It's a zoom, you make allowances.
Peter Lacus wrote:
> Paul,
>
>
>> The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
>> Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
>>
>
> if 3.5 is slow as a crippled mule, how would you characterize for
> e
I can't say for sure, but I would guess that they are the same.
Paul
On Jan 26, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:
> On 1/25/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
>> Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. B
On 1/25/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
> Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
Is that the same optical formula as the Super Takumar/SMC Takumar
28/3.5? If so, I should pull mine
I expect slow in a zoom. Primes should be fast. But I'm being a bit
facetious in regard to the 28/3.5. I really like the lens. In fact,
I'm going to make a point of using it this weekend. It's been in the
box far too long. By the way, the DA 16-45/4 may well be my most used
lens.
Paul
On Ja
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Peter Lacus wrote:
>> The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
>> Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
>
> if 3.5 is slow as a crippled mule, how would you characterize for
> example 16-45/4 zoom?
Err, a mid-(price
On 27/01/07, Peter Lacus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> > The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
> > Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
>
> if 3.5 is slow as a crippled mule, how would you characterize for
> example 16-45/4 z
Paul,
> The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
> Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
if 3.5 is slow as a crippled mule, how would you characterize for
example 16-45/4 zoom?
Cheers,
Peter
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: 26 January, 2007 2:17 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Pentax FA28/2.8 AL vs FA35/2 AL lenses: how do
> they compare?
>
> ... The FA28/2.8 is just fine, and a better match to the
>
On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Pancho Hasselbach wrote:
> ... By which means is the A28/2 a "fine performer", had you
> opportunity to
> see pictures, probably in comparison to other Pentax 28s?
I've seen a couple of small prints, nothing that I could point to and
say "it's fantastically bette
There's no special reason for writing this way.
By which means is the A28/2 a "fine performer", had you opportunity to
see pictures, probably in comparison to other Pentax 28s?
I could possibly get one, but for a terrible amount of money.
Pancho
Godfrey DiGiorgi schrieb:
> You're welcome, Pancho
It's called photofstopdyslexia.
Tom C.
>From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Pentax FA28/2.8 AL vs FA35/2 AL lenses: how do they compare?
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:10:58 -0800
The K 28/3.5 might be the sharpest and best resolving 28 of them all.
Unfortunately, it's as slow as a crippled mule. But I still use mine.
Paul
On Jan 25, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> You're welcome, Pancho.
>
> Why do you write the lens name reversed from how nearly everyone els
You're welcome, Pancho.
Why do you write the lens name reversed from how nearly everyone else
writes it?
The full lens name is "smc Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL" normally
shortened to FA28/2.8 ...
FA 2.8/28 is confusing.
From what I've heard, the A28/2 is a fine performer, but I have only
heard
Thanks for sharing, Godfrey.
Just put hands on an FA 2.8/28, from a seller offering one on ebay, from
which I know he also runs an online shop, often with really similar offers.
BTW, does anybody know how A 2/28 performs, as well on film as on
silicon? Stan's site says nothing about it, it seem
Thank you. What I really want is a DA 28mm f/2 Limited ... something
about the size of the current FA28/2.8 but optimized for the 16x24
format should be able to make it. :-)
G
On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:09 AM, Henk Terhell wrote:
> Godfrey, interesting study. Wished there was a DA 28/2.8 AL.
--
Godfrey, interesting study. Wished there was a DA 28/2.8 AL.
Henk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: 24 January, 2007 10:35 PM
To: PDML List; SeePhoto Talk
Subject: Pentax FA28/2.8 AL vs FA35/2 AL lenses: how do they c
16 matches
Mail list logo
