RE: Was it really worth that much?

That's OK, I was looking for an excuse to make a wisecrack anyway. ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? >

RE: Was it really worth that much?

day, December 16, 2004 6:32 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? > > > > > > It's a K lens Don. The M 85, which is much less expensive, is an 85/2. > > My SMCT version went for $270 a few months ago. > > Paul &g

RE: Was it really worth that much?

easily. Mine is just a ST and I love it, I consider $150 a bargain for the quality. Don > -Original Message- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? >

Re: Was it really worth that much?

It's a K lens Don. The M 85, which is much less expensive, is an 85/2. My SMCT version went for $270 a few months ago. Paul On Dec 16, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Actually, having had a "taste" of what this lens can do by using the ST 85/1.9, and having heard past prices, I was amazed

Re: Was it really worth that much?

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:04:29 -0600, William Robb wrote: > Actually, vacuum cleaners don't suck. They just creat an environment > allowing the Earth to blow. "There is no gravity, the Earth sucks." -- Anonymous TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Was it really worth that much?

- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? On 16/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: "Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? Actually, vacuum cleaners don't suck. They just creat an environme

Re: Was it really worth that much?

On 16/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: >"Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? Ask Wendy ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _

Re: Was it really worth that much?

On Dec 17, 2004, at 3:41 AM, Don Sanderson wrote: I said "candid", not "covert"! ;-) If you want covert, there's always this: This discussion got me looking on our lokal "eBay" and this was the first auction. ;-) Divide the "Kup teraz" (buy it n

RE: Was it really worth that much?

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > It's a K lens Don. The M 85, which is much less expensive, is an > 85/2. My

RE: Was it really worth that much?

o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > Doh. That was supposed to read, "With a 300, you can hide around > the corner." > Paul > > > > For candid portraits

RE: Was it really worth that much?

LOL, love 'em! Don > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > On 17 Dec 2004 at 1:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

RE: Was it really worth that much?

> > > > > -Original Message----- > > > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? > > > > > > >

RE: Was it really worth that much?

On 17 Dec 2004 at 1:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > For candid portraits I prefer something longer than 135. Even with an 85, > you're > only a half dozen feet away or so. With a e00, you can hide around the > corner:-). Paul Yes, even my AF200/2.8 with a 1.7 tc is too short on occasion :-P http

RE: Was it really worth that much?

keh. > (Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-) > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Was it really

RE: Was it really worth that much?

does a fine job on skin tones and I like the Bokeh. (Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Was it really

RE: Was it really worth that much?

On 16 Dec 2004 at 18:26, Don Sanderson wrote: > "Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? I don't know, the 77mm is Ok for me, bokeh is nice and smooth, wide open it's fine too, it may be too sharp for some though. I must admit that I'm a little confused over all this portrait len

Re: Was it really worth that much?

- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson"Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? "Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? bad. William Robb

RE: Was it really worth that much?

It's a K lens Don. The M 85, which is much less expensive, is an 85/2. My SMCT version went for $270 a few months ago. Paul > Actually, having had a "taste" of what this lens can do > by using the ST 85/1.9, and having heard past prices, > I was amazed it lasted almost 10 hours. > I wouldn't hav

RE: Was it really worth that much?

"Hoovers"? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad? Don > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? es to mind. >

Re: Was it really worth that much?

I've seen that lens go for even a bit more. And as good examples end up in the hands of those who will never part with them, it becomes more and more scarce. Paul On Dec 16, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&rd=1&item=3860946186&ssPag

Re: Was it really worth that much?

- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? From what I've seen it stacks up just fine. At $700.00 it stacks a bit to high for me though. :-( Actually, from the results I get with the 85/1.9 (Under $150.00) I don't know if

RE: Was it really worth that much?

Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: RE: Was it r

Re: Was it really worth that much?

To someone..(Seripak for example). Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3860946186&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks -- I can

Re: Was it really worth that much?

- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much? I WOULD give that much in a *heartbeat* for an A, F or FA version, if it was nearly as good! How does the 77 stack up? William Robb

RE: Was it really worth that much?

Candid portraits in real dim lighting anyone? Don (The fast 85 is your friend!) > -Original Message- > From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:23 PM > To: pentax-discuss > Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much? > A fast

Re: Was it really worth that much?

Consider also the prices of the 77mm ltd, the FA* 85 F1.4, and the nearly-unobtainable A* 85 F1.4. A fast 85 is a wonderful thing. --Mark Shel Belinkoff wrote: It wasn't that long ago that these lenses were selling for quite a bit more. $420.00 seems like a reasonable - almost bargain - pric

RE: Was it really worth that much?

Actually, having had a "taste" of what this lens can do by using the ST 85/1.9, and having heard past prices, I was amazed it lasted almost 10 hours. I wouldn't have paid that much for the M version when I could get the SMCT for much less. I don't find stop down operation much of a bother, you have

Re: Was it really worth that much?

It wasn't that long ago that these lenses were selling for quite a bit more. $420.00 seems like a reasonable - almost bargain - price to me. I sold two that needed repair for more that $350.00 each some time ago, and paid $600.00 plus for one that was in "mint" condition, also a few years back.

Re: Was it really worth that much?

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3860946186&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT Generic answer - Yes, if the buyer wants it that much. Specific answer - The K 85/1.8 ~is~ a gorgeous lens in all respects. Economics answer - Obviously (assuming that the buyer will come through). Fred

Re: Was it really worth that much?

On 16 Dec 2004 at 17:15, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3860946186&ssPageName=ST > RK:MEWA:IT "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The > closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks If "seripak" com

Re: Was it really worth that much?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:15:13 -0500, Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3860946186&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT I paid $160 for mine, brassed with perfect glass. Then, after three years of happy use it fell from my pocket when ridi