On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Cory Waters wrote:
>
> I have decided that for walking around at a place like Disney World with your
> family taking those sorts of snapshots, you need to have a lens like a
> 28-200. ...
Me, I'd go with a normal or short portrait tele lens, f/2.8 or faster.
But
half Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 1:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: I've made a lens decision
I shot and posted this a couple of days ago. The Pentax version isn't
that horrible.
http://files.getdropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20tutu.html
I sti
I shot and posted this a couple of days ago. The Pentax version isn't
that horrible.
http://files.getdropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20tutu.html
I still want to replace my two zoom kit with something better, because
of it. but in bright light so you can stop down a bit it's not that bad
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 06:36:22PM -0400, John Sessoms wrote:
>
> I have a Tamron 28-200 that is just a terrible lens.
It was one of the first, if not the first, lens I bought for my
K100. I picked it up at B&H for a lot less than I expected. After I
got my 18-250, I was having problems with the
For this exact same situation, I like the analog of a 28-90 for 35mm.
I'll give up the reach for the weight reduction. I bet I could live
with just a 18-55 kit zoom for walk around snaps.
Steve Desjardins
On Aug 1, 2009, at 3:36 PM, "Cory Waters"
wrote:
>
> I have decided that for walki
Yes, 28 is way too long for what I might need "out in the bush."
what was I thinking?
CW
- Original Message
From: Joseph McAllister
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2009 5:16:26 PM
Subject: Re: I've made a lens decision
On Aug 1, 2009, at 13:3
Cory Waters wrote:
I have decided that for walking around at a place like Disney World
with your family taking those sorts of snapshots, you need to have a
lens like a 28-200. I'm willing to sacrifice the perceived loss of
tack-sharp or fantastic image quality whatever to have one fairly
compact
On Aug 1, 2009, at 15:38 , J.C. O'Connell wrote:
for places like disney world a good quality
P&S digital is probably easier than a DSLR.
Poobah. You would not look at all 'cool' enough.
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
There is no off position to the genius switch.
Genius can, however, be
It's the lens I used every day until I got the DA* 60-250 for my dog
park work.
My only complaint was that it didn't focus as well at 250mm, because
it had gone to ƒ6.7. But that was overcome by using 400 and 800 ISO
when in shade or cloudy days.
On Aug 1, 2009, at 14:25 , Thibouille wro
pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
John Sessoms
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:36 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I've made a lens decision
From: Thibouille
> The 18-250 is available in both Tamron and Pentax brands.
> The only differences are look
From: Thibouille
The 18-250 is available in both Tamron and Pentax brands.
The only differences are look and probably in K-7 case, auto CA etc. correction.
This zoom is also well known as being pretty damn good for what it is
(a do it all lens).
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Joseph McAllister
I came to a similar conclusion a few months ago and, after getting some
suggestions here, I picked up a Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.5 DC at a good price
on EBay. I haven't regretted the purchase.
Maybe a bit short on the long end for what you want but as a 'go
anywhere' lens it's quite good.
Cheer
The 18-250 is available in both Tamron and Pentax brands.
The only differences are look and probably in K-7 case, auto CA etc. correction.
This zoom is also well known as being pretty damn good for what it is
(a do it all lens).
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
> On Aug 1,
On Aug 1, 2009, at 13:35 , Cory Waters wrote:
I have decided that for walking around at a place like Disney World
with your family taking those sorts of snapshots, you need to have a
lens like a 28-200. I'm willing to sacrifice the perceived loss of
tack-sharp or fantastic image quality wh
I have decided that for walking around at a place like Disney World with your
family taking those sorts of snapshots, you need to have a lens like a 28-200.
I'm willing to sacrifice the perceived loss of tack-sharp or fantastic image
quality whatever to have one fairly compact lens that has th
shops on Mars using only psychic emanations. Not that I fret
over such things.
>>> "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/23/2008 7:21 PM >>>
- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Subject: lens decision
> Alright, I'm being r
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Subject: lens decision
> Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll around for advice.
>
> I'm debating buying the DA 70 and 21 OR the FA31. I know the former
> combination would be more useful
Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll around for advice.
>
> I'm debating buying the DA 70 and 21 OR the FA31. I know the former
> combination would be more useful, especially since I have nothing the 70
> mm range. These lenses also allow MF adjustment w
Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll around for advice.
>
> I'm debating buying the DA 70 and 21 OR the FA31. I know the former
> combination would be more useful, especially since I have nothing the 70
> mm range. These lenses also allow MF adjustment w
Scott Loveless wrote:
> Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
>> Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll around for advice.
>>
>> I'm debating buying the DA 70 and 21 OR the FA31. I know the former
>> combination would be more useful, especially since I have nothing the 70
>> mm range. These
You don't say anything about speed, the 31mm is 1 2/3 stops faster than
the 21mm, and almost a full stop faster than the 70mm. If debating
these lens purchases I'd think you'd surely want to take that into account.
Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll aro
There's no rational way to make this choice. Pick what you think
you'll like most.
I'd get the DA21 and FA43 ... that's what I have and I love the
combination. I also have the DA70 but find I use it much much less
than the 21/43 pair.
I had the FA31 and was not all that enamored of it. I fo
Alright, I'm being really indecisive so I'll troll around for advice.
I'm debating buying the DA 70 and 21 OR the FA31. I know the former
combination would be more useful, especially since I have nothing the 70
mm range. These lenses also allow MF adjustment without switching
focusing modes.
23 matches
Mail list logo
