Worth even more than that I guess:
http://tinyurl.com/52xov
Don
-Original Message-
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Was it really worth that much?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll
On 16/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
Ask Wendy ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much?
On 16/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
Actually, vacuum cleaners don't suck. They just creat an environment
allowing the Earth to blow
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:04:29 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Actually, vacuum cleaners don't suck. They just creat an environment
allowing the Earth to blow.
There is no gravity, the Earth sucks.
-- Anonymous
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
in a *heartbeat* for an A, F or FA
version, if it was nearly as good!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Was it really worth that much?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll
easily.
Mine is just a ST and I love it, I consider $150 a bargain
for the quality.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much?
It's a K lens Don
that much easily.
Mine is just a ST and I love it, I consider $150 a bargain
for the quality.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much
That's OK, I was looking for an excuse to make a
wisecrack anyway. ;-)
Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
You're right. I don't know
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the
relationship the greater the impact.
Howard Hendricks
On 16 Dec 2004 at 17:15, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186ssPageName=ST
RK:MEWA:IT You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The
closer the relationship the greater the impact. Howard Hendricks
If seripak comes up
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
Generic answer - Yes, if the buyer wants it that much.
Specific answer - The K 85/1.8 ~is~ a gorgeous lens in all respects.
Economics answer - Obviously (assuming that the buyer will come through).
Fred
It wasn't that long ago that these lenses were selling for quite a bit
more. $420.00 seems like a reasonable - almost bargain - price to me. I
sold two that needed repair for more that $350.00 each some time ago, and
paid $600.00 plus for one that was in mint condition, also a few years
back.
, December 16, 2004 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Was it really worth that much?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186
ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The
closer the
relationship the greater
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
I WOULD give that much in a *heartbeat* for an A, F or FA
version, if it was nearly as good!
How does the 77 stack up?
William Robb
To someone..(Seripak for example).
Collin R Brendemuehl wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer
the relationship the greater the impact.
Howard Hendricks
--
I can
]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much?
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
I WOULD give that much in a *heartbeat* for an A, F or FA
version
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
Don
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much?
es to mind.
The 77 pretty much Hoovers
version, if it was nearly as good!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Was it really worth that much?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd
- Original Message -
From: Don SandersonSubject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
bad.
William Robb
On 17 Dec 2004 at 1:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For candid portraits I prefer something longer than 135. Even with an 85,
you're
only a half dozen feet away or so. With a e00, you can hide around the
corner:-). Paul
Yes, even my AF200/2.8 with a 1.7 tc is too short on occasion :-P
tones and
I like the Bokeh.
(Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-)
Don
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much
LOL, love 'em!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
On 17 Dec 2004 at 1:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For candid portraits I prefer
]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
Doh. That was supposed to read, With a 300, you can hide around
the corner.
Paul
For candid portraits I prefer something longer than 135. Even
with an 85, you're
only a half dozen feet away or so. With a e00, you can hide around the
corner
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
It's a K lens Don. The M 85, which is much less expensive, is an
85/2. My SMCT version went for $270 a few months
On Dec 17, 2004, at 3:41 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:
I said candid, not covert! ;-)
If you want covert, there's always this:
http://www.allegro.pl/show_item.php?item=36686305
This discussion got me looking on our lokal eBay and this was the
first auction. ;-)
Divide the Kup teraz (buy it now) price
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:15:13 -0500, Collin R Brendemuehl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=3860946186ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
I paid $160 for mine, brassed with perfect glass. Then, after three
years of happy use it fell from my pocket when riding my
Consider also the prices of the 77mm ltd, the FA* 85 F1.4, and the
nearly-unobtainable A* 85 F1.4. A fast 85 is a wonderful thing.
--Mark
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It wasn't that long ago that these lenses were selling for quite a bit
more. $420.00 seems like a reasonable - almost bargain -
Candid portraits in real dim lighting anyone?
Don (The fast 85 is your friend!)
-Original Message-
From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:23 PM
To: pentax-discuss
Subject: Re: Was it really worth that much?
A fast 85 is a wonderful thing
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
From what I've seen it stacks up just fine.
At $700.00 it stacks a bit to high for me though. :-(
Actually, from the results I get with the 85/1.9
(Under $150.00) I don't know if the 77 could beat
I've seen that lens go for even a bit more. And as good examples end up
in the hands of those who will never part with them, it becomes more
and more scarce.
Paul
On Dec 16, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
On 16 Dec 2004 at 18:26, Don Sanderson wrote:
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
I don't know, the 77mm is Ok for me, bokeh is nice and smooth, wide open it's
fine too, it may be too sharp for some though. I must admit that I'm a little
confused over all this portrait lens
on skin tones and
I like the Bokeh.
(Now that I can pronounce it I'll use it!) ;-)
Don
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
On 16 Dec 2004 at 18
Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Was it really worth that much?
On 16 Dec 2004 at 18:26, Don Sanderson wrote:
Hoovers? As in vacuums [vacuums suck ;-)], as in bad?
I don't
33 matches
Mail list logo
