From: "Brian Walters"
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:39 -0400, "P. J. Alling"
wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 6:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> > From: Jeffery Smith
> >> I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
> >>
> >> Jeffery On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>
On Sep 25, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-09-24 21:47, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>>> There's a corollary in racing: a bad car offers the driver a lot more
>>> opportunities to learn, but it's a lot less likely to win any given
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:39 -0400, "P. J. Alling"
wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 6:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> > From: Jeffery Smith
> >> I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
> >>
> >> Jeffery On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Albinar
> >>
> >
> > Pa
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 06:47:05PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> > On 2010-09-24 19:42, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> A rotten lens builds character and thoughtful technique; it also takes
> >> rotten pictures.
> >
> > There's a corollary in
On 9/25/2010 6:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Jeffery Smith
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Albinar
Paid $50 for a SMC-A 24f/2.8 ... 1980ish.
Have to admit that at the time I didn't know any more t
On 2010-09-24 21:47, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
There's a corollary in racing: a bad car offers the driver a lot more
opportunities to learn, but it's a lot less likely to win any given race.
Most of what I learned was that I needed a better car.
From: Jeffery Smith
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Albinar
Paid $50 for a SMC-A 24f/2.8 ... 1980ish.
Have to admit that at the time I didn't know any more than the guy at
the pawn shop.
--
PDML Pen
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:10 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> In the old days it was a 28mm, 50mm, and a 135mm
> three lens set, all primes. you can do a lot with
> that set and if you can afford another, I would lean
> towards a 20mm for true wideangle work. A good 20mm
> isnt going to be cheap though
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-09-24 19:42, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A rotten lens builds character and thoughtful technique; it also takes
>> rotten pictures.
>
> There's a corollary in racing: a bad car offers the driver a lot more
> opportunities to learn, b
On 2010-09-24 19:42, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
A rotten lens builds character and thoughtful technique; it also takes rotten
pictures.
There's a corollary in racing: a bad car offers the driver a lot more
opportunities to learn, but it's a lot less likely to win any given race.
--
Thanks,
D
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
> I shot a play last night with the 77/1.8. It is a wonderful lens that
> performed very well in low light on my recently-acquired K-x. I will never
> regret getting the 31, 43, and 77 Pentax lenses. They have served me very
> well.
It seems t
Larry Colen wrote:
>On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A rotten lens builds character and thoughtful technique; it also takes
>> rotten pictures.
>
>someone has to Mark this.
Oh contraire. When a quotation as good as that one comes up no one
needs to "Mark" it. :)
--
t's quite as sharp as the 135/3.5 but that extra stop
> really helps.
>
> You can pick the Pentax 135s up on fleabay for about $70.
>
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jeffery Smith
>>> Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
>>> Date: Fri, 24
24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Albinar
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
h
010 19:05:11
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: More help for a novice
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:47 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>>> On 9/24/2010 6:40 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:10 PM
Pentax 135s up on fleabay for about $70.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeffery Smith
>> Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
>> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: More hel
scuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Albinar
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woo
; Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: More help for a novice
>>
>> I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
>>
>> Jeffery
>>
>>
>> On Sep 24,
always fun.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffery Smith
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery
On Sep 24, 201
t the Super Takumar 135 f2.5. That's always fun.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffery Smith
> Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: More help for a novice
Oooh! Let's talk about the Super Takumar 135 f2.5. That's always fun.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffery Smith
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:45:18
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
I paid $35 for a Soligor 135, but that was in 1968.
Jeffery
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Albinar
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
A rotten lens builds character and thoughtful technique; it also takes rotten
pictures.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Weir
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:05:11
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:47 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>> On 9/24/2010 6:40 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:10 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
>>>
In the old days it was a 28mm, 50mm, and a 135mm
three lens set, all primes. you can do a lot with
that set and if you can afford a
A very long time ago I used to sell them. They weren't horrible, but
they made better ashtrays.
On 9/24/2010 6:40 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:10 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
In the old days it was a 28mm, 50mm, and a 135mm
three lens set, all primes. you can do a lot with
that s
On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:10 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> In the old days it was a 28mm, 50mm, and a 135mm
> three lens set, all primes. you can do a lot with
> that set and if you can afford another, I would lean
> towards a 20mm for true wideangle work. A good 20mm
> isnt going to be cheap though.
Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
> The 50 has a focal length = 75mm if you were using film (good for
> faces), and the 28 has a focal length = 42 if you were using film. I
> think that 43mm is what is considered to be 1:1 w
On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
> The 50 has a focal length = 75mm if you were using film (good for faces), and
> the 28 has a focal length = 42 if you were using film. I think that 43mm is
> what is considered to be 1:1 with your eye (that is, it is not being
> magnified nor
The 50 has a focal length = 75mm if you were using film (good for faces), and
the 28 has a focal length = 42 if you were using film. I think that 43mm is
what is considered to be 1:1 with your eye (that is, it is not being magnified
nor is it wide angle), so a 28 and a 50 should cover most of yo
On Sep 24, 2010, at 6:22 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
> I have the A 28 f2.8 and use it a fair amount. It works well on the
> istD and K10D.
Thanks, David. It's on my camera now. Maybe it'll stay there a while.
---
On Sep 24, 2010, at 3:52 AM, John Coyle wrote:
> . . . . if you are still thinking of a medium range zoom either
> of the Pentax 28-105 mm zooms(PZ or FA, but not Takumar) will do an
> excellent job. I had the PZ version, it got damaged beyond repair in a fall
> and the insurance paid for the ne
On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
> What is your chosen genre of photograhy as of this moment? If it is buildings
> or people, a 28 on a digitial with a 1.5x factor is splendid.
When I bought my K1000 back in 1990 I thought it would be
landscape/wildlifle/nature. I was surprise
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:21 PM, frank theriault wrote:
> I'm guessing you may have looked at a few of my PESOs, but if you
> haven't, the blog can be found here:
>
> http://knarfdummyblog.blogspot.com/
Oh yeah, I loved the last one. And the monarchs, too.
>
> Believe me, if you will be focusing m
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
. [I've got the *ist DS and an a 28 2.8. Also an m 50 1.7 and an m 100
f4 macro. Might change those for a versions if I get the opportunity.
But I'll sticking with just one for a while. Maybe the 28, and just
hold off on everything else altogether
Bit late on this one Eric (crap computer repair cost me two days without
reading emails), but if you are still thinking of a medium range zoom either
of the Pentax 28-105 mm zooms(PZ or FA, but not Takumar) will do an
excellent job. I had the PZ version, it got damaged beyond repair in a fall
and
I just shot 5 gb of a play at the college. Good lens, cheap body. Hope I can
salvage some shots. Used a 77/1.8 Pentax, low light.
What is your chosen genre of photograhy as of this moment? If it is buildings
or people, a 28 on a digitial with a 1.5x factor is splendid.
Jeffery
On Sep 23, 2010,
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM, wrote:
> That's a wonderful sentiment, Frank, especially given your signature ;-).
>
> Seriously, I have noticed that particular aspect of your work has changed in
> recent years. Henri is no doubt gyrating in his crypt.
I think switching to digital was the cata
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:21:26
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> Thanks very much, Frank. For now I think I want to focus manually. So this
> bit of information is helpful
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:05 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
> The *istDS is a camera near and dear to my heart. Went many places with me
> and always worked.
I think I might become as fond of mine as I was of my K1000. It less than 4000
images on it when I got it for not quite $180.
--
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> Thanks very much, Frank. For now I think I want to focus manually. So this
> bit of information is helpful.
I manual focus all the time with my *istD. Virtually all (if not
actually all) of my nature shots on my colour blog were shot with
man
hu, 23 Sep 2010 20:55:24
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
On Sep 23, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> KEH has a bargain A 50 1.7 for $79. Given the quality that "Bargain"
> means for KEH, this is
On Sep 23, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> KEH has a bargain A 50 1.7 for $79. Given the quality that "Bargain"
> means for KEH, this is an absolute steal. It's a wonderful piece of
> glass for next to nothing and will meter just fine on the Pentax
> digital bodies.
I may go for i
> - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir"
>
> Subject: Re: More help for a novice
>
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
>>
>>> For my $44 USD (from KEH) you can't get a finer, more versatile lens in the
>>> 28-
On Sep 23, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> So I'd say for some the film SLR + 50mm prime is fine advice, but not for
> all. There's no reason you can't slap that old 50mm f/1.4 + $20 adapter onto
> your *istDS and learn just fine with that.
Thanks, Bruce. I want to keep it as simple a
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Stan Halpin
> wrote:
>> When I came back to photography after a several year hiatus and some
>> flirtation with video, I moved from a ME-Super to a PZ-1p very fine
>> autofocus capable 35mm camera. The one new lens I bought was the PZ FA
>> 28-105. It was/is
On Sep 22, 2010, at 10:42 PM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
> MHO: get a cheap pentax digital body like an *istD or DS and an A50, maybe a
> 1.7. These are cheap and good lenses. Shoot lots of images. Look at them all,
> decide which ones you like and think about why. Then decide what went wrong
>
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
> It's very difficult to find a better value, better versatility, better
> optics, and better distortion control than a 50mm lens. Inasmuch as it
> becomes the same view as a 75mm lens on a digital SLR, a 28-35 mm is the next
> best thing. Look
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
> When I came back to photography after a several year hiatus and some
> flirtation with video, I moved from a ME-Super to a PZ-1p very fine autofocus
> capable 35mm camera. The one new lens I bought was the PZ FA 28-105. It
> was/is a very good
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
> Concentrate on the photography, not on the lenses for now.
>
> Choose a single lens, preferably a fixed focal length lens. . . . use that
> single lens for 5-10,000 images. Periodically review your images in
> Lightroom. Don't just look at the
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:30 PM, frank theriault wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
>> From: Eric Weir
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>>
> . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as
> autofocus.
>>>
>>> Or would I?
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> Between the 35-70 and the 35-105 -- well ...
> Neither.
> Some of the new DA & DAL lenses are both sharper and AF.
> And in the same price class.
> But if it must be one, the 35-105 would be my choice.
Thanks, Collin. I hear you. For now,
On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:22 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>> > . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as
>>> > autofocus.
>> Or would I?
>
> Not if you don't want to. Who's going to make you?
Thanks, John. I didn't think any
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Stan Halpin
wrote:
> When I came back to photography after a several year hiatus and some
> flirtation with video, I moved from a ME-Super to a PZ-1p very fine autofocus
> capable 35mm camera. The one new lens I bought was the PZ FA 28-105. It
> was/is a very go
checking KEH, they show up often.
>
> I wonder about that Tak lens too.
>
> Any experience out there ?
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir"
> Subject: Re: More help for a novi
Keep checking KEH, they show up often.
I wonder about that Tak lens too.
Any experience out there ?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Weir"
Subject: Re: More help for a novice
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:08 PM,
On 10-09-22 5:50 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't have plans. I'm a novice. A RANK novice
You should have 2 items and two items only in your kit. An MX and a 50mm
f/1.4. That's it. For one year.
If you
I'm with Stan on this. When I bought a PZ-1, it came with a crappy PZ
FA28-80. I quickly gave up using it and went back to prime lenses. 3
or so years ago, I got the PZ FA28-105 and was very pleased. It's a
good lens. I wish that I would have bought the more expensive
FA28-105 originally. It
ubject: Re: More help for a novice
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Eric Weir
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>> > . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as
>>> > autof
It's very difficult to find a better value, better versatility, better optics,
and better distortion control than a 50mm lens. Inasmuch as it becomes the same
view as a 75mm lens on a digital SLR, a 28-35 mm is the next best thing. Look
at the photos by Henri Cartier Bresson and Robert Capa, and
When I came back to photography after a several year hiatus and some flirtation
with video, I moved from a ME-Super to a PZ-1p very fine autofocus capable 35mm
camera. The one new lens I bought was the PZ FA 28-105. It was/is a very good
lens. If/when you actually need a lens with a broad zoom r
On 2010-09-22 21:38, Stan Halpin wrote:
Another general principle is that it is a good thing to use the right tool for
any given job.
Tools for men are like shoes for women. Sometimes a crimson pump really
is the only one that works. :-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss M
On 2010-09-22 21:38, Stan Halpin wrote:
Amen to that, brother!
Cotty's suggestion for an MX plus one 50mm lens is a bit extreme, but has merit.
In the "olden days" before digital, my standard response to someone
asking Eric's question would have been, "don't buy lenses yet, buy film
and deve
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> Thanks, Maybe I have all I need for the time being.
> Eric Weir
> Decatur, GA USA
> eew...@bellsouth.net
>
Amen to that, brother!
Cotty's suggestion for an MX plus one 50mm lens is a bit extreme, but has merit.
A basic truth in photogra
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Eric Weir
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>> > . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as
>>> > autofocus.
>>
>> Or would I?
>
> Not if you don't want to. Who's going to make you?
Well, ye
From: Eric Weir
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as autofocus.
Or would I?
Not if you don't want to. Who's going to make you?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_p
>To my ist* DS, smc a 28mm f2.8, and smc a 70-210mm f4 I'm contemplating
>adding either an smc a 35-70mm f4 [$80] or an smc a 35-105 f3.5 [$200], both
>of which I understand are really good lenses.
>
>I'm not exactly rich. [If I hadn't been able to get what I've got for a
>little over $300 --
It is all due to the slant of the deck. Hard to find good pirate captains these
days . . .
stan
On Sep 22, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Cotty wrote:
> On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
>
> He does lean a bit after a glass of malt
>
> --
>
>
> Che
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
> I'd be looking for a fast 50mm (even f2 is 1.5 to 2 stops better than
> the zooms you quoted) or any 85mm lens if you like portraiture or
> performance from the edge of the stage. If your preference is
> close-up nature photography then think ab
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
> For my $44 USD (from KEH) you can't get a finer, more versatile lens in the
> 28-80mm range than the Pentax SMC F 1:3.5-4.5.
Thanks, Ken. Nothing at KEH. They have a 28-80 F3.5-4.5 Takumar F Macro and a
28-80 F3.5-4.7 SMC FA, but I take it neith
I wouldn't bother with any short range zoom that only went to 35mm at
the short end. It's really only a normal field of view, and the long
end of neither lens goes high enough to be worth the effort of
changing lenses.
I'd be looking for a fast 50mm (even f2 is 1.5 to 2 stops better than
the zoom
For my $44 USD (from KEH) you can't get a finer, more versatile lens in the
28-80mm range than the Pentax SMC F 1:3.5-4.5.
I've had one for 22 years and its never let me down.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Weir"
Subje
This was returned to me identified as having been blocked as spam somewhere
along the way. Hope it gets through this time.
On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:12 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> The "PZ" would actually be a FA 28-105 f/4-5.6. . . .
>
> They're on Stan's list as 28-105 f/4.0-5.6 FA (p), 28-105 f/4.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>> . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as autofocus.
>
> Or would I?
Nope, use either way.
I find the 28-105 has more CA on the K10D than the istD. Mostly on old
barn
On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> I've had very good experiences with KEH. That's where I got both the FA*
> 200/2.8 and the F* 300/4.5. The 200 was rated BGN because the hood was a bit
> scuffed. I never figured out why the 300 was rated BGN, because it was
> damned near
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Cotty wrote:
> On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I don't have plans. I'm a novice. A RANK novice
>
> You should have 2 items and two items only in your kit. An MX and a 50mm
> f/1.4. That's it. For one year.
>
> If you're learning, this is wha
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Cotty wrote:
> On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
>
> He does lean a bit after a glass
Thanks for letting me know. I have been taking it as gospel.
--
On 2010-09-22 17:09, Jeffery Smith wrote:
Ditto on KEH. I've only bought rangefinder cameras/lenses and TLRs from KEH,
but they won't sell you a dog unless it is rated as UGLY.
I've had very good experiences with KEH. That's where I got both the
FA* 200/2.8 and the F* 300/4.5. The 200 was r
From: Eric Weir
On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
. . . PZ . . .
You forgot, David. I'm a novice. REALLY a novice. Never encountered
"PZ" before. What is it? Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
The "PZ" would actually be a FA 28-105 f/4-5.6. They were introduced at
about the same
Ditto on KEH. I've only bought rangefinder cameras/lenses and TLRs from KEH,
but they won't sell you a dog unless it is rated as UGLY.
Jeffery
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link direct
On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I don't have plans. I'm a novice. A RANK novice
You should have 2 items and two items only in your kit. An MX and a 50mm
f/1.4. That's it. For one year.
If you're learning, this is what you need to learn with. No zooms, no pixels.
If you're a
On 22/9/10, Eric Weir, discombobulated, unleashed:
> Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
He does lean a bit after a glass of malt
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discus
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> . . . . just because they're autofocus I don't have to use them as autofocus.
Or would I?
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
--
PDML Pent
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> Neither one of them excites me. I suggest looking at what KEH has to offer.
> They're right down there in your neck of the woods.
>
> A quick look just now shows they're offering a "28-70 F4 SMC FA AL (52) 35MM
> SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM WIDE ANGLE
On Sep 22, 2010, at 3:37 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:53:41PM -0400, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> . . . PZ . . .
>>
>> You forgot, David. I'm a novice. REALLY a novice. Never encountered "PZ"
>> before. What is it? Is
From: Eric Weir
To my ist* DS, smc a 28mm f2.8, and smc a 70-210mm f4 I'm
contemplating adding either an smc a 35-70mm f4 [$80] or an smc a
35-105 f3.5 [$200], both of which I understand are really good
lenses.
I'm not exactly rich. [If I hadn't been able to get what I've got for
a little over $
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:53:41PM -0400, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>
> > . . . PZ . . .
>
> You forgot, David. I'm a novice. REALLY a novice. Never encountered "PZ"
> before. What is it? Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
Power Zoom.
A feature (or gimm
On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Bob W wrote:
> that's quite a difficult question to answer without knowing how you plan to
> use them.
I don't have plans. I'm a novice. A RANK novice. I'm just trying to get a
versatile set of lenses to cover whatever I might want to try as inexpensively
as possi
On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
> . . . PZ . . .
You forgot, David. I'm a novice. REALLY a novice. Never encountered "PZ"
before. What is it? Is it on Stan Halpin's list?
Thanks,
--
Eric
I still have one (and a *ist-D, come to that). It was the main
walk-around lens on my *ist-D until it inherited the kit lens that
came with my K10D and became my lightweight system (leaving the
battery grip at home).
If I remember what Godfrey posted correctly, he felt that the later
non-PZ 28-1
See if you can find the old PZ 28-105. I have one and it worked well on my istd.
Dave
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> To my ist* DS, smc a 28mm f2.8, and smc a 70-210mm f4 I'm contemplating
> adding either an smc a 35-70mm f4 [$80] or an smc a 35-105 f3.5 [$200], both
> o
> To my ist* DS, smc a 28mm f2.8, and smc a 70-210mm f4 I'm contemplating
> adding either an smc a 35-70mm f4 [$80] or an smc a 35-105 f3.5 [$200],
both
> of which I understand are really good lenses.
>
> I'm not exactly rich. [If I hadn't been able to get what I've got for a
little over
> $300 --
91 matches
Mail list logo
