>> And there is also the A50/1.2, of course, but that's 2-3 times as
>> expensive as the FA50/1.4, and perhaps doesn't perform quite as well
>> besides the higher speed?
>>
>
> Some folks seem to like it a lot.
I seem to recall someone saying on this list that it wasn't too usable
at f/1.2,
On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:45 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Yep. Prices around here are higher, as usual, but in relative terms
> the
> situation is not that different. I think the Nikon may be bit
> closer to
> the Pentax (and further away from the Canon) in price than indicated
> here, though...
I t
The 50 f1.2 preforms way better than the 50 f.1.4 and 50 f1.7 at f1.2.
The same can be said for the f1.4 vs. the f1.7 at f1.4.
Toralf Lund wrote:
>>>At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more
>>>relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are
>>>cons
Toralf Lund wrote:
>>>At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more
>>>relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are
>>>considerably less expensive than the FA50/1.4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Canon and Nikon both produce very low cost 50mm lenses in the f
>> At any rate, perhaps a comparison with Canon or Nikon would be more
>> relevant. I've noticed that both these producers offer 50s that are
>> considerably less expensive than the FA50/1.4.
>>
>
> Canon and Nikon both produce very low cost 50mm lenses in the f/1.8
> and f/2 range. While t
Zeiss' version of the Nikon F mount IIRC.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
>>There's also the ZF mount Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, which is improved
>>over
>>the contax mount version due to a superior aperture design. It's a
>>little pricey at ~$500USD
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
>>There's also the ZF mount Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, which is improved
>>over
>>the contax mount version due to a superior aperture design. It's a
>>little pricey at ~$500USD. An M42 version is due shortly.
>>
>>
On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> There's also the ZF mount Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, which is improved
> over
> the contax mount version due to a superior aperture design. It's a
> little pricey at ~$500USD. An M42 version is due shortly.
ZF mount? What's that? I'm unfamiliar with
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
>
>
>
>>>That would be me. I compared the price of a Pentax FA50/1.4 with a
>>>Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. The Pentax holds up pretty damn
>>>well for a lens that that is priced at less than 8% as much as the
>>>Leic
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
>> That would be me. I compared the price of a Pentax FA50/1.4 with a
>> Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. The Pentax holds up pretty damn
>> well for a lens that that is priced at less than 8% as much as the
>> Leica lens.
>>
> In what ways? I mean
> People pay too much on eBay every day. I was watching 10 auctions from the
> same vendor for identical items. They went for:
>
> $4
> $7
> $3
> $19
> $54
> $25
> $10
> $7
> $5
> $5
>
> Also, people may have "heard" that the lens was discontinued and paid more
> for it without checking.
>
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> Sure, but my point is that in a not-small country, no one had checked on
> availability in five years -- so why should people be upset if it's no longer
> in the catalog? They never made any serious attempt to buy it.
>
Yes, That's a good point, of course ;-)
> -Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: SV: FA-50/1.4 (used) price
Date: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:25 am
Size: 841 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>
>> Well, what I and others have been trying to say is that judging from
>> the
>&g
>
>> Well, what I and others have been trying to say is that judging from
>> the
>> used prices the demand would seem to be very high, i.e. there is
>> something here that just doesn't add up. Could it be that nobody asks
>> the warehouse because everyone believes the lens is discontinued?
>>
Sure, but my point is that in a not-small country, no one had checked on
availability in five years -- so why should people be upset if it's no longer
in the catalog? They never made any serious attempt to buy it.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actua
>>> This fussing about availability by people who don't intend to buy
>>> strikes me as ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Or maybe I might want the 1.7 after all, if it is sufficiently cheaper
>> than the 1.4. Now, you do agree that I shouldn't have to order one in
>> order to find out what the p
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>> No, I'm saying that there's new, existing stock that no one is
>> attempting to buy -- if people want them, they can get them.
>>
> You mean the 1.7? Not the 1.4?
I absolutely do, yes.
> I just mentioned the former as a
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> No, I'm saying that there's new, existing stock that no one is attempting to
> buy -- if people want them, they can get them.
>
You mean the 1.7? Not the 1.4?
I just mentioned the former as an aside in any case. I do want the 1.4,
but I would prefer to get a used one i
nd to buy strikes me as
ridiculous.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: SV: FA-50/1.4 (used) price
Date: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:18 am
Size: 789 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
So you are saying that Pentax's own price-lists aren'
>> Yes, they are slower, but
>> Pentax does not seem to offer a slow 50 - besides the 50 macro, i.e.
>> the
>> FA50/1.7 appears to be gone.
>>
>
> Really? Who did you try to purchase one from that refused to buy a new
> one from Pentax for you?
>
So you are saying that Pentax's own pric
On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:19 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Yes, they are slower, but
> Pentax does not seem to offer a slow 50 - besides the 50 macro, i.e.
> the
> FA50/1.7 appears to be gone.
Really? Who did you try to purchase one from that refused to buy a new
one from Pentax for you?
-Aaron
--
>
>>> Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0?
>>>
>> I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with
>> another
>> high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't
>> everything.
>>
>
> I agree with Shel. If I were looking to comp
On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
>> Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0?
> I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with
> another
> high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't
> everything.
I agree with Shel. If I
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0? That's
>ludicrous.
>
I would compare a high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens with another
high-quality, sharp, high-resolution lens. Maximum aperture isn't
everything.
Did you also think it was ludicrous t
Now why in the world would you compare an f1.4 with an f2.0? That's
ludicrous. Now a Pentax 50/2.0 can be had for $10.00 Summicron 50mm
lenses have sold used more in the neighborhood of $500 - $800 depending on
the exact model and condition. OTOH, many used Pentax 50mm 1.4 lenses go
for as litt
>Wow 12%. That's impressive, Godfrey.
>I know Pentax is often (you must know the good stuff) good value for money.
>I just didn't know Leica was that expensive.
>
>
Leica gear is generally expensive, and the Summilux (= F/1.4) lenses
even more so than most other equipment. Leica M stuff also te
On Jun 28, 2006, at 9:11 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
> Wow 12%. That's impressive, Godfrey.
> I know Pentax is often (you must know the good stuff) good value
> for money.
> I just didn't know Leica was that expensive.
>
It's actually even a greater difference than that ... From B&H Photo:
Leica
Wow 12%. That's impressive, Godfrey.
I know Pentax is often (you must know the good stuff) good value for money.
I just didn't know Leica was that expensive.
BTW: I took a shot with the SMC-M 1.7/50mm @ F. 2..
It seems to be sharper than the FA 1.4/50. Or is manual focusing just more
accurate ;-)
28 matches
Mail list logo
