Is it the 62mm or 67mm filter size version?
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Self enabled
While browsing one of our local camera shops today
Subject: RE: Self enabled
Is it the 62mm or 67mm filter size version?
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Self enabled
While
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Glover
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Self enabled
The third version, the f/2.8-4.0, is the one I have and it is quite good
lens. It seems to be very under-rated too from what I've read on Bob
It's the 62mm version supposedly built by Tokina.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: Self enabled
Is it the 62mm or 67mm filter size version?
Kent
John wrote:
The third version, the f/2.8-4.0, is the one I have and it is quite good
lens. It seems to be very under-rated too from what I've read on Bob
Monahagn's website (http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/cult.html#steve).
I suppose that is because of the variable aperture perhaps.
, there is a good discussion of the Vivitar
Series 1's lens and this web site gives a nice history of them.Anyone know where I
SR1 200/3.0? :)
John
- Original Message -
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Self enabled
of the
24mm or 20mm.
Why recommend the 24 over the 20? My leaning has been to make the 20 my
first choice. Is there something I'm not thinking about here?
Attachment Converted: "e:\eudora\attach\RE Self enabled a F 100 22.8 M"
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To u
a filter to.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Thornsberry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:31 PM
To:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Self enabled a F 100 2.8 Macro
OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welcome all feedback and recommendations.
1) FA 24/2.0
4) FA* 80-200/2.8 - This is one I really want but rarely turns up used.
(probably because it is a good lens to have) I haven't checked third party
options on this one but may to save a few .
That's an expensive lens, but very good. You could get a slower lens and
save some money for other
-
From: Kevin Thornsberry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:31 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:RE: Self enabled a F 100 2.8 Macro
OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welcome all feedback and recommendations.
1) FA 24/2.0 or FA 20/2.8 or FA 20-35/4
OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welcome all feedback and recommendations.
1) FA 24/2.0 or FA 20/2.8 or FA 20-35/4 - Autofocus not mandatory but desired
2) FA 50/1.7 - Already have this one.
3) F or FA Macro 100/2.8 - F model to arrive in a couple of days.
4) FA* 80-200/2.8 - This is one
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 at 08:04:30 -0600, Kevin Thornsberry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I just
made my first used lens purchase, a Pentax F 100 2.8 Macro from KEH.
I can't wait for it to arrive. I've been doing most of my
photography with a Pentax FA 28-200 zoom so I'm expecting a notable
Kevin Thornsberry writes:
I just made my first used lens purchase, a
Pentax F 100 2.8 Macro from KEH. I can't wait for it to arrive. I've been
doing most of my photography with a Pentax FA 28-200 zoom so I'm
expecting a notable difference in sharpness.
I have the FA version of this lens
13 matches
Mail list logo
