> -Original Message-
> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You are right. And to think imperial is new to me... :-)
>
Not to worry, didn't NASA crash their Mars Rover thing
due to a similar error ;-)
--
Peter Williams
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7) focusses at
> > 0.45cm, I think, which is ballpark.
>
> I really doubt that. I think you mean 45 cm (about 15 inches).
You are right. And to think imperial is n
On Apr 6, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Thanks for the mention. In truth, I was a drag racing photographer.
You just conjured up some very strange images in my mind.
Please tell me you're talking about cars :)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7) focusses at
> 0.45cm, I think, which is ballpark.
I really doubt that. I think you mean 45 cm (about 15 inches).
0.45 cm is 4.5 mm, less than 1/4 of an inch in the ye olde measurements.
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. april 2005 16:35
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough.
I believe the rule of thumb is "the focal length in cm" for the
clos
On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:27 AM, David Mann wrote:
Here's one of my 135/2.5 favorites. (Warning: It's from the
wakeboarding series, and has been seen here before.)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2686475&size=lg
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can follow moving subjects with
a manua
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough.
I believe the rule of thumb is "the focal length in cm" for the
closest focus distance. The modern zoom lenses do really well to focus
as close as they do. The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7) focu
On Apr 6, 2005 8:57 AM, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a little long (focal length) for portraits
>
> [and]
>
> > Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough
>
> I know that a somewhat shorter (than 135mm) lens is the "official" length
> for a portrait lens, but that's for
> It's a little long (focal length) for portraits
[and]
> Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough
I know that a somewhat shorter (than 135mm) lens is the "official" length
for a portrait lens, but that's for "formal" portraits. I often use a
longer lens for "candid" portraits,
Don,
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough. It's never been
much of an issue for me, although once or twice the use of the narrowest
extension tube (9mm or 12mm) came in quite handy.
Shel
> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
> Anyone have any experience w
hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. april 2005 13:57
Til: PDML
Emne: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
Anyone have any experience with it?
TIA
Don
Thanks for the mention. In truth, I was a drag racing photographer.
Paul
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:48 AM, John Forbes wrote:
That's Mr Stenquist, the master of the hand-held long tele! He was
probably a sniper in the Rifle Brigade in a former life.
John
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can follo
That's Mr Stenquist, the master of the hand-held long tele! He was
probably a sniper in the Rifle Brigade in a former life.
John
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can follow moving subjects with a
manual focus lens :)
Cheers,
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.op
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:26 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top three lenses in
terms of the amount of use it gets. I've found it to be very good.
I have one that I picked up in mint condition for a great price a few
years ago. About NZ$100 if I remember cor
fantastic lens. sharp and heavy and uses 58mm filters. love it.
mishka
On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
> Anyone have any experience with it?
>
> TIA
> Don
>
>
Look a little better?
http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/SuperP.jpg
Don
On Apr 5, 2005 9:58 AM, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Is this a lens that I would ~really~ miss if I were to drop it and destroy it
> in a moment of intense personal tragedy?". (OK, maybe some of this is a
> bit tongue-in-cheek, but only ~some~ of it - ). Well, if the answer is
> "yes", then
f [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:04 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> Good news on the Super Program. Were you able to improve the
> cosmetics, or
> was that just a non-issue?
>
> As for the 135mm
Good news on the Super Program. Were you able to improve the cosmetics, or
was that just a non-issue?
As for the 135mm glass, it seems you've gotten a consensus on it. Now go
find one and use it with pleasure.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson
> Thanks Shel!
>
> Don
>
> BTW
Thanks Norm!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Norman Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> Great lens, my favorite 135 (then again, I don't
Thanks Shel!
Don
BTW: The Super Program lived! ;-)
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 8:26 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> Don.
> I've had
Great lens, my favorite 135 (then again, I don't own the 1.8).
Norm
Don Sanderson wrote:
I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
Anyone have any experience with it?
TIA
Don
> "Is this a lens that I would ~really~ miss if
> I were to drop it and destroy it in a moment of intense personal
> tragedy?"
> Well, if the answer is "yes", then I try
> to find another copy of the lens and put it aside for the proverbial
> rainy day that I hope never comes...
A
> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
> Anyone have any experience with it?
For me, the ~ultimate~ test as to just how much I appreciate a lens is to
apply the "Virtual Drop Test". When I'm using a lens I ~really~ like, or
when looking over prints that I ~really~ like, I sometime
Thanks Fred!
Don
-Original message-
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:19:53 -0500
To: Shel Belinkoff pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
> > I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
>
> I'm one
> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
I'm one of those guys that calls it that frequently (and, as a very lucky -
and nowadays quite poor - user of an A* 135/1.8, I can make that claim from
experience - ).
> I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few
>
Don.
I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few
times. The K135/2.5 is a great lens by comparison, especially for the
money. The size is quite a bit more handy as well. IMO, especially when
shooting hand held, the K135 is comparable to the A*135/1.8 unless you must
ha
Thanks Frank!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:31 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTEC
Thanks Paul!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:26 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top th
On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
> Anyone have any experience with it?
>
I have one.
I like it a lot.
Can't compare it to the 1.8, though, as I've never used the latter lens.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is
I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top three lenses in
terms of the amount of use it gets. I've found it to be very good.
Here's one of my 135/2.5 favorites. (Warning: It's from the
wakeboarding series, and has been seen here before.)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=26864
Thanks Bob!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:09 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
>
>
> Yes, that's exactly what it is... fast and sharp.
> Al
Yes, that's exactly what it is... fast and sharp.
Also much smaller and lighter than the A135/1.8.
I took a series of 135's out some time ago for a test.
(While my kids were at Sunday school...)
I had the Takumar 135 K mount, the M135/3.5, the K135/2.5, and the A135/1.8.
In a simple series of test
I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8".
Anyone have any experience with it?
TIA
Don
34 matches
Mail list logo
