gt;
>Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>
>
> > Of course not, Len! You must be aware of that that Pentax
>manufactures
> > black FA43/1.9's only to enhance image quality.
> >
> > Peter
>-
>This message is
At 11:51 AM 8/13/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>The focal range you mention works out well. The 135 would probably not get
>used as much, in my opinion. I tend to carry the longer focal lengths but
>find their use is minimal in my case.
Sorry this is a bit delayed but I was out-of-town this
Well, at least I'm not the only one. Some quotes from Stan's site regarding
various lenses:
Paul Stregevsky - And it feels oh so nice in the hand. . .
Paul Stenquist - The focus feel and aperture ring movement are very nice.
Mike Wilson - Feels good when it is new...
Ralf - manual focus fe
I'd like to have one of those! If only to enhance the
aesthetics of my PZ-1p. ;-)
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>
that counts most. Right?
>
>Len
>---
>- Original Message -
>From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 2:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
>
>
>> The FA43/1.9 is an au
> It's not the appearance that counts the most. It's the feel of
> the focus ring.
Amen. ;-)
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org
On 17 Aug 2002 at 10:41, Len Paris wrote:
> Considering that I've heard all that stuff right here in the
> PDML for years, it's no wonder I'm begining to spout the party
> line. And, of course, you're right. It's not the appearance
> that counts the most. It's the feel of the focus ring.
>
>
count the least is the imaging performance.
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Len Paris
- Original Message -
From: Len Paris
Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
> The oddness doesn't seem to hurt the sharpness of the images
> taken with that particular combination but I understand that
> it's the appearance that counts most. Right?
Hmmm, Len you s
D]>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
> The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use
manually on an LX
> too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a
black body)?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
>The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX
>too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)?
I don't have the LX anymore but I like it on my MX. :)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Join t
On 17 Aug 2002 at 9:25, Peter Smekal wrote:
> The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX
> too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)?
Well I don't know about joy but it's far more easy to use than the 40mm
"Pancake" lens IMHO (I have bo
The FA43/1.9 is an autofocus-lense. Is it a joy to use manually on an LX
too (besides the possibly odd look of a silver lense on a black body)?
>>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so
>>favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression?
>
>I had one. Personally
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8,
300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135
or 150. >>
Stan,
A very small kit if you used the M20/4, M40/2.8, M85/2, and M150/3.5. I've
also used the back t
>A nice slightly odd-ball kit I have tried is 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/2.8
macro, 85/1.8.
>A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8,
>300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135
>or 150.
>Stan
150... 3.5?
About your variation, S
> From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: Lenses in the field (2)
[In reference to the 40mm lens]
> It's a perfect match for MX or ME-S. I use it with MX and love it. Very
> sharp. Very natural field of view -- a pe
>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so
>favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression?
The "newer" comments say "I don't know why this lens is said to be a
so-so performer, etc..." There must have been one "so-so" comment
that have gone a long way. It is
>As to the 40mm some of the comments on that lense have not been so
>favourable. Have you tested it? What's your impression?
I had one. Personally, I don't like this lens too much for the fact that
it's focus ring is too thin. Never managed to grip the focus ring fast
enough without actually lo
>What is your experience. Would one lack the 50mm when taking a 24-35-85
>combo? And in what situations?
Not for me. Besides, there are always some holes when using a set of primes.
24/35/85 looks ok to me.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
S
Any suggestions as to brands or so for such a flash, Andre? I have an old
Braun 260BC that still works. It's not LX-dedicated, but should work
together with it in its automatic mode. That would not be TTL though, but
as a "life saver" ... it might work.
>And think about a tiny & powerfull (20GN)
Sorry this reply is rather late - I could receive and read the PDML while
in Oslo, but could not post (or send any email) for various reasons
>Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to
>Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some
>photo
You might need the 1.4 of your 50mm lens.
Another combo is 24-40-85. The 40mm (actually it is a 41/42mm) is
very small, 2.8 like the 35mm. It can be found for less than 100$
sometimes, but usually not...
And think about a tiny & powerfull (20GN) flash that takes only 2AA
bateries. It could
Hi,
On 15 Aug 2002 at 15:01, Peter Smekal wrote:
> A few recommended a 35mm lense as an allround/workhorse lense - rather than
> a 50mm as far I understood. I have no 35mm, but could of course try to get
> one - in Sweden some 2.8's in good condition are not too difficult to find.
> What is your
On 14 Aug 2002 at 10:16, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Thank you Rob. May I then assume the true macro has a limited range,
> and will not go to infinity?
> I have used ordinary lenses that incorporate the lens motion to
> encompass a macro range, and do rather well, but have never owned a
> true macro l
Thank you Rob. May I then assume the true macro has a limited range,
and will not go to infinity?
I have used ordinary lenses that incorporate the lens motion to
encompass a macro range, and do rather well, but have never owned a
true macro lens.
For me that would be an excess, as the poor thing w
I would consider either a 20-35 or 28-70 plus a 100mm macro. The 20-35 is
great for interiors but that leaves quite a gap between 35 and 100. Perhaps
the 20-35, 50 (or 43) and the 100 macro.
Patrick
_
Join the worlds largest e-m
Oh my! What a difference!
And I thought the lenses for my Retina Reflex III were overly large...
keith whaley
Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 2002 at 7:51, Bob Walkden wrote:
>
> > I have 2 35/1.4s - one by Leica, the other by Carl Zeiss and it's a
> > lesson in the differences between RF an
Good morning, Peter,
What distinction do you hang on the word "true," in "true macro."
Must be a subtlety there that I'm not aware of. Or, more
likely, I've forgotten it's accepted meaning.
Peter Smekal wrote:
>
> Thanks guys for all these very constructive ideas.
> It seems to boil down to:
Hi Bob,
> John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s
This isnt the same guy as off the LUG is it?
> I could easily get by with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or similar.
Now Pentax just have to get around to making a 35/1.4! This is probaly the
only lense that i wish Pentax made, that they dont
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Lenses in the field
> Hi,
>
> as it 'appens, guys & gals, I have a book called "Visual Anthropology"
> by John Collier, who worked fo
On 13 Aug 2002 at 17:20, Peter Smekal wrote:
> Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to
> Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some
> photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes)
> but travel really light at the
Peter,
I'd take the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 M, 85/2.0 M and a AF280T or AF200T with the LX.
Do you have anything wider? I might consider a 28/3.5 K instead of the
24/2.8. And I might would love to try a 20/4 M with the 35-105/3.5 A as a
kit. I'd leave the 135/3.5 at home for sure.
Regards, Bob S.
When I'm traveling "light" I carry my MZ-S and three lenses, the FA*80-200,
FA*24/2.0 and the K15/3.5.
When I'm going "extra-light" I have an MX, FA28/2.8, 43/1.9 and 200/4.0.
Then "ultra-light" would be an MX with either an M28/3.5 or the 43/1.9 Limited.
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
>Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to
>Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some
>photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes)
>but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod.
>The
Having just returned from a field trip to France (uhm... not quite
anthropological, but your description is very close to what I did
there), I found that a tripod, 24/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.5 was enough
for 99.9% of what I tried to shoot ("people, houses, interiors,
decorations, landscapes"). Ok, I
Hi,
as it 'appens, guys & gals, I have a book called "Visual Anthropology"
by John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s and has taught and
published widely on this very subject. The book was first published in
1967 but mine is a 1992 edition, so it's not particularly out of date.
He like
If I'm traveling really light, it would be my MZ-S with the 28-105 zoom and
the AF360 flash. Probably would also leave the BG-10 grip on since AA
batteries are easier to come by than CR-2s.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
Peter,
The focal range you mention works out well. The 135 would probably not get
used as much, in my opinion. I tend to carry the longer focal lengths but
find their use is minimal in my case.
I would rather use the faster primes over the zoom. This way you still have
the ability to close th
38 matches
Mail list logo
