nne Salomonsen Picture with a pre-A lens (2.5/135mm). Out of
more than 100 shots (1½ GB of files), only 2 frames came out badly exposed
:-).
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Igor Roshchin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 20
t support the lenses who have one.
Sorry, Jens, this funny explanation does not withstand the test
of "F". :-)
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 4. september 2005 13:10
> Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Emne: Re: FA J
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. september 2005 13:10
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: FA J Lenses
Igor Roshchin wrote:
>Jalla Jalla means "faster faster". In Turkey it is a stomach complaint...
>
> :-)
>
Yes. I think it might also mean something like "come on&quo
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Jalla Jalla means "faster faster". In Turkey it is a stomach complaint...
:-)
Yes. I think it might also mean something like "come on". And there's
also a rather good film called "Jalla Jalla" - see
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=237129
Also, th
- Original Message -
From: "Igor Roshchin"
Subject: Re: FA J Lenses
The Almighty Google told me:
``Jalla Jalla means "faster faster". In Turkey it is a stomach
complaint...''
The feeling I get looking at pictures taken with Minolta glass.
HAR!!
WW
The Almighty Google told me:
``Jalla Jalla means "faster faster". In Turkey it is a stomach complaint...''
:-)
Igor
> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 05:23:51 -0700
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So why don't you explain it ...
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Orig
So why don't you explain it ...
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Toralf Lund
> >Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
> >
> >
> To repeat something I've said on the list earlier, I believe the "J" is
> short for "jalla", but that may not mean a lot to most of you...
>
> - T
Cool ... when are you there? I'm near Berkeley, so getting there's not an
issue. While I know the store, I'm unsure how far it is from the WC BART
station. Is it a reasonable walk?
I didn't realize Reed's carried Pentax gear. Every time I called asking if
an item was in stock, I was told it wa
>>Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down
>>from the much-admired FA20-35.
Otherwise, it's very good for the price.
Does that mean it's a very good lens?
Shel, what you should do is bring your camera into Reed's (I don't recall
where in the Bay Area you live, but Reed's is in Walnut
Does that mean it's a very good lens?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Celio
> >>Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down
> >>from the much-admired FA20-35.
> Otherwise, it's very good for the price.
Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down from the much-admired
FA20-35.
True, but it's a much better performer than its lightweight construction
would lead you to believe.
Agreed. It's by far my favorite lens on my D. My only complaint is the
lack of an aperture ring, meaning I can't
David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>> Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
>
>Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down from the much-admired
>FA20-35.
True, but it's a much better performer than its lightweight construction
would lead you to belie
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
To repeat something I've said on the list earlier, I believe the "J" is
short for "jalla", but that may not mean a lot to most of you...
- T
Yes & Yes.
Dave
On 8/30/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
>
>
> Shel
>
>
>
On Aug 29, 2005, at 11:16 PM, David Oswald wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down from the much-
admired FA20-35.
I would expect it to be. It's $160 vs $499.
Godfrey
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
Well, the FA-J 18-35 is definately a step down from the much-admired
FA20-35. The FA-J's were introduced as the first autofocus Pentax
lenses to lack an aperture ring. This was a cost saving measure, though
probab
On Jun 19, 2005, at 8:41 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
This brings me back to the FA J. Why not pick up the newer 18-35?
All hearsay as I've never touched an 18-35, but several people have
remarked to me that they had one and sold it as it wasn't very sharp
or satisfying to them with their f
Thank you, sir. Much appreciated.
On 6/19/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Thanks, Mark. In order to confirm or deny Bill's opinion, was that
> >with your *istD or a film body?
>
> ist-D.
>
>
> >On 6/19/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROT
Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thanks, Mark. In order to confirm or deny Bill's opinion, was that
>with your *istD or a film body?
ist-D.
>On 6/19/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Why not pick up the newer 18-35?
>> >
Thanks, Mark. In order to confirm or deny Bill's opinion, was that
with your *istD or a film body?
On 6/19/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why not pick up the newer 18-35?
> >Stan's is devoid of reviews on the FA J series. Do any of y
Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why not pick up the newer 18-35?
>Stan's is devoid of reviews on the FA J series. Do any of you have
>experience using the FA J series in general or the FA J 18-35
>specifically? If so, what are your thoughts?
I've used the FA-J 18-35 once, last year
Hi,
I've used FAJ 18-35 with my Z-1p. Not a top lens, but works well for the
money (come on, it's dirt cheap - I paid ~150USD for it new). Use closed
down to f8 diaphragm and original sunshade and it works OK.
I've also found, that good polarizer also enhances this lens quite a bit.
BR, Marg
- Original Message -
From: "Thibouille"
Subject: Re: FA J lenses
I heard it is quite deceiving and very soft at 18mm.
I had the 18-35 for a while, it came with my istD.
I let it go, because I don't like zooms on general principles.
I didn't notice any real iss
I heard it is quite deceiving and very soft at 18mm.
That said, the shop near me sells it at 200 euros which is stupidly
low IMO but is it enough to buy a lemon? dunno ...
2005/6/19, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Howdy, gang! I actually have something to say that's on topic for
> once. (
At 03:44 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote:
This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old
lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR?
Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical
performance that is more important in a le
I can´t see why, but I haven´t been around long enough to remember the
previous discussions.
Contrast and even distortion is possible to fix by software, in the
camera if the lens characteristics are stored there or in the lens CPU.
Chromatic aberrations are more difficult to cope with, as wel
You're reaching, and you it's unbecoming. The argument about special
digital lenses was disposed of long ago.
At 03:44 PM 6/10/03 +0200, you wrote:
Jens wrote:
> Hi Pål
> Speaking about digital phoitogrphy - isn't the limits to the possible
> resolution set be the CCD, rather than by the lens?
>
I believe digital lenses is Sigma marketing wording made up for
certain lenses (particularly wide angles) designed to project
parallel rays of light on the focus plane. Apparently the industry
is close to overcome this restriction with sensors less sensitive
to incident angle of lig
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist)
>
> I must therefore concude that the MZ-60 is a high-end body because
disposable cameras starts at $10.
Kind of puts to rest your credibility regarding exposure accuracy
William Robb
If you want to believe that so be it.
At 07:26 PM 6/9/03 +0200, you wrote:
Peter wrote:
> The only way you can make this case is to assume that a camera that costs
> between
> $1000.00 and $2000.00 is an entry level product. A Pentax 67 at B&H goes
> for a little
> more than $2000.00 and a Penta
The only way you can make this case is to assume that a camera that costs
between
$1000.00 and $2000.00 is an entry level product. A Pentax 67 at B&H goes
for a little
more than $2000.00 and a Pentax 645N II is a little less than $1900.00 the
next most expensive
Film camera sold by Pentax is th
Paal wrote:
> I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly entry level and
> that there will be no higher end FA-J lenses.
Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> I won't believe that for one second. When you (Pentax) remove
> diaphragm simulator from top end models (like the *ist D
> undoubtably currently
Rüdiger wrote:
> I do not believe that either. I have the impression, that a lot people on
> the list
> do not see what just happed at Pentax. Pentax means it can maximise
> the selling with incompatiblity. So if not only the MZ-60, *ist, *istD (and
> the
> two comming *ists next year) will not ne
I won't believe that for one second. When you (Pentax) remove diaphragm
simulator from top end models (like the *ist D undoubtably currently is),
removing aperture ring from your (Pentax) lens line is just a matter of
time.
Dario Bonazza
www.aohc.it
> REPLY:
> I've been told that the FA-J lenses
Sorry, but I was an optimist about K mount compatibility
on the last round, after reading the *ist manual I really
thought that the lens mount might be crippled because of
software not hardware. I was wrong. Yes I would like to
believe that the FAJ lenses are only for the low end, that
the right
Are you sure the other Gods do understand English? :-)
The Gods in question speak fluent japanese :o)
Then the Gods must be punishing us PDML members by not praying in Japanese.
:-)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced
When a situation like this presents it'self. You hope
Pal is right, the averages are in out favour and you
Pray to every God there is ( and then some, leave no
stone unturned ) that it will only be a low end lens.
--- Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
I wouldn't give thanks until this is
I wouldn't give thanks until this is proven out. So far
Pål only bats in US major league averages when predicting.
At 04:01 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Thank GOD, and all the other Gods for that.
--- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >
I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly
> ent
Thank GOD, and all the other Gods for that.
--- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >
I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly
> entry level and that there will be no higher end
> FA-J lenses.
>
> Pål
>
__
Post
39 matches
Mail list logo
