Is this the SZ-X 270?
Don
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Lahuis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Februa
> an interesting test found
> http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
> Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro [snip]
> Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 Macro [snip]
Thanks for the info, adphoto. There are differences in the two
tests, but I think that the differences (even though they mostly
"fa
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:22:35 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>Why not buy a Pentax FA 20-35mm f4 AL?
>
>Amazing lens optically. Can maybe get it used for the
>price of the others. Check Ebay.
>
I vote for the Pentax 20-35, and I've never even used one. When it
comes to wide-angle zooms, the benefit of th
I have the Phoenix 19-35mm. It's very good at most apertures in the 24-35mm
range.
At 19mm you have to be more careful with it, and use fast film in bright
light. It is very sharp at the centre, but not completely sharp in the
corners until about f/11, and shows vignetting until about f/5.6.
Why not buy a Pentax FA 20-35mm f4 AL?
Amazing lens optically. Can maybe get it used for the
price of the others. Check Ebay.
--- surprise chef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am looking for a wideangle zoom that wont break
> that bank
> i see tokina have two the Tokina AF 20-35mm
> F3.5-F4.
jeez...there for a minute I thought Aristos had joined the Pentax
brethren. :):):)
Cheers
Shaun
surprise chef wrote:
I am looking for a wideangle zoom that wont break that bank
i see tokina have two the Tokina AF 20-35mm F3.5-F4.5 72mm version or the
19-35mm 77mm around the 400 Australian mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Recently bought a screwmount Tokina RMC 400mm F5.6
> lens even though I already had the Pentax
> Tele-Takumar 400 F5.6. The main attraction for me
> was for the auto aperture ( The Pentax is
> manual aperture). To my surprise it's very compact
> and doesnt get longer as y
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: Tokina RMC 400mm F5.6
They are nice, aren't they. I picked mine up for a couple of
hundred (CAN) a dozen or so years ago, never felt the need to
look for another lens in the focal length.
William Robb
> Recently bought a screwmount
Cotty a écrit:
Has anyone tried the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 with the
matched Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter? It turns the
70-200mm to a 98-280mm f/4 zoom lens. Popular
Photography gave this combination a good review (I
think it was tested in 1998).
I use Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 with the Sigma EX
And my 100-300 becomes a 150-450/f4 which I rather fancy! Or a
210-630/f5.6 with the 1.4* converter!
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 November 2002 09:25
> To: Pentax List
> Subject: Re: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200?
>
, but I had to go through it - why
should you get an easy ride? ;-)
> -Original Message-
> From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 November 2002 16:42
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200?
>
>
> o
on 19.11.02 17:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have the Tokina AT-X 100-300 constant F4 in man focus and FWIW, find the
> focal length much more useful than 80-200.
And I've heard this Tokina is great too, but unfortunately AF version for
Pentax is very difficult to buy any
In a message dated 11/19/02 11:46:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Thanks everyone for advices!
Rob - why oh why did you write this ;-) You made me thinking again.
Ergghhh... I will postpone this purchase. I have holded Sigma 100-300/4 in
shop (sadly no Pentax mount) and it is really nice beas
Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>This past Sunday I want for a nice long hike in the rain and used the
>>80-200 for all my shooting. Because it was too gloomy for a lot of
>>landscapes, I shot a lot of close up stuff on the trails, much of it
>>at or close to minimum focusing distance for
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This past Sunday I want for a nice long hike in the rain and used the
80-200
for all my shooting. Because it was too gloomy for a lot of landscapes, I
shot a lot of close up stuff on the trails, much of it at or close to
minimum focusing distance
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am guessing that most people that buy a zoom in this range will value
>light weight, and if this is the case you need look no further than the
>Sigma. If you are prepared to carry something heavy then a second hand
>Pentax 80-200 would be best.
Another
The Tokina 80-200 f2.8 is fast enough on my z-1p, providing you don't focus
from infinity to close up and back again repeatedly. If the subject distance
changes at a regular speed, then the AF is as fast as any other lens. It
tracks a moving vehicle at 60-70 km/h easily. I can't comment on the Sigm
In a message dated 11/6/02 1:24:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Vic:
My Tokina 400mm did the same thing to me a few years ago when we
were in Kodachrome Basin.
I pulled the lens mount off and the aperture worked fine, so I
put the mount back on, and it has continued to work fine.
I don't
In a message dated 11/6/02 1:00:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I would think that, if you have a lens that is the optical twin of
the more-well-known VS1 90/2.5 Macro, and that (at 4.6 out of 5.0)
tested better than almost all others of the literally hundreds of
lenses tested by Photodo, get
- Original Message -
From: Vic
Subject: Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 acting up
Vic:
My Tokina 400mm did the same thing to me a few years ago when we
were in Kodachrome Basin.
I pulled the lens mount off and the aperture worked fine, so I
put the mount back on, and it has continued to work fine.
I d
Hi, Vic.
> My Tokina 90/2.5 macro seems to have developed a case of sticky
> iris. There is no noticable oil on the blades. When it works it
> works fine when it doesn't I have to play with the f/stop ring or
> the little steel thing sticking out the bottom of the lens to get
> it working.
Ooh
I have this lens and it's an outstanding performer.
I paid $75 for mine MINT. Great range, much better
than a 35-105 IMHO. It's sharp at 85mm too which is
usually a weak point of most normal zooms.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnold Stark [mailto:pdml@;arnoldstark.de]
> Sent: Sunday,
Yup - I have one on an LX.
It seems to be a pretty OK lens (apart from being fairly heavy).
I havent used it enough yet to give a firm opinion, but ti seems to be an
OK lens.
T.
> Has anybody got this old lens, non-macro?
Was that a constant-f/4 lens, Raimo?
Fred
Thought i would chime in on this one too. I have two tokina lenses the
28-70 26./2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 I cant say enough good things about these
lenses. they are great performers in all conditions. i would highly
recommend them.
__
D O T E A
> I don't remember if I've shot any since. Just because the
> situation hasn't arisen where I need it. I'll tell you what,
> though. I'll go out and shoot some more this week and report
> back..asap
Thanks, Vic. Shoot with it only if you want to, though - don't do
so just for me - .
Fred
> Fred, I also have the vivitar 2Xmacro convertor and swear by
> it In fact, I think it's better or, at least more useful, than
> the Pentax 2XS.
Yes, the Vivitar 2X macro TC is a very good all-around TC, and the
macro function is quite effective on some lenses, too.
However, the use of the
This is no answer to the concrete question but I think it's worth to be
mentioned:
Some months ago I got a
+++ Kenko 2x KAX Macro Teleplus MC7 +++
on ebay and thought it would be a nice thing to play with. The price was
raesonable and no real risk. And I found: the results are very fine! It
mak
I don't remember if I've shot any since. Just because the situation hasn't
arisen where I need it. I'll tell you what, though. I'll go out and shoot
some more this week and report back..asap
Vic
Absolutely, Shaun! Lovely photos indeed. A 300 f/2.8? Isn't that a bit
wide for a 300? I'll have to look that one up!
Even more impressive is the fact that you used a teleconverter with
it, without any noticeable degradation.
Good for you. You have a good setup there.
Not to diminish your capabi
Wow, Shawn, great photos! I'm impressed. I think I'll put that lens on my
wish list.
Kathy L
- Original Message -
From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:17 PM
Subject: Tokina 300mm f2.8
> Here are a coupl
I've seen them with both screw-on and snap-in hoods.
The snap-in mounts in reverse for storage.
Collin
At 08:10 PM 8/28/02 +1200, you wrote:
>John Mustarde wrote:
>
>
> If thats the one Cotty has, its a great lens. The focusing is really
>nice. The hood is a bit of a pain to get on & off at f
John Mustarde wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:07:46 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >Hi Gang,
> >
> >Has any ever used or actually own a manual focus Tokina 300mm F2.8 SD
> >lens? I am interested in some comments on these thingy's.
>
>
> It is an excellent lens in every respect - build quality and optic
Thanks John, that is precisely the combination I am looking at using on my
z-1. I also have a 1.7x that I am busting to try.
Cheers
Shaun
-Original Message-
From: John Mustarde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 10:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tokina
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:07:46 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi Gang,
>
>Has any ever used or actually own a manual focus Tokina 300mm F2.8 SD lens?
>I am interested in some comments on these thingy's.
It is an excellent lens in every respect - build quality and optical
quality and ease of use are outstandi
>If I didn't already have that lens I'd buy it.
>
>- --- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This one's for UK eBayers only, and *I'm sure* UK
>> eBayers won't mind me
>> mentioning it...
>>
>>
>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1363562179
I just bought an EOS version of the
If I didn't already have that lens I'd buy it.
--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one's for UK eBayers only, and *I'm sure* UK
> eBayers won't mind me
> mentioning it...
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1363562179
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Ma
It went out of production a couple of years ago. It was pretty well
regarded - sharp images, well built. You might still find a new one
somewhere, or check KEH. I had one, but sold it for the following
reasons:
1. Lack of close focus.
2. Not as contrasty as Pentax lenses.
3. Images seemed actuall
Hmmm. Lemme check my locals as well. If you
do have a mo' tell me who/where is your local
shop and I can check. Thanks.
chuckc
Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I have one of them. I bought it from a local store a while back. I
> can see if they still have some stock left if you're interested
Only Tokina like it on B&H I could find was a 28-105
Manual Focus (not AF). Maybe I'm jes' not
searching right?
Mark Roberts wrote:
> B&H has these on their web site (assuming it's the current version you seek).
> www.bhphotovideo.com
>
> Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Chuck,
> >
>
B&H has these on their web site (assuming it's the current version you seek).
www.bhphotovideo.com
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chuck,
>
>I have one of them. I bought it from a local store a while back. I
>can see if they still have some stock left if you're interested. It
>is ver
Many, many Pentax lenses use 52mm filters.
Reg Wiest wrote:
>
> Only negative I can think of is it
> takes 52mm filters instead of the
> 49mm that many Pentax lenses take.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discus
Is this the same lens as the one Photodo rates a "2"? Or is this a newer
version?
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Tokina 150-500 f5.6 ATX
> Hi,
>
Hi,
Sorry, the only lens I can compare it to is my Tokina
300mm zoom.
Ryan
>Have you had a chance to compare it to the Sigma
50-500 which seems to
get
>good marks?
>
>-Ryan
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To u
Hello To All,
Here are my thoughts on my new lens. Of course it's
built like a tank which is normal for Tokina 's ATX
line. I was surprised that it has a built in lens
hood!
Very Nice indeed.
I finally got a chance to do some testing of it's
optical performance. I would say that wide open at
500m
Fred I just did a complete test of all my cameras with and without the macro
converter. 95 per cent of the time there is no problem. Every once in a while
it doesn't seem to catch. It could be me. I'll keep checking it and report
back.
What cameras are you using it on
vic
In a message dated
> My Tokina ATX 90 f2.5 macro lens, which I like very much, does not
> always close down when I use the depth of field preview on the LX
> or the PZ1. I have not explored the problem to any great extent
> but I am wondering if anyone else has ever experienced this
> problem with this lens or any
At 12:08 22-4-2002 -0400, you wrote:
>The Tokina SL-17 is an old design. I've read that it's the same lens
>that's sold as the Vivitar 19mm.
>
>The Tamron SP 17/3.5 gets the highest marks for geometric accuracy--as one
>might expect, with its 82mm filter size. (Right? I'm going from memory.)
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>The Tokina SL-17 is an old design. I've read that it's the same lens
>that's sold as the Vivitar 19mm.
...and Sigma 18mm 3.5 (last version) ...and Spiratone Pluracoat 18mm
3.5. I have this lens and it is identical to the Tokina 17mm sold at
B & H.
So, is it "really" a 1
Hi,
anybody knows the difference between the AT-X and the SL Tokinas?
Both are 17/3.5, both look about the same, even the lens diagram is
the same ?
Difference in performance?
Thanks!
Frantisek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://
17mm SL/RMC
I have had 2 of these. The first I bought at a close out of about 25.00. Not
expecting much, I shelved until the need arose. Once it did, there was no
stopping me from taking that lens everwhere. It was stolen on a flight from
Sydney to LA in Fiji while the plane was being serviced. I
Shel,
It is not an AT_X lens. It is called SL-17.
Here is the fluff line:
Superwide: (103 degree) Sees more than the human eye. Sophisticated:
When you need a vast depth-of-field for special effects, or get a
perfect view of a land or city-scape, it's a cinch with this lens.
Technical Achievemen
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Tokina AT-X 17mm
> Does the focusing turn in the same direction as pentax lenses?
Is it a
> rectilinear design? Is it available new? Are there any photos
a
I figured someone on the PDML might want it. I'm glad you got it! I was
actually kind of surprised that it sat as long as it did without someone
getting it via BIN. If I didn't already have something similar I probably
would have gone for it at that price.
--Mark
-chris wrote-
I've be
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Brendan wrote:
> Chris I think your going to like that zoom, I just
> developed a roll
> shot with the older version of that lens, I'm
> impressed to say the
> least over any other zoom I have.
Thats good to hear. I thought I recalled your message talking about a lens
like i
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Mark Erickson wrote:
> There's a Tokina 28-70 F2.6-2.8 on eBay with a BIN price of $285. Seller
> claims that it is "new old stock." It's been up for a couple of days, so I
> figure it's "fair game" for posting to the list. By all accounts, this is a
> really nice lens
> Well I actually wasn't looking for a longer lens than my 300mm,
> but when I came across this one for only $400, I decided to grab
> it. It is brand new with box, case and even a 95mm Tokina filter.
> (got it from Adorama)
I understand. It ~is~ a good deal. (I originally paid slightly
more th
Go to:
http://www.northerndisclosure.com/ndp/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&subcatid=12
Then click on Buck One.
Hi Andy,
I have no clue what type of 800asa film was used. I
didn't take the photos, I just found them on the web.
Actually, I wasn't that impressed with the color on
the 800asa shots.
Hi Fred,
Well I actually wasn't looking for a longer lens than
my 300mm, but when I came across this one for only
$400, I decided to grab it. It is brand new with box,
case and even a 95mm Tokina filter. (got it from
Adorama)
Hey, if I don't like it or don't use it enough, I can
always get most o
the best zooms I have
> ever seen.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruce Dayton
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:26 PM
> To: Brendan
> Subject: Re: Tokina ATX 28-70 opinions
>
> Brendan,
>
> You may have to be more specific on the version you
> are talking about.
&
Very nice images, what 800asa film were you using?
Andy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ryan Charron
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: TOKINA AT-X 150-500/5.6
Go to:
http
In a message dated 18/04/02 18:03:01 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< << And, I didn't want to get my tripod's feet wet (not to mention
> my own - ). >>
> Here comes a prospective Benbo owner..
Hrrumph... You must be a photo gear retailer or something...
> << And, I didn't want to get my tripod's feet wet (not to mention
> my own - ). >>
> Here comes a prospective Benbo owner..
Hrrumph... You must be a photo gear retailer or something... ;-)
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http
> If I didn't already own (and am crazy about) the 100-300 f4 ATX, I
> would think I bought a dog lens. Your shots weren't very
> flattering to say the least.
Well, Ryan, it seems to me that the AT-X 150-500/5.6 is just not as
good a lens as is the AT-X 100-300/4 (which is superb). (However,
in
Hello to All,
Here are a couple more pics, for what it's worth.
http://www.northerndisclosure.com/ndp/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&subcatid=10
Then click on Pecking Order.
and
http://www.northerndisclosure.com/ndp/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&subcatid=14
Then click on Boo.
A fellow Pentaxian,
Ry
In a message dated 18/04/02 14:50:07 GMT Daylight Time, Fred writes:
<< And, I didn't want to get my tripod's
feet wet (not to mention my own - ). >>
Here comes a prospective Benbo owner..
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdm
> I used a Tokina AT-X 150-500/5.6 for a PUG shot one time, using
> an A 2X-L TC (zoomed out to 500mm, for a 1000/11 combination).
> http://pug.komkon.org/00marc/turtle1.htm >>
> Not too shabby at all. Why did you have to be so far away, though?
> Are they timid creatures? I appreciate that the
In a message dated 17/04/02 23:10:35 GMT Daylight Time, Fred writes:
<< A wee beastie. I am waiting to hear about your results.
I used a Tokina AT-X 150-500/5.6 for a PUG shot one time, using an A
2X-L TC (zoomed out to 500mm, for a 1000/11 combination).
http://pug.komkon.org/00marc/turtl
gt;
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruce Dayton
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:26 PM
> To: Brendan
> Subject: Re: Tokina ATX 28-70 opinions
>
> Brendan,
>
> You may have to be more specific on the version you
> are talking about.
> The older AF version or the
> << Does anyone else have the Tokina 150-500mm f5.6 ATX ? If so,
> what do you think of it? >>
> A wee beastie. I am waiting to hear about your results.
I used a Tokina AT-X 150-500/5.6 for a PUG shot one time, using an A
2X-L TC (zoomed out to 500mm, for a 1000/11 combination).
http://pug.k
First inspect if anything is wrong with aperture lever and then clean carefully
bayonet portion of lens and everything should work OK!
Andreas Wirtz
Emilio Puga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey, I think I have to change my name, for
the trouble boy. I´ve got a
tokina 80-400 for 3 years, and s
You really need to tell us what budget you have, what wild-life you plane
to shoot, how close you're going to get to the wildlife before it's easy to
give any advice. Usually, you'll be better off with a prime lens than a
zoom but what focal length you need depends on the questions above among
Hilarious
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They usually have trouble focusing with their paws and hoofs.
> Bird claws usually do better8-)
>
> In a message dated 4/13/2002 3:44:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > tokina 80 - 400mm is it any good fo
They usually have trouble focusing with their paws and hoofs. Bird claws
usually do better8-)
Jerry in Houston
In a message dated 4/13/2002 3:44:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj:tokina 80 - 400mm is it any good for wildlife
> Date:4/13/2002 3:44:25 AM Centr
Sylwester,
The Pentax SMC coatings will give Pentax lenses some of the best flare
control available. So the lenses you mentioned will likely be more
flare resistant than your Tokina. However, the Tokina is a very fine
lens. It is built as a pro grade zoom. This means that optically and
physic
That's a tough question. The Tokina that you have is not a bad lens at all.
The problem is, Pentax SMC lenses are the most flare resistance in general.
I'd say keep using your Tokina and see if you can avoid any direct light
source before you made the switch.
regards,
Alan Chan
>My first step
Flavio, I used both the Tokina 28-105 and the FA Power Zoom 28-105
side-by-side on two new PZ-1p bodies. In addition to the Tokina seeming
to give images with lower contrast, the FA Power Zoom 28-105 produced
images that were noticeably sharper, even on small prints. So I sold the
Tokina and got t
Joseph Tainter Wrote:
> Sorry to hear about the trouble, Flavio. I, too, had this lens, but felt
> that the images it was giving me were low in contrast. I traded it to
> KEH for a second FA Power Zoom 28-105.
> ...
Thanks Joe, do find a big differnece between the two lenses? I was also uncertai
Sorry to hear about the trouble, Flavio. I, too, had this lens, but felt
that the images it was giving me were low in contrast. I traded it to
KEH for a second FA Power Zoom 28-105.
Joe
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
"Philip Courtay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>HAs anyone used that zoom on a ZX (MZ) body? Is the autofocus quick, are
>there any compatibility problems I should know about?
>I may buy one used for a decent price and would like to know if it's fine on
>a ZX-7.
>Apart from the weight, any problem
> I have one and love it.
I used to have one, and found it to be a good telephoto zoom. It
was rather large of course, but, if you need the speed, the bulk and
weight are worthwhile sacrifices. The detachable tripod mount is a
nice feature. Optically, I remember that it had pretty decent flare
I think it would depend on how much higher it goes. I bought one of these in
mint condition through a local camera store for $199.
- Original Message -
From: "Emmanuel Ingelsten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: Tokina 80-200 f2
- Original Message -
From: "Emmanuel Ingelsten"
Subject: Tokina 80-200 f2.8 Manual Focus ATX
>
> what's your experiance with this lens and do you think this is
item is in too bad shape to pursue?
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=132584369
8
I have one. Nice len
To all those who kindly responded, thanks very much. I need a decent
brain-floss: memory is getting worse and worse, although most long-term
memory is still stable. The short-term memory is the worst. I keep having
to look at the subject lines of emails to remind myself what I'm writing
about.
Fujica cameras are either their bayonet or a version of M42. They have a
different style of open aperture metering than the Pentax SMC-T but all can
be used in regular M42 modes. From old handling I'm pretty sure their
bayonet mount is not truly compatible to Pentax K but I could be wrong.
Kent Gi
In a message dated 12/26/2001 10:32:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Someone advertising a Tokina 35-70 2.8 in a Fujica mount. Am I wrong in
> assuming that this is Pentax K mount? I had a Fujica years ago and I
> could swear it was a K mount???
>
> Confused,
>
>
In a message dated 15/11/01 10:32:47 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I've been looking at a Tokina AT-X 24-40mm F2.8 to replace some of the
primes I own.
Is this a good lens? How much is a reasonable price for it?
Hiroto >>
Hiro
Miyama have one listed in their ad this m
A very good lens. Little distortion.
But, imho, don't replace primes.
They still have their appications,
esp. when you want the sharpest possible eng
for an enlargement.
Collin
From: Hiroto Yamashita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Hi all,
>
>
>I've been looking at a Tokina AT-X 24-40mm F2.8 to replace s
John Mustarde wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:25:51 EST, you wrote:
>
> >> While the subject of fast 300's is alive, has anyone any experience with
> >> the Tokina 300 2.8 - the old manual one, not the latest AF one - and,
> >> more to the point, has anyone actually seen one or know of one,
> >
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:25:51 EST, you wrote:
>> While the subject of fast 300's is alive, has anyone any experience with
>> the Tokina 300 2.8 - the old manual one, not the latest AF one - and,
>> more to the point, has anyone actually seen one or know of one,
>> especially old and beat up, and
I have the manual Tokina 300 2.8 and it is an excellent lens. Sharp, nice
"bokeh," with smooth and fast manual focusing. And it works acceptably well
with the Pentax 1.7 AF convertor as long as you prefocus somewhere in the
ballpark of final focus range. One note: it DOES NOT work with the
I meant to say, "I covet the A," not "I cover the A." Although if I had
one, I would cover it. Right now, I just covet it.
Paul
Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> Hi Frits,
>
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:47:22 +0100, Frits J. W*thrich wrote:
>
> > Anybody know how well a Pentax A 400mm f5.6 is? What would b
Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> Hi Frits,
>
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:47:22 +0100, Frits J. W*thrich wrote:
>
> > Anybody know how well a Pentax A 400mm f5.6 is? What would be a reasonable
> > price for it?
>
> I don't know how much better it is than the SMC version, since I've
> never tried one.
T
Hi Frits,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:47:22 +0100, Frits J. Wthrich wrote:
> Anybody know how well a Pentax A 400mm f5.6 is? What would be a reasonable
> price for it?
I don't know how much better it is than the SMC version, since I've
never tried one. Right now, there are a couple on Keh's web si
Hi Peter, Doug and all,
Peter Jesser wrote:
>
> Has anyone had one of these? Got any thoughts on it?
> ...
Yes I have it. I didn't use it a lot but if you think it would be useful
I could post some samples to the net.
It doesn't seem so bad for me, but I have nothing to compare it to.
Is not a
Hi,
when you look at the Tokina 400/f5.6 with inner focusing, look at the out
of foucus areas. I did and had a big laugh. Really ugly quadruple images!
I'll stick to my Pentax K 400/f5.6 even though it is bigger and all
manual
Arnold
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To u
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:57:27 +0200, canislupus wrote:
> when you get around to trying [the Tokina SD 400/5.6],
> please post your results here.
Will do.
> I am much interested how a semi-modern SD/LD/APO tele compares to
> an older much simpler tele design I think the SMC K 400/5.6 is
> accordi
Doug wrote:
> I have the "SD" version of this lens in PK-A mount, but I haven't tried
> it yet. I'll be trying it out the first weekend of October, if there's
> room in by bag. I've been using an SMC 400/5.6, so that will be
> benchmark against which I'm judging the Tokina. TTYL, DougF
Doug,
Hi Peter"
Ouch! I have never found PC to be competitive on price, although they are a
very professional organisation! They're current price for the MZ-S body is
A$1898.00.
Where in Brissy are you (I'm in New Farm)?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
On Sunday, September 16, 2001 1:17 PM, Peter J
Peter Jesser writes:
> Has anyone had one of these? Got any thoughts on it?
I have one, got it for NZ$200 at a second hand shop. I'm surprised the one
you saw was M42 mount though (mine is bayonet). Its actually not too bad a
lens if you can stop it down. I've found it quite soft wide-open
201 - 300 of 325 matches
Mail list logo
