Glad to hear you like yours, Jack. I sense I’m going to like mine, too. Eric
> On May 30, 2015, at 7:36 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>
> You would have paid a steep price
> for my copy of the DA16-45, Eric!
> Good choice!
>
> J
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 30, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Paul Stenquist
Thanks, Paul. The help I got here informed my choice. I sense I’ll be very
happy with it. Eric
> On May 30, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> The 16-45 is an outstanding value. It shoots much better than it looks or
> feels. You will like it.
>
> Paul via phone
>
>> On May 30, 2015
Thanks, Mark. I suspect I will, too. Eric
> On May 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Mark C wrote:
>
> I'm sure you'll be happy with your selection, Eric - it's an excellent lens.
>
> Mark
>
> On 5/30/2015 2:58 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>> On May 16, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks again
Quoting Jack Davis :
You would have paid a steep price
for my copy of the DA16-45, Eric!
Good choice!
Yes - hard to find anything bad to say about it. My only regret is
that I don't use it as often since I got the 18-135. I've just become
more lazy as I get older...
Cheers
Brian
++
You would have paid a steep price
for my copy of the DA16-45, Eric!
Good choice!
J
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 30, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> The 16-45 is an outstanding value. It shoots much better than it looks or
> feels. You will like it.
>
> Paul via phone
>
>> On May
The 16-45 is an outstanding value. It shoots much better than it looks or
feels. You will like it.
Paul via phone
> On May 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Mark C wrote:
>
> I'm sure you'll be happy with your selection, Eric - it's an excellent lens.
>
> Mark
>
> On 5/30/2015 2:58 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I'm sure you'll be happy with your selection, Eric - it's an excellent lens.
Mark
On 5/30/2015 2:58 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On May 16, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Thanks again to all who responded to my request for input regarding wide angle
zooms. FWIW,regarding them, I’m leaning toward
> On May 16, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> Thanks again to all who responded to my request for input regarding wide
> angle zooms. FWIW,regarding them, I’m leaning toward the pentax 16-45/4 or
> the new sigma 17-40/2.8. The latter is especially attractive, though more
> expensive, but
Thanks, Darren. For the links regarding the 15 and 21 mm lenses and the Tamron
17-50.
> On May 16, 2015, at 11:22 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
>
> Eric,
> I don't have either one, but here are examples taken with the 21mm HD:
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=4092
Thanks, Steve—for the comments and the reference. Eric
> On May 16, 2015, at 11:09 PM, steve harley wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-16 7:56 , Eric Weir wrote:
>
>> Thinking about zooms, though, has got me thinking about primes as an
>> alternative. I love my a 28/2.8 but I want a wider field of view. I’
> On May 17, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
>
> As a travel and street photographer, I use the fast and brutally sharp
> Tamron 17- 50/2.8. Sometimes I need a wider lens like at the Photo
> Walk in the Castro & Mission area San Francisco - full of beautiful
> murals and wall art - see samp
Dear Stan, Street Photography requires you:- a) to be fast most of the
time before that super photo opportunity is lost. b) Sometimes it also
requires you to be discreet, which means you must shoot fast and
disappear into the crowds. c) Tall structures like Skyscrapers throw
deep shadows which requ
Eric,
I don't have either one, but here are examples taken with the 21mm HD:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=4092
and the SMC 21mm:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=80
And here are the 15mm versions.
HD: http://www.pentaxphotog
On 2015-05-16 7:56 , Eric Weir wrote:
Thinking about zooms, though, has got me thinking about primes as an
alternative. I love my a 28/2.8 but I want a wider field of view. I’m tempted
by the pentax 15/4 limited and smc 21/3.2 limited. I’d like to avoid noticeable
distortion, i.e., noticeable
> On May 16, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>
> Do I rave? :-). Cheers, Christine
Well, that’s my recollection—my vague recollection. And you know how reliable
that is.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
Do I rave? :-). Cheers, Christine
Christine Aguila, Asst. Professor
Communications Dept.
Truman College
FC4 President
On May 16, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>> On May 16, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>>
>> I’m a huge fan of the DA 21mm f3.2! Can’t say enough about the l
> On May 16, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:
>
> I’m a huge fan of the DA 21mm f3.2! Can’t say enough about the lens. When I
> travel, it’s often my go-to lens, especially when in urban areas for street
> photography. Sometimes it’s a bit wide for certain shots, but then I crop
>
> On May 16, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
>
> The DA21/3.2 is a favorite lens; like Christine I often find it is THE lens
> on my camera when walking city streets. I like the DA15/4 as well and pretty
> much always include it in my travel kit. Small, light, I can find a place to
> put
The DA21/3.2 is a favorite lens; like Christine I often find it is THE lens on
my camera when walking city streets. I like the DA15/4 as well and pretty much
always include it in my travel kit. Small, light, I can find a place to put it.
But I don’t pull it out and use it all that often.
Wide a
I’m a huge fan of the DA 21mm f3.2! Can’t say enough about the lens. When I
travel, it’s often my go-to lens, especially when in urban areas for street
photography. Sometimes it’s a bit wide for certain shots, but then I crop :-)!
Cheers, Christine
> On May 16, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Eric Weir
Thanks again to all who responded to my request for input regarding wide angle
zooms. FWIW,regarding them, I’m leaning toward the pentax 16-45/4 or the new
sigma 17-40/2.8. The latter is especially attractive, though more expensive,
but within my range.
Thinking about zooms, though, has got me
21 matches
Mail list logo
