AM -0500, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Cotty wrote:
>
> > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> > (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to th
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Left in Latin is Sinister.
Trivia lesson of the day:
"Sinistra", not sinister. The word sinister is derived from sinistra...
Roman battle gear was designed for squadrons of right handed shield
bearers. Left-handed shield bearers caused the
Cotty wrote:
>> DA*200/2.8.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ?
>
> I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, bu
Beaker wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
>
>> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> You know you want to...>> left shoulder>
>> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
>
> Left in Latin is Sinister. Betcha it's the pointy one.
Oh, how gauche.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> You know you want to...> left shoulder>
>
> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
Left in Latin is Sinister. Betcha it's the pointy one.
Beaker
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail L
Weight and size, and optical quality.
I had a FA*200/2.8 on loan for a while, and it is considerably smaller
than the Sigma 70-200/2.8. If you still recall that lens... :-)
I would say the optical quality is a notch or two higher in the prime too.
Yesterday I got to compare size and weight of the
2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > You know you want to... > > shoulder>
> >
> > Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
>
> Definitely not feathery.
Ach, crivens!
Then I've been listening to the wrong one.
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://al
>
> From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/02/14 Thu PM 12:13:07 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation...
>
> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > You know you want to... > shoulder
William Robb wrote:
>
> From: "Cotty"
>
>>> DA*200/2.8.
>> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
>> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
>> (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the
>> prime) ?
>
> I've ye
On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S & 14-24mm f2.8G, both outperform all but the
> rarest Zeiss and Leitz lenses in their ranges. The Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8
> for the Contax N is even better than the Nikon. The 14-24 in
> particular is stunning at the wide end, poss
On 2/14/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cotty"
> Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation...
>
>
> >> DA*200/2.8.
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
&
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens
> in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they
> may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation...
>> DA*200/2.8.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of course opt
Pointy.
AlunFoto wrote:
> 2008/2/14, AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>> You know you want to...>> shoulder>
>>>
>> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
>>
>
> The personage _on_ the shoulder, that is
On 14/02/08, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Please see http://www.cafepress.com/robertstech.215324984
D'oh. Of course, stupid question ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cotty wrote:
> >> DA*200/2.8.
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> > (assuming of course optical perfor
AlunFoto wrote:
> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> You know you want to...> shoulder>
>>
>
> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
>
Hmm... Hard to tell...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxWB_R7Ucc
- T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pd
Cotty wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ?
Mainly because I feel that's a whopper of an assumption. :-)
Cotty wrote:
>> DA*200/2.8.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
> prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
> (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ?
Size & weight.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
> DA*200/2.8.
Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a
prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available
(assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ?
I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200.
--
Cheer
2008/2/14, AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > You know you want to... > shoulder>
>
> Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
The personage _on_ the shoulder, that is... :-)
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.bl
2008/2/14, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You know you want to... shoulder>
Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_p
>
> From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/02/13 Wed PM 09:43:57 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Oh, the temptation...
>
> The lure of the K20D.
> And the DA*200/2.8.
>
> Saw them both today, at Penta
On Feb 14, 2008 6:43 AM, AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lure of the K20D.
> And the DA*200/2.8.
>
> Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway.
>
> Oh well...
If someone could show me an unprocessed, warts and all, 10 minute
exposure taken with the K20D, and the results are halfway decent, I
William Robb wrote:
> I am going to try to not buy the K20...
>
> William Robb
>
>
MARK!
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the l
The lure of the K20D.
And the DA*200/2.8.
Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway.
Oh well...
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, plea
- Original Message -
From: "AlunFoto"
Subject: Oh, the temptation...
> The lure of the K20D.
> And the DA*200/2.8.
>
> Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway.
>
I am so tempted by both as well. I'll probably fall for the 200, though it
may cost more than
44 matches
Mail list logo
