I know which one for Cartier-Bresson, but what about Winnogrand
and Salgado?
Winogrand used a 28mm almost always, and Salgado, when I heard him
interviewed, said he used a 28, 35, and a 60.
--Mike
Thanks Mike. I did a rapid check on the web yesterday but could not
find the answer for
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
lens. The question is rather if you like it's
characteristics or not. But that is a totally
different matter ...
Guess I just can't stand the bright-edge bokeh of the
43. :)
It is EVERYTHING it is cracked up to be, and more!
I would forget the 85 unless you feel like using the extra weight to
keep you fit, or REALLY need the extra stop or half stop whatever it is.
Some debate which of the two has the best bokeh, and I think it comes
down to personal taste. Both are
how does it compare to the 24-90mm
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
It is EVERYTHING it is cracked up to be, and more!
I would forget the 85 unless
PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 December 2002 10:46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
how does it compare to the 24-90mm
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: RE
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
I wondered if you would ask that as I typed the email
overpriced based on specs and build, but the glass
is what you are buying.
Hope this helps...
-Original Message-
From: whereswayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 December 2002 11:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
how does it compare
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait shots, as
it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4). For landscapes and
general photography the FA77/f1.8 is said to be the better choice. See
http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm
Arnold
thanks
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
I havent used the 43 seriously, so cant say. Opinion on the 43 seems to
be divided. As so many like it so
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
I would consider the 43 is not particular great optically while the 77 is
very good imho.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months
i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its cracked up to
be?
or is saving up for the 85mm better bet
i am looking for a portrait come landscape lens come people even a macro
lens with pentaxes marvelous convertor the heliocoid windout thing
i currently use the vivitar 35-85mm for
Yeah, I forgot this - the 85 is said to be poor at long distances near
infinity.
-Original Message-
From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 December 2002 11:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4
- Original Message -
From: whereswayne
Subject: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its
cracked up to
be?
It's a pretty good lens. AF is good on my MZ-5, manual focus
feel is good. The finish seems tough and the build quality
manual focus feel is good
Well, speaking for the minority once again, I have to say that I
don't like it (or the 43/1.9) for manual focus - too much of a
whirring gear train feel - not fluid like ~real~ manual focus
lenses (or even the FA* 85/1.4, with its focus clutch).
Fred
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait
shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4).
85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the FA* 85/1.4 is
~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances, so that the
difference between the autofocus 85/1.4 and
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and
really like
I would consider the 43 is not particular great
optically while the 77 is very good imho.
regards,
Alan Chan
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
More of the same but better in every respect.
Pål
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur
for portrait
shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length
(plus f1.4).
85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the
FA* 85/1.4 is
~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances,
so that the
difference between the autofocus 85/1.4
I support this. Especially do I like the angle of view. My normal lens seems to be a
tele-lens now - it gets dusty now in the cupboard.
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
Bernd
- original Nachricht
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
You always need more...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 December 2002 16:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
I support this. Especially do I like the angle of view. My
normal lens seems
Hallo here is a nice article about the limeted lenses.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
regards
Rüdiger
And that's what this list is all about --- enablement!
You always need more...
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
Of course !!!
Fred
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
Cartier-Bresson carried three lenses but only used one of them.
Garry Winogrand used one.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three
lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
Cartier-Bresson carried three lenses but only used one of them.
Garry Winogrand used one.
Hi Mike,
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:32:22 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
You always need more [lenses] ...
No you don't! [snip] Many photojournalists carry no
more than four.
Well, it depends on what you're doing and the environment in which
you're doing it. I can agree with four a lot easier
That's fine if you want to shoot photojournalistic pictures. If everyone did
the same thing the same way then there would be no need for more than one
camera and lens; the world isn't like that though. Further more, two
staple lenses of photojournalists these days are 20-35mm and 70-200mm zooms.
I also bet that this thread becomes meaningless, because for every
photographer who used a minimal kit you can find one who carried a trunk
full of gear with them.
BR
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And I bet their macro, sports, architectural and panoramic landscape pics
sucked :-)
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We did a pretty extensive survey on CompuServe that I wrote up for the old
_Camera Darkroom_ magazine. We wanted to determine what a basic kit of
primes would be for most photographers. The consensus was that an average
kit would consist of four lenses: a
I know which one for Cartier-Bresson, but what about Winnogrand and Salgado?
Winogrand used a 28mm almost always, and Salgado, when I heard him
interviewed, said he used a 28, 35, and a 60.
--Mike
P.S. Anyone closely associated with using a Leica rangefinder almost by
definition only uses a
But Mike, how faithful have you been to any of them? Hmm? g
Well, very faithful, Dan, if all you're talking about is the focal length!
Of course I did a series of reviews of medium format equipment for _Camera
Darkroom_, and have tried or owned or used dozens if not actually hundreds
of lenses
- Original Message -
From: Fred
Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
manual focus feel is good
Well, speaking for the minority once again, I have to say that
I
don't like it (or the 43/1.9) for manual focus - too much of a
whirring gear train feel - not fluid like ~real
I know, it's odd, and it doesn't make much or any sense. But
wellneither does Pentax either :)
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship
So ... let me
$201.
Shaun Canning
PhD Student
Archaeology Department
La Trobe University, Bundoora,
Australia, 3086.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 0414-967 644
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:gfen;infotainment.org]
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2002 03:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Brad Dobo wrote:
which was developed first?
The real MZ-S as a 35mm SLR or the 'MZ-D' that when abandoned, was converted
to film?
The MZ-S and MZ-D were introduced at about the same time as two seperate
projects. The MZ-D wasn't converted to film.
I'm also afraid of my existing lens not
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Who will get his DSLR in a couple of years when they start showing up on
ebay for five hundred bucks.
As will I for the same reasons.
Malcolm
Your camera won't be any less featured when something else comes out that
costs more. The only thing that it'll lack is being top of the line, but
chances are, anyone and everyone you see isn't going to know that, unless
you say, hi, i'm brad and this is my TOP OF THE LINE slr when you meet
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Shaun Canning wrote:
$201.
Too rich for my tastes, now..
Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and need.
I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
multipoint auto-focus.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Soames Wetmore [mailto:rswarchitect;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:59 AM
You better re-read that sentence. I know what you mean, but the English
doesn't make sense!
-Original Message-
From: Glen O'Neal [mailto:goneal;kc.rr.com]
Sent: 18 October 2002 18:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
Personally I really love my PZ1
- Original Message -
From: Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and
need.
I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
multipoint auto-focus.
Yes, yes, yes:))) I
Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the rumored new
flagship?
At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship
Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the
rumored new
flagship?
At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing
my MZ-S?
I'll
Tuesday, September 3, 2002, 10:53:55 PM, ukasz wrote:
K I haven't tried it, but I read that in order to fully benefit from the fine
K grain and smooth tones one has to process it very carefully and in a
K particular combination of the chemistry used. There was a test of this film
K in a British
HC-110 works well with it.
I'm certain others do as well.
Developing info at www.digitaltruth.com
Collin
At 01:07 AM 9/4/02 -0400, you wrote:
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: thoughts on fuji across
Message
What film is this ?
Never heard of Fuji Across.. Neopan yes.. Across nope...
Dave
Original Message:
-
From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: thoughts on fuji across
I just fired off 2 rolls of this stuff and
I haven't tried it, but I read that in order to fully benefit from the fine
grain and smooth tones one has to process it very carefully and in a
particular combination of the chemistry used. There was a test of this film
in a British magazine Black White Photography if anyone's interested I
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Brendan wrote:
I just fired off 2 rolls of this stuff and I'm
mimpressed alot, just very long wash time, ( purple
tinge for 20 min ) but it's nice. Anyone have other opinions?
I just shot two rolls of Across 100. What developer did you use? I havn't
developed mine yet,
Neither have I! Where/how can I get some and give it a try?
Bill KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What film is this ?
Never heard of Fuji Across..
It's a new emulsion. I'm not sure if it's available everywhere (I don't know
if I can buy it here in Poland either :)
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: thoughts on fuji
: RE: thoughts on fuji across
It's a new emulsion. I'm not sure if it's available
everywhere (I don't know
if I can buy it here in Poland either :)
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Yup. I had it for two years. I finally was glad to sold it, even if at
a loss.
Are you thinking on the mf or af version? I had the mf only.
Anyway, it sucked wide open, especially wide end. Completely unusable
except small prints:
wide open:
1) soft, even to point to make focusing difficult
Wayne,
My collected comments follow. My personal thoughts: It's so much more
expensive than slower zooms, I don't think it's worth the premium. The
Pentax SMC 35-105/3.5 PKA is said to be so outstanding, you'd have to be
brain-dead to spend much more for the Tamron.
Collected comments:
AF
any one had any experiences with this lens?
what is it like
anygood?
I bought one brand new few years ago in Melbourne. In short, it was poor
optically and mecnahically. A true rip off. The SMC PENTAX-A 35-105/3.5 is
much sharper and better built.
regards,
Alan Chan
William Robb wrote:
-
With this in mind, I am willing to donate a 6x7 negative that
produced an award winning print to a printing challenge.
What I have in mind is a sort of travelling portfolio.
You get the negative in the mail, make a print from it that
pleases you, send me the print,
FWIW
After I have processed and dried my film, I lay the negative/strips on
top of a fixed sheet of paper. If the highlights are blocked, the negative
was over exposed or over developed. if the shadow detail is missing, it was
under exposed. From those I feel will print, I go for it.
One thing I had planned on doing was to put
my home attempts next to the lab neg's and
see what may look diiferent etc.I don't know
if this will tell me much,but i'm planning
ahead anyway.
Talked developing/home printing with a fellow Pentaxian
but noy a List member last night,so it looks like
i
Hold up...why don't we do this with a 35mm neg? Not all of us have 67
carriers.
tv
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thoughts About Making Good BW
Bill,
This is a great idea! I would appreciate an
opportunity to participate in such an interesting
experiment.
Regards,
Bob
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Thoughts About Making Good BW Negatives
Ansel Adams was
I think this challenge sounds like a pretty cool deal. Though I
can't participage (no enlarger and I've never even _tried_ doing
any of my own darkroom work yet), I'd be really interested in
seeing the results (prints and discussion/explanations of choices).
Bob Rapp wrote:
[...] Sometimes an
Dave I'm 15 min south and Aaron is a phone call away
:-) also invite that fellow Pentaxian to the TPDML :-)
. I can see the difference in my negs from the 1st
set I developed and the last 3, noticeable differences
in grain and contrast.
--- David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I had
Thanks Brendan.I'm not sure if i'll shoot BW this
weekend or the slide roll.If its BW i'll proccess
this roll myself as the 'guinea pig' roll.
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re
Good point, Tom.
tom wrote:
Hold up...why don't we do this with a 35mm neg? Not all of us have 67
carriers.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts About Making Good BW
Negatives
Dave I'm 15 min south and Aaron is a phone call away
:-) also invite that fellow Pentaxian to the TPDML
:-)
. I can see the difference in my negs from the 1st
For the same price you may want to look at Tokina's newer
AT-X 80-200 F2.8 Auto Focus. A few people on this list
own one (including me) and have good things to say about
them.
Cheers,
Brian
On 19 Apr 2001, at 19:49, Cotty wrote:
Hello,
I am considering replacing my Tokina 80-200 f2.8
Hello
Have a look here !
http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Testlf.html
See you
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
Can someone who reads French sum this up for the rest of us?
It's hard to say by the pictures which is better (I'd guess the Nikon, but
the color difference makes it a little hard to tell).
Ryan Brooks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=113369
I bought this lens in lieu of the similiar pentax (cost concerns) and I
really like it. The f/2.8 capability is really great for snapping your
subject out of the background, and the price was low enough that I could pick
up a Pentax 300mm f/4.5 ED IF lens in addition. Seems sharp to me AF
I just got on yesterday! This is a nice, but BIG lens.
Has a wonder tripod bracket, which may get in your way for mostly manual
focus use.
I haven't shot anything yet, but it looks nice.
It feels very solid, and comes with nice hood and fancy carry case.
If you don't have autofocus body yet,
I think what you mean was Pentax was trying to design a lens which was
beyond their capability.
regards,
Alan Chan
[Before throwing it away I dissasembled it. I finally found out why they
(Belgium) never where able to fix it. It was designed in a way that auto
stopdown and power zoom
Pal, with all due respect, you must be very hard on your equipment. Also,
mine has a metal filter mount; the depth of field glass has never come off.
Rarely does the power zoom not work, and it has always been the result of
dirt in the system (took it in for CLA once; they just blew it off. Now I
Cameron Hood wrote:
Pal, with all due respect, you must be very hard on your equipment. Also,
mine has a metal filter mount;
I was surprised at this as well, but last night I checked, and it seems
to be plastic. It's a very stiff plastic that kind of looks like it
could be metal...
the
You mention you use a wireless slave for triggering your Metz MZ40-2 with
your RTF flash, I assume you mean the slave is one that picks up the flash
from your RTF purely optical.
If you buy a second Metz and put that on your PZ1-p you could really
wireless trigger your remote Metz and have TTL.
Alexander Grigolia wrote:
Could I please have some user comments on the Pentax-FA* 28-70mm f/2.8
AL zoom lens? Not lens test results. But "in the field" working thoughts.
Ease of manual focus. Balance on the camera. Quality of construction.
REPLY:
In my opinion (I know many would
Roland wrote:
What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same
as Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?).
Maybe the 28-105 rebadge was just a patch up job filling the hole temporarily between
the old 28-105 and the new one.
Roland Mabo:
"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)."
-
No. A quick comparison of the specifications shows
that the Pentax and Tamron 28-80s
At 05:28 AM 2/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
Roland Mabo:
"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)."
-
I think the next Tamron for us Pentax folks is
: Re: Thoughts about the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) and other things
At 05:28 AM 2/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
Roland Mabo:
"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
Tamron's 28-80 f/3.
Alexander wrote:
IF Pentax is going to produce a flagship camera. And IF digital is the
way of the future. What is the possibility of the next generation of
flagship cameras being digital cameras?
I believe every mid to upper end film based camera released from now on will have a
Hello Grigolia,
Monday, January 15, 2001, 11:27:24 AM, you wrote:
Gac IF Pentax is going to produce a flagship camera. And IF digital is the
Gac way of the future. What is the possibility of the next generation of
Gac flagship cameras being digital cameras?
Gac You would than
201 - 281 of 281 matches
Mail list logo
