Always possible. I didn't use a magnifier, I was focusing on the
features in the center of the image.
Godfrey
On Mar 18, 2005, at 6:28 PM, David Nelson wrote:
Good work for doing the test - I love seeing this sort of thing... one
thing I'll point out though is that it appears that focus wasn't e
Good work for doing the test - I love seeing this sort of thing... one
thing I'll point out though is that it appears that focus wasn't equal
in the two tests. Take a look at the balcony rails second from the back
and you'll see the tak is sharper. The left-foreground bare plane tree
branches a
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: for the curious ... FA135/2.8 vs Takumar 135/2.5
comparison
lol ... I've already bought way too many Pentax lenses.
Your point?
William Robb
It's slightly faster.
(Ok it's reputed to be sharper as well, but I don't have both, only the
K, which inspires confidence on an lx, it would also make a formidable
club).
Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's definitely prettier :-)
Paul
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
Do you think
On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In
what
way? Have you compared them?
It's fetish. K lenses just have "something". Plus Godfrey is not
afraid of "a little" overlap in a focal length :-) He also does not
mind MF
SMC 135/2.5 has excellent resolution stopped down beyond f/4 but
despite (or maybe due to) that it displays visible chromatic
aberrations. Perhaps these will go away from the smaller format, I
haven't done any measurements.
No experience with FA 135/2.8. Just remember the K only focuses
It's definitely prettier :-)
Paul
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what
way? Have you compared them?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Love to do i
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what
> way? Have you compared them?
It's fetish. K lenses just have "something". Plus Godfrey is not
afraid of "a little" overlap in a focal length :-) He also does not
mind MF.
I read
Hi,
Do you think the K135/2.5 is a better lens than the FA135/2.8? In what
way? Have you compared them?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> > Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to
> > be th
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to
> be the time.
Don't do it Godfrey, you will *really* want the K135/2.5. With a
passion.
Kostas
Good - I didn't expect to do it right away. Let's talk more in April and
set up what we want to do and where to meet then. My first thought is some
place about equidistant between us, which I guess might be around Fremont
or so.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Love to d
Love to do it sometime, but this next couple of weeks is not going to
be the time. I'm putting vehicles together and preparing for movers
next Thursday ... It will probably be the second week of April when
things settle back down again.
Godfrey
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'd like to see that comparison as well.
> I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time,
> Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we
> can see how they compare on the digi and on film.
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From:
I'd like to see the FA compared to the K135/2.5 ... up for that some time,
Godfrey? I'd be happy to meet you somewhere, bring a few lenses, and we
can see how they compare on the digi and on film.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's obvious that you get what you pay
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, at 01:37PM, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
>
>I'd say for $27 (I paid $20 for mine) the good 'ol Takumar (Bayonet) is
>quite the bargain lens.
I agree!
>It would appear that the SMC on the FA version really helps
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 3/17/2005, 4:02 PM:
> Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the
> single coated Takumar version which cost me $27...
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
I'd say for $27 (I paid $20 for mine) the good 'ol Takumar (Bayonet) is
qu
It's obvious that you get what you pay for. The 135/2.8 is quite impressive
even wide open.
Paul
> Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the
> single coated Takumar version which cost me $27...
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
>
> enjoy,
> Godfrey
>
Thought it might be fun to pit the brand-new $300+ lens against the
single coated Takumar version which cost me $27...
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/135cmp/
enjoy,
Godfrey
18 matches
Mail list logo
