On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:25:21 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm sure the DA 21mm, unlike the DA 40mm, won't work very well for
35mm
film, but has anyone tried it, just for grins? Any test shots out
there?
I haven't seen anything yet, Mike. The DA21 is just getting into the
market and
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the upcoming 70/2.4 if it were under $500 (and if
I didn't already have the 77!)
Yes,
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the upcoming 70/2.4 if it were under $500 (and
On 19.07.2006, at 11:06 , David Savage wrote:
They're cheaper because they're slower.
I bet if they had made it f1.9, it would be similarly priced to
it's full
frame big brothers. Admittedly it would be physically larger
weightier as
well
Exactly - that's what we're talking about :-)
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of a stop! F/2.0 and under is Limited territory for
me. I'd *consider* the
On 7/19/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19.07.2006, at 11:06 , David Savage wrote:
They're cheaper because they're slower.
I bet if they had made it f1.9, it would be similarly priced to
it's full
frame big brothers. Admittedly it would be physically larger
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed AM 09:36:45 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark
On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21 or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you.
On 7/19/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:50 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21 or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are
On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:36 AM, David Savage wrote:
I hope that's not the case for any future limited lenses. If it is,
then I doubt I'll buy any of them. I'm not tempted by either the 21
or
70. I want fast primes, not small.
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you. ;)
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
You should be ashamed.
Mark Roberts wrote:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
There are these three other Limited lenses available, just for you. ;)
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, P. J. Alling wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
You should be ashamed.
Absolutely. They are silver.
But I can (sort of) see where porn comes into play: the black cap
reminds me of Cleese in his socks in A Fish
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed PM 02:43:11 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/07/19 Wed PM 02:43:11 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
On 7/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 10:36:45AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, David Savage wrote:
At 02:59 PM 19/07/2006, Sylwek wrote:
On 18.07.2006, at 21:33 , Mark Roberts wrote:
My other Limiteds (43, 31, 77) are all f/1.9 or faster. That's a lot
more than a third of
On 7/19/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just mean that when the DA Limited lineup overlaps directly on the FA
lineup (I'm thinking of the 40 - 43 and 70 - 77) and in those instances
the lenses are smaller and slower, I don't think you have to panic --
they're not bigger and
At 11:29 PM 19/07/2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
Just look at how obese that 31mm lens looks compared to even its 43
and 77 mm siblings, never mind the DA21. Pornographic indeed. ]'-)
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
Just look at how obese that 31mm lens looks compared to even its 43
and 77 mm siblings, never mind the DA21. Pornographic indeed. ]'-)
I had the 31 and didn't like it much although it
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the film SLRs that the prior
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the
On 7/18/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Well, Sigma does make a 20mm f1.8 just for folks like you.
But it's bigger than the DS.
Yep, it's a monster, but I have it. Tack sharp, fast, focuses closely.
Lots of fun, even if it does weigh a ton.
But
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Go have a nice little cry.
This is an old picture
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb
We know and you still suck...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
Not as porntastic as yours but here's my mixed bag...
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/IMGP5070.jpg
Go have a nice little cry
A large part of a wider maximum aperture is easier focusing, weather
autofocus or manual an F2 lens will lock a lot faster than an F3.5. My
SMC Takumar 35mm f3.5 gives excellent results on film and digital but
it's a PITA to achieve precise focus, under anything other than the
brightest
On 7/19/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should be ashamed.
I assure you:
I met him and I know him. Mark Roberts has no shame.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Perhaps another reason that the DA Limiteds are being designed for
compactness and quality rather than speed is that the DSLRs they are
designed to work with produce so much cleaner results at ISO 400 to
1600 than the film SLRs that the prior
I'm sure the DA 21mm, unlike the DA 40mm, won't work very well for 35mm
film, but has anyone tried it, just for grins? Any test shots out
there?
*UncaMikey
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
On 19/7/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Bit of pixelation on the window.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
You've been shooting digital too long, that's a window screen...
Cotty wrote:
On 19/7/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Lens porn:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/IMGP6706.jpg
;-)
Bit of pixelation on the window.
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:56 AM, UncaMikey wrote:
I'm sure the DA 21mm, unlike the DA 40mm, won't work very well for
35mm
film, but has anyone tried it, just for grins? Any test shots out
there?
I haven't seen anything yet, Mike. The DA21 is just getting into the
market and DSLR buyers are
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
My testing of the Sigma 20/1.8 showed it to have poorer wide-open
resolution and contrast than the Canon EF20/2.8.
In addition to your point re contrast, we discussed T-stops the other
day too. I would be very interested to see the T-stop of the
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you cannot see how a shot is
framed with an f/2.8 maximum aperture vs an f/2 or f/1.8, Mark.
Well it's true. What else can I say?
What lens faster than the 20/2.8 have you gone to with similar FoV?
FA*24/2.0 - which isn't that
Relevant, perhaps not, but certainly interesting. Quite a few people
seem to have both film and digital, and I was just curious if anyone
had tried it. I have to admit, I am tempted by the new K100D, and
compactness is very important to me. Not a big deal, in any event, I
suspect someone will
On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you cannot see how a shot is
framed with an f/2.8 maximum aperture vs an f/2 or f/1.8, Mark.
Well it's true. What else can I say?
What lens faster than the 20/2.8 have you
On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
My testing of the Sigma 20/1.8 showed it to have poorer wide-open
resolution and contrast than the Canon EF20/2.8.
In addition to your point re contrast, we discussed T-stops the other
day too. I would be very interested to see the
On 19/7/06, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
You've been shooting digital too long, that's a window screen...
I knew someone would bite and it was a fifty/fifty chance it would be
you Peter ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
... h. I thought I had all the Limited's (31-43-77). Now there's one
more to buy. Must be grat for panoramas ;-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some images taken of the 21mm on the *istD:
http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/pentax.php
Anything through instead of on ?:-)
-Ryan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Hi Ryan,
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:03:11 -0500, Ryan Brooks wrote:
Some images taken of the 21mm on the *istD:
http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/pentax.php
Anything through instead of on ?:-)
Nothing worth showing yet :-)
I made a few of my home intteriour, and will be taking the lens
2 more, the 40mm DA limited and the new 21mm. And a 70mm f2.4 DA Limited
will arrive this fall.
You've got the full set of FA Limiteds.
-Adam
Jens Bladt wrote:
... h. I thought I had all the Limited's (31-43-77). Now there's one
more to buy. Must be grat for panoramas ;-)
Regards
Jens
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
Jens Bladt wrote:
... h. I thought I had all the Limited's (31-43-77). Now there's one
more to buy. Must be grat
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as much as the lack of
speed. f/3.2 is just too
There is that. Personally I think I'd prefer the FA 20mm f2.8.
Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as much as the lack
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not
that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens,
too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring
Adam Maas wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J.
Alling
Sendt: 18. juli 2006 20:52
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
There is that. Personally I think I'd prefer the FA 20mm f2.8.
Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling
Adam Maas wrote:
But it's just 1/3 of a stop from the most similar lens, the FA 20mm
f2.8. And in a far smaller package. It's also only 1/3 of a stop slower
than the only other DA Limited pancake, the 40mm f2.8.
Still too slow for me.
--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
On 7/18/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as much as the lack of
speed. f/3.2 is just too slow for me to get very excited about.
Certainly not excited enough to pay Limited prices.
Were I a digital guy, putting the 21mm pancake on a
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
But it's just 1/3 of a stop from the most similar lens, the FA 20mm
f2.8. And in a far smaller package. It's also only 1/3 of a stop slower
than the only other DA Limited pancake, the 40mm f2.8.
Still too slow for me.
Well, Sigma does make a
IMO if Pentax still prodoces FA Limited (well at least it is in their
catalog) when they also sell DA Limited is obvious: DA Limited arent's
supposed to replace FA Limited.
FA LImited are Limited because of their quality and speed.
DA Limited are Limited because of their quality, size and speed.
Den 18. jul. 2006 kl. 23.09 skrev frank theriault:
On 7/18/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as much as the lack of
speed. f/3.2 is just too slow for me to get very excited about.
Certainly not excited enough to pay Limited prices.
Adam Maas wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
But it's just 1/3 of a stop from the most similar lens, the FA 20mm
f2.8. And in a far smaller package. It's also only 1/3 of a stop slower
than the only other DA Limited pancake, the 40mm f2.8.
Still too slow for me.
Well, Sigma does
No, you're just not bitten (yet? or no more?) by LBA when others are.
Be happy ;)
2006/7/19, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adam Maas wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
But it's just 1/3 of a stop from the most similar lens, the FA 20mm
f2.8. And in a far smaller package. It's
The DA40mm f/2.8 Limited is another one you don't have ...
Godfrey
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
... h. I thought I had all the Limited's (31-43-77). Now
there's one
more to buy. Must be grat for panoramas ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
At 02:36 AM 19/07/2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas. Still it looks like nice wide angle lens, too bad
it doesn't have an aperture ring.
The lack of an aperture ring doesn't bother me as
]
Subj: Re: SV: 21mm limitted is a jewel ...
Date: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:13 pm
Size: 561 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
At 02:36 AM 19/07/2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
It's a DA limited, at 21mm its more like a 28mm on 35mm film. Not that
great for panoramas
On Jul 18, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm really pretty happy with what I have for wide angle primes.
I realize that it's unfashionable to be happy with the lenses you
already own, but that's just the way it is.
:-)
I continue to be tickled by the notion of either the FA28/2.8 or
61 matches
Mail list logo
