- Original Message -
From: Larry Cook
Subject: AF Performance (Was: Re: Opinions about 80-200 f2.8 zooms)
So the answer is that the camera possess the algorithms for AF but
the performance is based both on the algorithms and how responsive
the lens mechanism is? If that is correct
I understand that circumstances can stymie focusing but what I was
concerned about were reviews that talk about a particular lens' inabilty
to focus well or that it hunts more than another lens. Currently I have
all manual focus lenses and I am trying to determine if an AF lens would
be better
Many people have reported some Sigma lenses took longer to lock focus (tend
to hunt more). It seems that the distance and focal length data are required
for AF as well, and those data are held by a chip inside the AF lenses.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
So the answer is that the
Hi Larry.
Welcome aboard. I snipped your post a tad.
Cannot speak for the Pentax version as i dont have one, yet, but i do a lot of
equestrian
work with my
Nikon f2.8 and it works out very well.I;'d have to say atleast 97-98% usable,well
focused
shots from it.
If i am following a Dressage
Gianfranco queried:
How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on
the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs
almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer.
It handles fine. The zoom ring is quite large and easy. The focus ring
seems fine to me. I don't
on 02.07.04 16:54, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys and gals,
I'm in the mood to purchase a 16-45, but I'd like to hear some
first hand experiences from those who own it and made a side by
side comparison with at least one of the lenses above.
I recall somebody said
Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the
excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper
than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My
impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as
The 43 is widely known to be soft wide-open
-That Guy
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Giafranco,
Hi Sylwek,
I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in
this link (just
use translator like babelfish):
http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html
Thanks!! I was looking for something of that kind too. And I'm
even able
jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it
formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in
that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I
have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My
impression is that the DA 16-45
OK, I have been looking for a nice SMC-A 35mm f/2 for a long time ...
for those who have said they own one and hardly ever use it, will you
consider selling it? Give me a price, or let me know what you may be
looking for in trade.
Joe
RE:
Haven't used the K 30 f/2.8, but I do own the A35 f/2.
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
You don't have a 31LTD then?
Well, yes.
But thats why I am no longer looking for a 30mm lens.
William Robb
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:07:25 -0400
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opinions: A35/2 vs K30/2.8
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed
Not a lot of answers... The A lens is certainly an uncommon
On 12 Jul 2003 at 7:23, Dag T wrote:
My A version of the lens is very nice.
I'll take this opportunity to not so subtly plug my current eBay auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2940154723
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
I own the A 35/2.8, which is supposed to be the same optic. As others have pointed
out, it is not a stellar lens but perfectly OK. About par with a decent zoom,
something that probably explains the popularity of zoom lenses.
Pål
Hi,
My buddy has one, I have used it a few times and informally compared it to
the K30/2.8 and Super Takumar 35/3.5. It is a reasonably sharp lens,
though not outstanding, about on par with the FA28-70/4 at middle apertures.
It is ok wide open. It exhibits a warm color balance (in comparison to
Peter Spiro wrote:
35mm is my favorite focal length, and at one time or another I have
tried almost all of them, and I have posted some comparisons at
http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/infinitytest.htm
I found something intriguing there. You were using this method:
The film photos were printed
I had the A35/2.8 which was said to be identical to the M. I did some
landscape shots with it and thought it wasn't particular sharp as a prime
lens.
regards,
Alan Chan
I am about to buy the above lens in Excellent condition from KEH.
Well, as a matter of fact a friend of mine is about to buy
I would like to point out that this A was better built than the M which
might have aging spring. I stripped down both before. This A has metal
aperture ring, not plastic.
regards,
Alan Chan
I am about to buy the above lens in Excellent condition from KEH.
Well, as a matter of fact a friend of
Hi!
MI i used to have one (from ebay), until its diafragm stuck. then i
MI sold it on ebay for what i paid originally (although i did warn
MI the buyer).
MI the lens is fine. i have 35/2 now, and except the weight and the
MI price, i'm not sure there's a lot of difference.
MI i have just looked
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
I would second this. I researched this lens because I was
seriously
considering it second hand. The build
For some reason, I was thinking of the f1.8. I concur, $100 is way too much
for the 2.8.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Opinions
Hi!
I think you've convinced me. I am passing this one on. Unless of
course just a few shots I've made with it come out astoundingly good.
Then I will have to reconsider. But being able to see the distortion
in the viewfinder of my ME Super makes me think that above possibility
is rather remote.
Shoot a slide of a brick wall with it. If it is equaly sharp in all four
corners, buy it. If not pass on it.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:02 AM
Also, does the price of $90 seem fair/bairgain or not that good (I don't
think so)?
ukasz
===
www.fotopolis.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
internetowy magazyn o fotografii
- Original Message -
From: ukasz
Anything less then 28mm in a zoom is going to cost you the big
bucks.better buy it before I do...and if you don't email me the link off
list ok?
- Original Message -
From: ukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re
Anything less then 28mm in a zoom is going to cost you the big
bucks.better buy it before I do...and if you don't email me the link
off
list ok?
Too late, Taz - couldn't stand the pressure and bought it :-)
The lens was listed on a Polish auction site with a BIN price of the
equivalent of
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan
Subject: Re: opinions on A 24-50/4 needed quick!!!
I just wish they don't leave my packages on the doorstep, quietly...
This is a truly annoying habit they have. I came home from work one day to
find a box stuffed in my mailbox, another larger box
On Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003, at 18:53 US/Pacific,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wish they don't leave my packages on the doorstep, quietly...
My UPS driver is equally annoying. In the absence of a written notice
pleading with him to ring my unit, he'll leave a UPS spoor (aka a
post-it note
ukasz Kacperczyk a crit:
The subject says it all. I really need this info quick - I found only one
opinion on Stan's site.
In France 120 EUR (+/- 120 $), so 90 = good price.
Michel
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:41:08 -0800 (PST), Peter Jansen wrote:
I find with my F-300mm f4.5 and Z1p that I have to use
the 2s mirror-up at speeds as high as 1/125 or even
1/180.
Luckily, I'm typically shooting in bright overcast or daylight, so it's
not usually a problem to get at least 1/250
Hi David,
I guess you haven't tried it with Provia or Velvia
locked on a solid tripod head with mirror lockup?
If you got one great, sharp photo, then you will get
more, since your technique may be at fault. It's very,
very hard to get sharp, hand held tele photos, eben at
high shutter speeds.
I believe it is 10 feet.
And yes a Pentax 300mm f2.8 is on my very short list,
though getting Pentax 1.4XL 2XL + the 1.7 AF
converters can be another $400-600.
: )
Peter
--- Paul Franklin Stregevsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter,
I'm sending you my collected comments on the Pentax
Peter Jansen wrote:
Does anyone have experience with the FA* 400mm f5.6 ED
(IF) lens (for 35mm)? How does the quality compare to
the FA* 300mm f4.5 ED (IF)? How about with the A
1.4X-S converter?
I have the FA*400mm f/5.6 and the F*300mm f/4.5 (optically identical to
the FA*). I haven't
I do have the F* 300mm ED(IF) I love it agree it
is one of the best. It works well with the 1.4x-S
converter, but it can be a pain to focus manually
(f6.3). I'm a little spoiled by AF.
Perhaps I should look at the old Tamron SP f4 with a
1.4x, or bite the bullet and get the FA* 300mm f2.8
with
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:16:21 +1300, David Mann wrote:
My sample of the 400mm isn't quite as sharp as I'd like, although
I may be expecting a bit much.
You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires
significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still
climbing its
You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires
significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still
climbing its learning curve.
Perhaps a giant Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss head will help a bit?
Oh... you will need super low vibration body like ME Super or MX
On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:32:13 -0800, Alan Chan wrote:
You might be. I've found that 400 mm focal length requires
significantly better technique than a 200 or 300 mm lens. I'm still
climbing its learning curve.
Perhaps a giant Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss head will help a bit?
I find with my F-300mm f4.5 and Z1p that I have to use
the 2s mirror-up at speeds as high as 1/125 or even
1/180. When I first got the F-300mm f4.5, I thought it
was somewhat soft wide open. But I soon found out that
it was that darn Z1p mirror slap and slower speeds. I
later got a MZ-S I can go
The MZ-S has WAY less vibration than the ME Super (I
have one). It's has the softest shutter/mirror slap
that I've ever tried. Give one a spin. Actually you
might want one after that...
Care to let me try yours? I promise I'll return it. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
Hey there, I have one of these. If Pentax doesn't get the DSLR to
market pretty soon it'll belong to Bruce.
To answer your questions:
- The manual focus ring is as bad as anything out there.
- BokehI'm not sure. I've shot a few things with it wide open, but
not a lot. Here are some examples:
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Opinions on FA 100/3.5 Macro
Hey there, I have one of these. If Pentax doesn't get the DSLR to
market pretty soon it'll belong to Bruce.
snip between
-Original Message-
From: ukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wow - thanks, Tom! That's what I call an exhaustive answer.
I have to try and balance out the OT crap I post here.
tv
It depends on whether you like or need the extra warmth. Alternatives
are to use a warmer film, or add warmth to your liking in a photo
editing program (if you are set up for digital).
Joe
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:48, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Here's my opinion on TC's:
They Suck compared to real primes at the desired
focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have
one for 6X7 that degrades quality just like the
35mm ones do but at least with 6X7 the quality
level is still
At 12:52 PM 12/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the
PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How
do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5
and a 50/1.7.
I used it with both of
Subject: RE: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:48, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Here's my opinion on TC's:
They Suck compared to real primes at the desired
focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have
one for 6X7 that degrades quality
At 01:26 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, JCO wrote:
( hint,
for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ).
JCO
Did you say hint because you're about to put them all on ebay or did you
mean to say boast
Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com
Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was agressive because I wanted my point to be HARD. TCs are
only good if you want to travel light and are willing to accept
soft, lower contrast images. 35mm photography is borderline
]
Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
At 01:26 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, JCO wrote:
( hint,
for 35mm I have everything from 15 to 1000mm ).
JCO
Did you say hint because you're about to put them all on ebay
or did you
mean to say boast
Wendy Beard
John (JCO),
I hear you on TC's. I've never been a big fan of them, but...
It's Gymnastics season and for the last 3 meets, I've dragged the camera
along.
The gym is dark. The stands are a long way from the vault, bars, beam and
floor.
Even with the A135/1.8 and 800 Fuji film, things are tough
In a message dated 12/11/02 3:59:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the
PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How
do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5
and a 50/1.7.
The only time I find myself using a teleconverter is when I need something
longer than my 300/2.8 (in other words, when there's no alternative for me!)
I think this means I'm agreeing with JCO, but I'm not sure ;)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only time I find myself using a teleconverter is when I need something
longer than my 300/2.8 (in other words, when there's no alternative for
me!)
I think this means I'm agreeing with JCO, but I'm not sure ;)
--
Mark Roberts
he says you
Hi, Bob.
Does anyone know how it compares to the A 2X-S or L ? ...or the
Vivitar 2X Fred mentioned?
I've never compared the Vivitar Macro-Focusing TC with the A 2X-L,
but I have shot it side-by-side (on an A* 300/4) with the A 2X-S and
the T6-2X, and I've found the three TC's to be quite
Scott, I don't have a good 2xTC, so this is the opinion of
the poor folk. I do have a Tamron 2x (4 element) and a Tokina
2x (7 element) and the Vivitar. I'd pick the Vivitar any day
of the week. The built-in extension is useful, and it's well
made, and it gives me pleasing shots.
-Lon
Scott
It's cheap ($80 on ebay) and it rocks. There's even an A version so you
won't lose program mode if that matters to you. I don't have any examples to
show you at the moment, but others on the list may have some. Note that it
will siphon away two stops of light, so that 135/3.5 is going to be
At 12:52 PM -0800 12/11/02, Scott Nelson wrote:
I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the
PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How
do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5
and a 50/1.7.
-Scott
I picked
Here's my opinion on TC's:
They Suck compared to real primes at the desired
focal length. Especially for 35mm use. I have
one for 6X7 that degrades quality just like the
35mm ones do but at least with 6X7 the quality
level is still acceptable. 35mm Lenses are cheap,
why not just buy the focal
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Adam wrote:
In search of the list wisdom...
I am considering enabling me with a 35mm wide for my 645, and
would like to get the views of the list users who have used this
manual focus lens:
How good is it wide open?
Very good.
How good is it at the
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:49:37 -0500
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michel Adam wrote:
In search of the list wisdom...
I am considering enabling me with a 35mm wide for
my 645, and
would like to get the views of the list users who
have used this manual focus lens:
How good is it wide
I have this lens, and I love it. Since I have my 24-90mm Pentax, I seem to be
using it more for Macro only, and less for general stuff. I can recommend it.
For portraiture, it could be too sharp according to a lot of peoples
opinions. I did notice one thing that is a bit less: flare. It is
I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro?
I've currently got the AF version, and I had the MF version prior to that.
Its a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack, and with excellent Bokeh (to
my poorly trained eye!). Also, the 1:1 without the use of tubes is quite handy!
It
I was wondering if anyone could provide an opinion on this Tamron
lens being used as a portrait lens? I'm thinking of taking the
plunge on a serious portrait lens (AF) for about $400.
I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro? [snip] Its
a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack,
Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
when doesn't this happen ? Only if the sun is at your back.
about my statement:
But there is a disadvantage: It has big troubles with flare.
If there is a light source not even in the picture area
but nearby you get tremendous flare.
Hi Paul,
I meant: if the
Bob, if you like the 24mm length like I do it was one
of my favorite lens until it stopped zooming. It is
very sharp at 24mm but with some vignetting at the
wider apertures. Sharpness falls at 70mm but it's
still contrasty. A great walking-around lens.
Warren
PS and a great buy at that price
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 01:23 PM, Brendan wrote:
DO NOT GET THAT SIGMA I have the 28-105 f2.8-4 and
it optically is very poor, a better choice would be
the cheaper 28-105 F4-5.6 sigma which is much better
and cheaper.
Heh, Brendan's 28-105 f2.8-4 makes lamp posts look like
John Leonard wrote:
...
I'm wondering whether that Sigma zoom is a bit too budget.
Probably, yes.
I'm tempted to
replace it with a 28-105 internal-focussing (I just HATE that filter ring
turning). Have considered Pentax, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.
I've been satisfied enough with the
From: John Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6
Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch
John,
Obviously, you are concerned with quality. Surprise your self and get
any of the used single focal
John wrote:
JL I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6
JL Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch
JL (particularly when the sun isn't shining) than ones I took on an MZ-50 with
JL standard Pentax 28-70 lens.
No wonder. This
In a message dated 4/15/2002 2:39:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6
Aspherical which I got with the camera. Photos seem to have less punch
(particularly when the sun isn't shining) than ones I took
The following Pentax zooms will fit your budget and are highly regarded:
FA 28-70 f4
FA Power Zoom 28-105 f4-5.6 (but try it first, as it is a heavy lens,
some feel too heavy on an MZ/ZX body)
FA 24-90 (new, and every zoom user seems to want one)
You might also look for:
FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5?
DO NOT GET THAT SIGMA I have the 28-105 f2.8-4 and
it optically is very poor, a better choice would be
the cheaper 28-105 F4-5.6 sigma which is much better
and cheaper.
--- John Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a Pentax MZ-5n which I use mostly with the
Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6
I have owned one of those lenses for 4 or 5 years now and I can't say any
thing bad about it. I think it is as good as any thing Pentax makes, and at
one forth the price. Build quality is the best. It is one of the sharpest
shooting lens made.
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek Vlcek
Wendy;
Try some Fuji Provia 100 or 400 (depending on what kind of speed you are
looking for. I like Velvia but it's VERY slow.
I've never tried photographing black subjects on a white background with the
LX or MX but I'm sure it would be difficult to say the least. I'd be tempted
to stop
David A. Mann wrote:
1- optical performance
It performs quite well at 1200 dpi, but the 2400 dpi interpolated mode
is...uh...well, kind of stinky. I don't see much of a difference
between a 1200dpi scan scaled up in Photoshop and one interpolated in
the scanner to 2400dpi.
I'm quite happy
You may want to reconsider the T1200, as I think there is at least one
better alternative.
The T1200 itself is a pretty good unit. Within the limits of its
specifications it performs well. With a bit of experimentation it will
produce good results with negatives and slides. The only complaint
401 - 477 of 477 matches
Mail list logo
