On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, John Francis wrote:
> John Glover wrote:
> >
> > Ya know, there is this 300/4..
>
> Why stop there? The 300/2.8 is a great lens ...
Exactly. That's why you need to get both, for the times when you need the
speed and the times you could use the small size.
ch
John Glover wrote:
>
> Ya know, there is this 300/4..
Why stop there? The 300/2.8 is a great lens ...
--
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)932-0828 (Fax) Mounta
Ya know, there is this 300/4..
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Too Many Lenses (Was; Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?)
> your comp
Definitely, I can quit ANY time I want to.www.ebay.com...
e...forget that last comment! LOL
John
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plast
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
> You have a PZ-1p? Sheesh... you lucky person! You just managed to pi
Raimo wrote:
> BTW do you have any information about Canon using plastic elements in SLR
> lenses in the ´seventies?
Actually, it wasn't a plastic element that caused all the controversy. It
was a plastic band that wrapped around the circumference of several (two or
three) elements to hold them
Let's not forget that A* 85/1.4 has the second best MTF wide open
among all lenses tested by photodo. Some primes don't even reach
it at their middle apertures!
Servus, Alin
Paal wrote:
PJ> I've never seen a F:1.someting that was sharp at those wide apertures.
Ed wrote:
EM> Just for t
Mike, I'm not sure I could read "The 37th Frame" without being prepared
by Bruce Barnbaum discovering he has to crank up the contrast a grade
and then get the pot ferri out!
Scary thought...
Colin
Mike Johnston wrote:
> I'm actually considering publishing a small newsletter, which I'm planning
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 29, 2001 12:53 PM
Subject: Limited lenses design philosophy (WAS: Plastic Crap
Lenses or High-Tech Precision?)
>
> Bob S wrote:
>
> "Is it for simila
Bob S wrote:
"Is it for similar reasons that the limited lenses (43mm & 77mm) are
outrageously expensive? They seem to be extraordinarily well made and modern
compromises to hold the price down seem infrequent in their design. But
there are also some nagging questions about how sharp they a
Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
>Raimo wrote:
>
>> What do you mean with the statement "it's the least accurate" - we are talking
>> about very small tolerances, about 1/1000 of millimetres here. The polymer
>> layers are that thin. Do you have any da
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Excellent, excellent! Indeed, a good lens IS a work of art.
>
> I'm very pleased by the enabling work going on here. You all are really
> catching on. We are all here to help each other.
I'm still waiting for a GLC (Grumpy Lens Curmudgeon) to jump in
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for a GLC (Grumpy Lens Curmudgeon) to jump in and remind
> us that all we *really* need is an old Spotmatic with the 55/1.8... and
> even that newfangled "meter thing" should be viewed with a little
> suspicion.
That's Shel's job, but he's busy sorting
John wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new purchase of an
> FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this now makes an even dozen
> lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
Of course, a baker's dozen is even better...
Cheers,
Boz
-
This message i
Mike Johnston wrote:
>I'm actually considering publishing a small newsletter, which I'm
>planning to call "The 37th Frame" after my old column in _PT_. I
>won't accept advertising and the purpose will be to counteract
>the influence of advertisers, by being (ahem) somewhat irreverent
>when it come
Frantisek wrote:
> So, that's the famous "freedom of speech" ;-) Was it one British
> journalist who said sometime about half last century (20th) that 'freedom
> of speech [in Britain] is freedom to print anything the advertisers don't
> object to'. Seriously, it's a major fault of all our photo
> > On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new purchase
>of an FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this now makes an
>even dozen lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
> >
> > Perhaps a brief word or two from the Lens Purchasing Enablers could make
>me feel
John wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new purchase of an
> FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this now makes an even dozen
> lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
John,
Yes, absolutely, an even dozen would make MUCH more sense than an od
John Glover wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new
> purchase of an FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this
> now makes an even dozen lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
>
> Perhaps a brief word or two from the Lens Purchasing Enablers c
chris wrote:
> Look at it this way... a good lens will last a lifetime. For a lousy few
> hundred, you now have an excellent work of art that will help you take
> beautiful photographs for as long as you want to keep it. And you know
> that you deserve it. :)
>
> How's that for a start?
Exc
Shel,
Sorry to be so long in responding. Photographic prostitute that I am,
I sold myself for the evening to shoot some Super Bowl reaction art
for the local paper.
So, where were we? Ah, yes.
I wasn't trying to introduce a red herring, rather I lost sight of
your original question, which I
At 12:34 28.1.2001 -0600, Mike wrote:
>I started researching an article about 50/1.4's a couple of years ago and it
>was estimated by a couple of my sources that if the Super-Multi-Coated
>Takumar 50mm f/1.4 M42 screwmount lens were manufactured and marketed today,
>it would have to be sold for be
Hopefully Shel, I'll make it a baker's dozen soon...and throw caution to the wind!
John
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Plastic Cr
2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Too Many Lenses (Was; Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?)
> John
>
> You have far too many lenses!!! You should be ashamed of yourself! People
> in China are starving! (For lenses!) The only way to true salvation for you
> is to voluntarily rid y
Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
> Well, I'm not an LPE, nor do I play one in movies, but here's something to
> th
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new purchase
of an FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this now makes an
even dozen lenses f
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, John Glover wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new
> purchase of an FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this
> now makes an even dozen lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
>
> Perhaps a brief word or two from the Lens P
ld make me feel
better.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
> A good deal of what I've heard about
John Glover wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I
> need to feel good about my new
> purchase of an FA 28-105 power
> zoom lenscould it be the fact
> this now makes an even dozen lenses
> for me, could that make it right?? :)
Although not a Lens Purchasing Enabler (too busy fighting
Raimo wrote:
> What do you mean with the statement "it's the least accurate" - we are talking
> about very small tolerances, about 1/1000 of millimetres here. The polymer
> layers are that thin. Do you have any data to verify your conclusions?
Raimo,
No, I'm a journalist, not a scientist, so I h
On 28 Jan 2001, at 8:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> It's pretty well acknowledged that Leica used aspherical glass
> elements in some of their early ASPH lenses. They were ground
> glass, and as you said, quite expensive to make. IOW, the
> technology was there early on to make such elements, or
>
On 28 Jan 2001, at 11:00, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Would knowing of the amount of polymers in your lenses affect the way
> you view photos you've taken with them? Would you suddenly have less
> confidence in their ability to do what lenses do? Would they become
> less sharp, less flare resistant,
]>
Päivä: 28. tammikuuta 2001 18:05
Aihe: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
It's the least accurate but also the
>cheapest method of manufacturing an aspheric element, most often found in
>"consumer grade" zooms.
>
-
This message is from the Pe
At 11:00 28.1.2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Would knowing of the amount of polymers in your lenses affect the way
>you view photos you've taken with them? Would you suddenly have less
>confidence in their ability to do what lenses do? Would they become
>less sharp, less flare resistant, less able to
> Mike makes some very good points on cost. I think of what I paid for my
> first ME camera in '76 and the new body doesn't seem so expensive...
Neither
> do the limited lenses.
Yes, it's much easier and less expensive to let a computer chip take care of
things than to design and assemble the c
Mike Johnston wrote:
>The point of the article was that for a time, manufacturers poured all their
>expertise and effort into making products _better_, and then, at a certain
>point, they started devoting more and more of their expertise and effort
>into making products _cheaper_. Both require s
Mike ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
<< I started researching an article about 50/1.4's a couple of years
ago and it was estimated by a couple of my sources that if the
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f/1.4 M42 screwmount lens
were manufactured and marketed today, it would have to be sold
for bet
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: January 28, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
>
> Yes, I'd have less confidence in them, as it's not been shown
>
Doug Brewer wrote:
>
> Would knowing of the amount of polymers
> in your lenses affect the way you view
> photos you've taken with them? Would you
> suddenly have less confidence in their
> ability to do what lenses do? Would they
> become less sharp, less flare resistant,
> less able to ga
Doug Brewer wrote:
> Now, to the sentiment: Stratification
> of lenses aren't really a new
> concept. The K-mount Takumars are
> widely agreed to be "budget"
> efforts, with all the shortcomings
> attendant with the word, are they
> not? How long ago did they appear on
> the market?
You're c
Doug wrote:
> Pentax, according to the info I've read, doesn't use plastic
> "elements" in their lenses. What they have done, in efforts to
> achieve Aspheric shapes, is to mould a =surface=, which is then
> cemented to a regular glass element...[snip some other good info]
Doug,
Indeed. There ar
Hmmm. I'll look around and see what I can find.
Doug
At 10:01 PM +13001/28/01, David A. Mann caused thus to appear:
>
> This stuff is interesting... do you have any good links to websites
>about lens
>design and manufacturing processes, without going into too much
>technical/mathematical det
Would knowing of the amount of polymers in your lenses affect the way
you view photos you've taken with them? Would you suddenly have less
confidence in their ability to do what lenses do? Would they become
less sharp, less flare resistant, less able to gather light?
Doug
At 9:51 PM +10001/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Brewer
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 6:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
>
>
> Shel, you don't reall
On 27 Jan 2001, at 14:47, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Does anyone
> who might know something about the use of of plastic lenses or
> plastic lens elements care to comment on their long term
> durability and optical performance? Will they hold up for forty
> or fifty years like our beloved Takumars an
Hi,
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Doug Brewer wrote:
>>
>> Shel, you don't really think the old
>> Takumars weren't built to a price point,
>> do you?
> Right after I sent that I realized that, although I knew what I
> meant, I could have phrased it better. What I was attempting to
> say is that,
TECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 28. tammikuuta 2001 5:36
Aihe: Re: Plastic Crap Lenses or High-Tech Precision?
>I was told that the first Canon
>lens to incorporate a plastic element was the old FD-mount 50/1.8
>that came out with the AE-1, and they have regularly used plastic
&g
Shel,
I figured it was just an awkwardly-phrased thought. Thanks for the
clarification.
Now, to the sentiment: Stratification of lenses aren't really a new
concept. The K-mount Takumars are widely agreed to be "budget"
efforts, with all the shortcomings attendant with the word, are they
not?
Doug Brewer wrote:
>
> Shel, you don't really think the old
> Takumars weren't built to a price point,
> do you?
Right after I sent that I realized that, although I knew what I
meant, I could have phrased it better. What I was attempting to
say is that, in the past, there was only one grade o
49 matches
Mail list logo
