Oh, so he upgraded from his days as a lawyer ;-)
Frantisek
Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 7:14:28 PM, graywolf wrote:
g> The took Frank vocabulary away when he quit law. Now he only knows 600 words.
g> --
g> frank theriault wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:10:16 -0400, Peter J. Alling
>> <[EMAI
On 06 Sep 04 I wrote in pentax.list:
>I've got the chance to get a Pentax Takumar 85/1.8 for 150,- Euro. Is
>that a good price and should I go for it? Stan's website shows very good
>comments on this lens.
I just want to thank everybody for your answers. Unfortunately the
seller was very unreliea
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:30 AM
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:17:22 -0400, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What? A stamp collector. Next thing we will have reptile skinned camera
> collectors running, or is that
Mine didn't work either. Damn I'm getting slow.
frank theriault wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:19:55 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I almost sent that as "The collect frnaks Stamp", but I caught myself.
That's okay, Peter,
I already knew what a philatelist was anyway. I
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:19:55 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I almost sent that as "The collect frnaks Stamp", but I caught myself.
That's okay, Peter,
I already knew what a philatelist was anyway. I was just attempting
humour. I don't think it worked very effectively in th
The took Frank vocabulary away when he quit law. Now he only knows 600 words.
--
frank theriault wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:10:16 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They collect stamps Frank...
Really!!
Well, I learned something new today. I had no idea.
Thanks, Peter,
frank
--
They collect stamps Frank...
frank theriault wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:25:28 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's been done that way for years though my favorite example was the
turn of the century politician who smeared his opponent by calling him a
know philatelist, (I th
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:17:22 -0400, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What? A stamp collector. Next thing we will have reptile skinned camera
> collectors running, or is that a collectors of reptile skinned cameras? Seems
> like the order of the words make a little difference too...
>
> GRIN!
What? A stamp collector. Next thing we will have reptile skinned camera
collectors running, or is that a collectors of reptile skinned cameras? Seems
like the order of the words make a little difference too...
GRIN!
--
Peter J. Alling wrote:
It's been done that way for years though my favorite e
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:25:28 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been done that way for years though my favorite example was the
> turn of the century politician who smeared his opponent by calling him a
> know philatelist, (I think I mentioned this before but it bears repeatin
It's been done that way for years though my favorite example was the
turn of the century politician who smeared his opponent by calling him a
know philatelist, (I think I mentioned this before but it bears repeating).
graywolf wrote:
On the other hand, if I said a lens is OK, you would probably
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:08:56 -0400, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, if I said a lens is OK, you would probably figure it was
> acceptable, but if I said it was mediocre you would probably think it was less
> than acceptable. Though in fact both statements are the same.
>
>
On the other hand, if I said a lens is OK, you would probably figure it was
acceptable, but if I said it was mediocre you would probably think it was less
than acceptable. Though in fact both statements are the same.
Just as saying your bunny ears are puerile would make many folks think there is
Frank wrote:
> Reminds me of someone's comment about a very fast 50mm prime (I think
> it was f1.2, but I can't remember). IIRC, they said that it's best
> performance was around f 8 to f11, and that it was unusable opened
> wider than f5.6 because it was so soft.
>
> When someone asked him why h
Peter J. Alling wrote:
No problem, just explaining my thought processes. I'm a software
engineer by trade by the IT market is only just recovering. I've been
doing odd jobs mostly dealing with end users who are none to precise
about their requirements and needs, it's almost like developing es
No problem, just explaining my thought processes. I'm a software
engineer by trade by the IT market is only just recovering. I've been
doing odd jobs mostly dealing with end users who are none to precise
about their requirements and needs, it's almost like developing esp.
God help me when I'
> Hi Fred, do you know if they ever made it in AF mount?
Nope. Tokina hasn't made it (AT-X 60-120/2.8) since the
early-to-mid eighties, I would say. It was released at about the
same time as the AT-X 100-300/4, and not too long after the AT-X
80-200/2.8 (and these three lenses are amongst my fav
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:05:13 -0400, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another one of those Latin words that get bad connotations just for being Latin.
> As Peter says, mediocre is actually synonymous with OK. Not great, not bad, just OK!
Well, Tom,
I agree with you and Peter, insofar as medio
Okay, Peter...
I was trained to read precisely what was written, and so many people "sort
of" get it right when they identify something, you have to be come adept at
reading between the lines, which is literally guessing.
Based on a few clues, we all did alright, didn't we.
Re SMC, there's quite
To appeal to the people who wanted old fashioned quality, and the 43mm
was successful enough to inspire Nikon to create a "copy".
Caveman wrote:
If the manufacturer lets you know what it was designed for (e.g. in
the promotional materials, on their web sites and in the booklet that
comes in the
Keith,
He also called it SMC, so I'm assuming that he knew Asahi was Pentax.
In my mind I substituted as I assumed he did. So my conclusion was
that he asking about the the M42 lens. I have both and they are both
equally good. I could be wrong but the assumptions seemed reasonable.
Keith Wha
H I've used a couple of Tokina ATX zoom lenses that were
well-rated here, and was mostly disappointed by them. One was, I believe,
an 80~200/2.8, and it had a lot of barrel and pincushion distortion at the
ends, and a considerable amount of light falloff at the widest two
apertures. Like
F> I'm referring to the Tokina AT-X 60-120/2.8 manual focus zoom.
F> Despite the f/2.8 max aperture, it's actually a nice small zoom for
F> carrying about, especially for informal portraits.
Hi Fred, do you know if they ever made it in AF mount? It would be an
good range for 1.5x DSLR, the 80-200
>> For my shooting style - "on the street" (etc.) [...] a
>> 60-120/2.8.
> Is that a ZOOM lens? Pentax or Billy Joe Bob brand?
Yes, Shel, it's a "Billy Joe Bob brand" - .
I'm referring to the Tokina AT-X 60-120/2.8 manual focus zoom.
Despite the f/2.8 max aperture, it's actually a nice small
re as one where there is neither
pre-set nor automatic stop-down, so maybe the 35 is a candidate?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Takum
Well, I would think it performs better at f/1.2 than any other Pentax lens,
Frank. Also I would bet it does not perform as well as a 1.7 around f/8.0 and
f/11. That's a trade off you have to pay for the extra stop (in the case I just
mentioned). My M50/1.7 is better at 1.7 and smaller than any 5
Well, I am not an expert on this lens, but I seem to remember an 85/1.9 Takumar
(preset), an 85/1.9 Auto Takumar, an 85/1.8 Super Takumar, and an 85/1.8 SMC
Takumar. For what it is worth, as I recall, Auto Taks stopped down when you took
the picture but did not reopen until you advanced the film
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:00:50 -0700, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a thought/question: If a lens is termed "mediocre" in general, but
> gives good results in a specific situation, perhaps even one for which it
> was designed, is it really a mediocre lens?
>
> For example, there is
> Carrying the 1.4 around for lots of hand-held shots on the street
> [...] I liked the 1.4 but it just didn't fit that well into my
> shooting style.
Yeah, that's about what I remember you saying, Shel.
For my shooting style - "on the street" (etc.), I'm more likely to
be using a 135, say, or
Depends a lot on how and what you photograph. Carrying the 1.4 around for
lots of hand-held shots on the street, trying to stuff it into the Domke
F-803 satchel, just wasn't worth the effort, especially since any sharpness
superiority the 1.4 had was often mitigated by hand holding and trying to
h
> Even after that brief exposure (sic) it's one of the very few
> lenses that would tempt me away from my "A or later" position on
> glass for use with my *ist-D.
I know what you mea, John. By rights, I probably ought to "upgrade"
the A* 200/2.8 (or maybe the FA* - I dunno) from my K 200/2.5.
Ho
Hi, Shel.
> and the K85/1.8 has become one of my most used and valuable
> lenses, preferring it to the A*85/1.4 optics for numerous reasons.
Well, while I do miss the K 85/1.8, and while I also still have
access to an FA* 85/1.4 (my wife's lens), I still find the A* 85/1.4
to be my 85-of-choice.
If the manufacturer lets you know what it was designed for (e.g. in the
promotional materials, on their web sites and in the booklet that comes
in the lens box), that's OK with me.
But if you have to buy the lens first then discover yourself what it is
good for (or not), it stinks.
Anyone ever s
Hi Peter,
I gather the buyer knew it was an M42 mount, since he called it a Takumar.
The only thing up to question is, is it an Auto- or S.M-C Tak?
No, I'm wrong, he called it a Pentax Takumar, of which there were none...
So, we have two things to determine, is it an Asahi or a Pentax.
Then, of cou
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Peter J. Alling wrote:
> Comments about the Pentax should apply to the Tak as well. 150 seems to
> be a reasonable price, but remember it
> is a M42 lens so you'll need an adapter...
You will also need to do stop-down-metering.
Kostas
The SMC Takumar is one of the lenses that became a K mount with
virtually no changes except the mount of course.
Comments about the Pentax should apply to the Tak as well. 150 seems to
be a reasonable price, but remember it
is a M42 lens so you'll need an adapter...
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Others have noted correctly that the first 85/1.8 is called
"Auto-Takumar."
On Sep 6, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
There are two Takumar screw mount 85/1.8. The first which is I believe
marked simply Takumar 85/1.8 is a very early single coated lens and is
not particularly good. The
There are two Takumar screw mount 85/1.8. The first which is I believe
marked simply Takumar 85/1.8 is a very early single coated lens and is
not particularly good. The second is marked "Super-Multi-Coated
Takumar," and it is very good. It is purportedly optically identical to
the K 85/1.8, alt
38 matches
Mail list logo
