Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 17/10/07, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: >Think - >recreation ;-). What's that?!? For 22 years I was staff and had five paid week's holiday a year. I could ring in sick when I stubbed my toe. I had a 37.5 hour week with paid overtime at 1.5T and 2T on a Sunday! I got a Discovery

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

My statement was sardonic. I could not afford one even if it was at a bargain basement price, but I would sure want it. Precision optical rangefinders are expensive, especially in small quantity runs, so any such camera would not be all that cheap. If my C-5050Z had a great coupled optical rang

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Now why did I know that was what I was going to see? Annsan with the Cottycam. Nice shot, Dave. David Savage wrote: > On 10/17/07, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The L1 is not little, but a lot smaller than the >>> Canon 1D... >> Godzilla is

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Boris, You have to remember the mantra I learned as a 3 year old... "Office, Money, Toys" Regards, Bob S. On 10/17/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Evidently, kind sir, you spend too much time having your brain (and > sometimes the rest of you too) involved with your work. Think - >

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Evidently, kind sir, you spend too much time having your brain (and sometimes the rest of you too) involved with your work. Think - recreation ;-). On 10/17/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17/10/07, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >But Cotty, you gotta shoot with all this

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 17/10/07, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: >But Cotty, you gotta shoot with all this gear and then you gotta show us >pics! I know - I've been so busy recently with building a vehicle-based edit suite for the day job though. However, I *have* been photographing that ;-) -- Chee

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, Rick Womer, discombobulated, unleashed: >Godzilla is smaller than the Canon 1D. And you thought that was The Gardens in the film .. ;-))) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed: >SMC's typically have the same focus ring as the early K mount lenses. >It's the Super and Super-Multi-Coated takumars that have the earlier >knurled rings. Thanks. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >Before you ebay the lens, make sure you get some use out of it and >post the results. You might like it. If you happen to be in the smoke >before you ebay it I'd love to have a play with it and compare it with >the Oly lens. Academic. I have fast z

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: >I think they were made with both focus rings. The Supers had only the >milled rings but I've seen the SMC with the rubberized ring. Didn't know that. Ta. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 10/17/07, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The L1 is not little, but a lot smaller than the > > Canon 1D... > > Godzilla is smaller than the Canon 1D. It's not quite that bad but it sure does dwarf some people:

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Just before the demise of Film, (well not really demise, more like it's abandonment by big box stores, unless there's a canon nameplate on it), Sears regularly sold lower end Pentax ZX bodies. Doug Franklin wrote: > Boris Liberman wrote: > >> Cool. Now if only anyone would care to enable me w

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The L1 is not little, but a lot smaller than the > Canon 1D... Godzilla is smaller than the Canon 1D. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Can't help there, but I was at Fry's Electronics tonight and they > had a > K100D (or K110D, I don't recall), an FA 24-90 or something zoom, and a > smaller box marked "Accessory", but I couldn't tell what it was. That > was the first time I'

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Boris Liberman wrote: > Cool. Now if only anyone would care to enable me with FA 20/2.8 ;-). Can't help there, but I was at Fry's Electronics tonight and they had a K100D (or K110D, I don't recall), an FA 24-90 or something zoom, and a smaller box marked "Accessory", but I couldn't tell what it

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Cool. Now if only anyone would care to enable me with FA 20/2.8 ;-). But Cotty, you gotta shoot with all this gear and then you gotta show us pics! Cheers! Cotty wrote: > Hi gang, > > Just thought I'd mention that I have been enabled twice :-) > ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdm

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:49 PM, David Savage wrote: > I noticed a Leica mount Pentax 43mm Ltd. on you-know-where recently. If I could afford an M8 body, I'd buy that lens in a second. That and an Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH is all I'd want with the M8. Anyone got 10K to spare me? ;-) G -- PDML Pe

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

At 09:08 AM 17/10/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Cotty wrote: > > > I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica (or even Pentax for that matter ) > > would make a small digital rangefinder, like about this sort of > > size. > > > > > >

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

I've always liked the appearance of the Takumar lenses with the steel focus rings. I had the fisheye Tal at one time but sold it when I was raising funds for my D. On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:55 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Cotty wrote: > >> On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Bob W wrote: > and I already have a perfectly good 14-54mm lens. The rumoured E-3 is > due soon, so I'd have to save my pennies anyway. Supposed to be an announcement about the E-3 tomorrow ... > Before you ebay the lens, make sure you get some use out of it and > p

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Cotty wrote: > I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica (or even Pentax for that matter ) > would make a small digital rangefinder, like about this sort of > size. > > > > With Limited lenses it would be formidable. You and me b

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Cotty wrote: > On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> You would have been just as well served with the SMC T 17mm f 4.0, >> and >> could have avoided surgery, (you beast). > > I dislike the focus ring on these lenses. I prefer the later rubber

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Cotty wrote: > On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> You would have been just as well served with the SMC T 17mm f 4.0, and >> could have avoided surgery, (you beast). > > I dislike the focus ring on these lenses. I prefer the later rubber grips. > SMC's typically have th

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

I don't see why a Pentax or Oly one would be ridiculously priced. I suspect they could build one based on the K100D frame for a very reasonable cost. -Adam graywolf wrote: > I don't. It would make me sick knowing I could not afford one. > > Cotty wrote: > >> I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

I don't. It would make me sick knowing I could not afford one. Cotty wrote: > > I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica (or even Pentax for that matter ) > would make a small digital rangefinder, like about this sort of size. > > > > With Limited lenses i

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

Sorry to hear that, Cotty. Seems like problems are never ending. If you are wondering what that has to do with your post, I have to reply, "Not much" . Cotty wrote: > Hi gang, > > Just thought I'd mention that I have been enabled twice :-) > > Thanks to Godders for passing on a K17mm 3.5 fish

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

I think they were made with both focus rings. The Supers had only the milled rings but I've seen the SMC with the rubberized ring. Cotty wrote: > On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >> You would have been just as well served with the SMC T 17mm f 4.0, and >> could have

RE: Lens Enablement X 2

> > chop! I recently found a good eBay deal on a Panasonic L1 > (4/3rds sensor > > system) with the Leica 14-50mm D Vario-Elmarit lens that > seems to be all > > the rage. [...] > > > > Hence I will be eBaying the Leica lens shortly. I'll offer > it here first > > - can't imagine anyone would be

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: >You would have been just as well served with the SMC T 17mm f 4.0, and >could have avoided surgery, (you beast). I dislike the focus ring on these lenses. I prefer the later rubber grips. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | Pe

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica would make a 4/3 System 20mm prime >lens. I wish Olympus or Panasonic/Leica (or even Pentax for that matter ) would make a small digital rangefinder, like about this sort of size.

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

You would have been just as well served with the SMC T 17mm f 4.0, and could have avoided surgery, (you beast). Cotty wrote: > Hi gang, > > Just thought I'd mention that I have been enabled twice :-) > > Thanks to Godders for passing on a K17mm 3.5 fisheye that I bought > recently from a Californ

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On 16/10/07, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: >It now has an (eBay bought) K mount adapter on it That should, of course, have read: It now has an (eBay bought) EF mount adaptor on it -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.c

Re: Lens Enablement X 2

On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Cotty wrote: > ... Hence I will be eBaying the Leica lens shortly. I'll offer it > here first > - can't imagine anyone would be interested here, but you never know. I > don't know anyone other than Bob W who's bought into 4/3rds. ... Well, you know that I have the

Re: lens enablement

I've stayed away from the 28-70/4 due to the reports of its problems. The F35-70/3.5-4.5 Macro I have was $39 in EXCELLENT condition from KEH, and has proven to be a very good performer for such an inexpensive lens. Good sharpness and contrast, even wide open but particularly 1 stop down, a

Re: lens enablement

Scott Loveless wrote: Just to add to my reputation for being cheap, I keep coming across references to the FA28-70 f4. From what I've read, quite a few people really like this lens. The only down side that I've discovered so far is that some of them suffer from delamination. Would anyone who

Re: lens enablement

Scott, When lens shopping 3 or 4 years ago, I had both the 24-90 and the 28-70/4 for a week. I ran through a roll of Ektachrome with each. It took only about 5 minutes of looking at the slides to send the 28-70 back--the 24-90 was WAY better in sharpness, contrast, and light fall-off; and the ex

RE: lens enablement

Shel had a friend that had one for sale. You may want to check with him. Don > -Original Message- > From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:00 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: lens enablement > > > Just

Re: lens enablement

Hi! Just to add to my reputation for being cheap, I keep coming across references to the FA28-70 f4. From what I've read, quite a few people really like this lens. The only down side that I've discovered so far is that some of them suffer from delamination. Would anyone who has, or has had, o

Re: lens enablement

Just to add to my reputation for being cheap, I keep coming across references to the FA28-70 f4. From what I've read, quite a few people really like this lens. The only down side that I've discovered so far is that some of them suffer from delamination. Would anyone who has, or has had, one of t

Re: lens enablement

Hi Scott, I only have the Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DF so I can't compare it with the other lenses. Not sure if this is the same as the Aspherical tested on photodo: http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/sigma.shtml#Sigma (a rather poor 3.5) But it isn't too bad for me, although I'm no expert either.

RE: lens enablement

Scott, I'm not an expert, but, well... The Pentax FA 24-90mm is excellent (I'm told), but not too fast The Tokina AT-X Pro II 2.6-2.8 28-70mm is excellent (I am wearing out my second one now) The FA* 2.8 28-70mm is supposed to be even better/the best, but rather expensive. The Tamron AF 28-75mm 2,8

Re: lens enablement

I slipped on a wet algae-covered ramp (which didn't =look= algae-covered and slippery) leading to a pier on a lakeshore in the Poconos. I landed flat on my back, and my camera bag went flying through the air and landed in the lake. It has enough foam that it floated, but by the time I fished it o

Re: lens enablement

Thanks, Rick. I must have missed that thread. Those lens tests are certainly interesting, and the quality from the 24-90 is most impressive. How'd you drown your PZ-1p with a 24-90 attached? :) On 2/1/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, > > Don has restored by drowned FA24-90, a

Re: lens enablement

Scott, Don has restored by drowned FA24-90, and he may be able to provide you with comparisons to the Tamron and Sigma. In the meantime, you might take a look at this thread in the archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg299779.html Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: lens enablement

GOOD 0.000 838feff9a301aaf2056953d55a6693a2 On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Scott Loveless wrote: That's four for the Tamron, one for the Sigma, and one for the FA24-90. I've been reading reviews about these lenses and most of them tend to be favorable. It's interesting to note that I haven't been ab

Re: lens enablement

On 1/31/06, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You haven't said whether you are using digital or not - might have > some bearing. I shoot weddings fairly often. I used to use a Tamron > 28-75/2.8, which was quite nice. It took a few spills and is out of > alignment and the focus gearing i

Re: lens enablement

t; -----Original Message- > > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:55 AM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: lens enablement > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > >

RE: lens enablement

tion.com/pdml/EX28_70_Bokeh.jpg I didn't save any shots from the Tamron. Don > -Original Message- > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:55 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: lens enablement > >

Re: lens enablement

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Adam Maas wrote: No question. Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. Small, light, sharp as a tack, gorgeous colour, good bokeh. The "Good bokeh" comment is an interesting departure from what someone else (I think Don? Apologies for the senior moment) has said. Kostas

Re: lens enablement

> No question. Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. Small, light, sharp as a > tack, gorgeous colour, good bokeh. The Tamron is a really fine lens IMHO, other features I really like are: 1. The focus ring turns in the same direction as a genuine Pentax lens. 2. Zoom lock feature, preventing the lens fro

Re: lens enablement

I shot both Digital (*istD) and film (MX) with my Tamron. Sold it with the D and am missing it, I'll probably get another one in Canon mount, and maybe another one for the MX (that combination works really well) -Adam Bruce Dayton wrote: You haven't said whether you are using digital or not

Re: lens enablement

You haven't said whether you are using digital or not - might have some bearing. I shoot weddings fairly often. I used to use a Tamron 28-75/2.8, which was quite nice. It took a few spills and is out of alignment and the focus gearing is crunched. Since then I picked up an A 35-105/3.5. I have

Re: lens enablement

I second Adam's recommendation. I've had my Tamron 28-75 for about a year now, and it's everything he says - excellent color, nice and sharp. Nate liked it so much that I got him one, and he usually prefers primes as well. Here's a sample shot I took with the Tam (not full size, but I can send you

Re: lens enablement

Gee, Scott, even though it's a fair amount of money, the FA 24-90 is one honey of a lens. I doubt you would find its equal in anything but a set of primes, or maybe the 28-70/2.8 (mucho money!). Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy! > > I'm considering enabling myself wit

Re: lens enablement

No question. Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. Small, light, sharp as a tack, gorgeous colour, good bokeh. The Sigma's 4mm wider and 5mm shorter FL-wise, but noticably wider and softer wide open (The Sigma's good, but the Tamron's merely superb). I've no info on the Tokina. I sold my 28/2.8 after ge

Re: Lens enablement

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 3/11/2005, 3:30 PM: > > Got home around 6 tonight and a package was waiting > for me on the table. Sigma > 300 f4 > inside It's a great lens. You'll have fun. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]