I suspect a lot of them were ordered as the note was posted (by
someone else) on the DPReview.com forum. Now, we'll see if they ship
them ... :-)
Godfrey
On Jul 10, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:
Now, the question is: did we buy them all or did they
never really exist?
Now, the question is: did we buy them all or did they
never really exist?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: keller.schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:13 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: AW: excellent price on Pentax 24-90!
>
As far as I can see it is gone from their site.
Good luck...
Sven
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Juli 2005 20:30
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: RE: excellent price on Pentax 24-90!
I'm in!
At less than 1/2 pric
I took a few shots with yours in March and liked it ... :-) ... I
just wasn't willing to pay twice as much for it. It will be
interesting to put it to the test and see which I like more.
Godfrey
On Jul 9, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Pat Kong wrote:
Godfrey,
I think that you will enjoy the 24-90. I
Godfrey,
I think that you will enjoy the 24-90. It's a tad heavier than the 28-105. I
have both. On the *istDS, I've found that I use the 24-90 more indoors these
days as I need things *just* a bit wider. But for in-town walk arounds, I'll
take either lens. Let me know if you find that colors with
gt; Subject: Re: excellent price on Pentax 24-90!
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
>
> >> However, I just happened upon http://www.beachcamera.com listing
> >> the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL IF for a remarkable $199, new. Beach Camera
> &g
On 7/9/05 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
(snip)
Couldn't help myself ... at $200, I ordered one. Now I'll be able to
do a direct comparison of the two lenses.
Godfrey, I'll be very interested to read about your comparison.
Hopefully you'll post it both here and in the DPReview Pentax SLR
Forum.
On July 9, 2005, Joseph Tainter wrote:
I have bought a PZ-1p and my *ist D from Beach, both transactions
without any problem. At the time I bought my D (late October 2003),
the first batch had sold out everywhere else and only Beach had it.
They do charge high shipping fees. The main problem
On Jul 9, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
However, I just happened upon http://www.beachcamera.com listing
the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL IF for a remarkable $199, new. Beach Camera
has an excellent rating on resellerratings.com
I have bought a PZ-1p and my *ist D from Beach, both transac
However, I just happened upon http://www.beachcamera.com listing the
FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL IF for a remarkable $199, new. Beach Camera has an
excellent rating on resellerratings.com
--
I have bought a PZ-1p and my *ist D from Beach, both transactions
without any problem. At the time I bo
When I was looking for a mid-range zoom in the 28-100mm range, I
looked at the Pentax FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL IF and Pentax
FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF pair. The 24-90 is supposed to be a somewhat
better performer. After trying both, I chose the 28-105 as I didn't
see enough difference between the tw
> You know, Sometimes I think we underestimate how good some of
> these older, third party lenses really are. Some of my favourite
> lenses are third party lenses
Same here. (Well spoken, Vic.)
As much as I like all of my (too many) samples of Pentax glass, I
also cherish some of the specia
> and compare the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 macro against the Vivitar
> Series One 90/2.5 macro. The Tokina is no slouch in the saturation
> department; it has that Nikon-like warmth that makes everyone look
> as though they've been out in the sun. Fred, you own both macros;
> is the coloring the same?
S
You know, Sometimes I think we underestimate how good some of these older,
third party lenses really are. Some of my favourite lenses are third party
lenses
Vic
On 22 Jan 2003 at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Andre Langevin wrote:
> >
> > But it's always surprising to read in many tests that even expensive
> > lenses are not perfectly centered. Does it mean that a (good)
> > repairman could do better (afterwards) than the original lens maker
> > did at t
yes for 4 to 6 element designs,
no for 12 to 15 element desings.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:07 PM
> To: 'Pentax-Discuss'
> Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pe
"J. C. O'Connell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a trade off to adding elements:
A. on one hand they reduced abberations IF precisely ground and placed
B. BUT on the other hand, the extra air glass surfaces REDUCE contrast (and
apparent resolution).
Didn't Super Multicoating (SMC) all-but-eli
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> > >> elements will be better.
> > >
> > > I absolutely believe that statement...
> >
> >
> > Well it seems bizarre to me. How can one be better if they're equally
> > corrected?!? Either th
And...we've not even mentioned centering or collimation problems.
Where did that come from? Not me...
That sort of thing belongs to the lens maker (grinder/polisher), so
s/he doesn't introduce such...
keith whaley
But it's always surprising to read in many tests that even expensive
lenses are
Aha! You mean "...fewer" elements. Yes, I now understand...
Mike Johnston wrote:
Somebody said:
>
> >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> >> elements will be better.
To which I replied:
>
> > I absolutely believe that statement...
So, Mike countered:
> Well it s
>
>
> >> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> >> elements will be better.
> >
> > I absolutely believe that statement...
>
>
> Well it seems bizarre to me. How can one be better if they're equally
> corrected?!? Either they're equally corrected, or one is better.
>
TED]
> > Subject: Lens Elements, WAS: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
> >
> >
> > > The qualifier is KEY:
> > >
> > > simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> > > elements will be better. ala aspherical designs
For some reason, these two statements don't jibe. Don't match.
Like...one person is talking about one thing, and the other person
drops a non-sequitur on the pile, and hopes for the best...
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> >There's no way they can get around it, except to make each new element
> >match
to increase functionality? Like closer focusing??
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Lens Elements, WAS: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>
>
>
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > The qualifier is KEY:
> >
> > simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> > elements will be better. ala aspherical designs vs spherical
> > only or zooms vs. primes, etc.
>
> Well, this makes no sense to me. Why would a designer add another eleme
>> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
>> elements will be better.
>
> I absolutely believe that statement...
Well it seems bizarre to me. How can one be better if they're equally
corrected?!? Either they're equally corrected, or one is better. Both things
can't be tru
> The qualifier is KEY:
>
> simple, if two lenses are equally corrected, the one with less
> elements will be better. ala aspherical designs vs spherical
> only or zooms vs. primes, etc.
Well, this makes no sense to me. Why would a designer add another element
but to make the lens better correct
>There's no way they can get around it, except to make each new element
>match the previous elements very, very well, and test them together
>for final figuring.
Centering and collimation have nothing to do with the number of elements.
You can have a lens with many elements that has zero decenter
> B. BUT on
> the other hand, the extra air glass surfaces REDUCE contrast
> (and apparent resolution)
That was true before multicoating. Now there's a slight transmission loss
for each added element, but better correction can often result in better
contrast.
--Mike
"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > For a given focal length and speed, there is an "ideal" number
>> > of elements to optimize the design.
>>
>> I was unaware of that. Is there a list or chart somewhere, or a
>> discussion about this I could read?
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
> In the 80s, the tendency, at least at Pentax with the M and then the
> A lenses, has been to cut down on the number of lens elements.
But that's because of the availability of better glass and more glass types,
not because fewer elements are intrinsically better.
--Mike
> > For a given focal length and speed, there is an "ideal" number
> > of elements to optimize the design.
>
> I was unaware of that. Is there a list or chart somewhere, or a
> discussion about this I could read?
> Thanks for pointing that out.
Well, it's not a science, but you dont see 50mms wi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 22. tammikuuta 2003 21:07
Aihe: Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>You're absolutely right, J.C.
>Each added element adds two more medium interfaces (air-to-glass,
>etc.) and each
aja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 22. tammikuuta 2003 20:44
Aihe: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>It's still true today, all else being equal, a lens design with
>less elements will be sharper and more contrasty than one with more.
>For a given foca
.
> More does NOT always equal better when it comes to lens elements.
> JCO
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Raimo Korhonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:26 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Vs: Vivitar 35
o lens elements.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Raimo Korhonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Vs: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>
>
> It used to be so before World War II because
. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 22. tammikuuta 2003 2:04
Aihe: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent
Andre wrote: Could the difference in saturation be caused by a slight
difference in exposure (because of diaphragm margin of error)?
Could be, but certain VMC coating formulations--or is it the
glass?--produced consistently more saturated colors. I can tell at a glance,
for example, which of my 28
> -Original Message-
> From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>
>
> >Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens?
>
PM
Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
> Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens?
> If so that combined with the narrower range could account
> for it's better performance.
> JCO
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andre Lange
Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens?
If so that combined with the narrower range could account
for it's better performance.
JCO
Maybe. But are all zooms varifocal lenses that have their focus
adjusted automatically by another "cam" inside the lens? In other
words, was a zoom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90?
>
>
> From adphoto (then me):
>
> >24-90mm- quite good... not as contasty or sharp as the vivitar
> >35-85mm it replaced...
>
> I'm surprised because the 24-90 is a very recent design and the
> Vi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tested the Pentax 24-90 vs the Tamron 24-135. I'd give a very slight edge
> to the Pentax for optics, but the extra range of the Tamron is nice. Both
> are very good zooms opticallyboth very consistent over the ranges. A
> tough choice.
Thanks for you input, Andreas. I went to B&H Photo and bought the thing
today. Will give it a tryout this weekend.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at htt
I tested the Pentax 24-90 vs the Tamron 24-135. I'd give a very slight edge
to the Pentax for optics, but the extra range of the Tamron is nice. Both
are very good zooms opticallyboth very consistent over the ranges. A
tough choice.
Robert James
In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:
The Pentax 24-90 zoom has been out for a while and has been referred to
on this list a number of times. I am considering buying one, mainly for
travel and walking-around-with-one-lens use. I have two 28-70 zooms, the
f4 and the f2.8. Both are fine and have served me well, but just do not
have
>If I may add my humble opinion, go with the Pentax.
>However, if you want an even better quality normal
>zoom and you're willing to pay a bit more and live
>with a shorter focal range, Consider the Tokina AF ATX
>Pro 28-80mm f 2.8. According to Popular Photography's
>lens reviews, there is no co
>Let me second this - I have had the SP 2.8/35-105 Tamron, first I
>thought it would be an ideal portrait/normal lens for me. However, I
>am glad I finally managed to sell it, even if at a slight loss. It was
>a really bad lens at the wide end, with enough unsharpness to make
>focusing hard! The
the MZ-S (if you
choose that PF setting), which gives the sharpest possible image. The
Tamron won't do that.
The Tamron is large and heavy. It feels nose-heavy on the MZ-S. You'll
get used to it, though.
If I was buying either lens, I'd buy the Pentax 24-90. But I already
have zooms
>I want to buy the Pentax FA 3,4-4,5 / 24-90 AL(IF) or the Tamron
>3,5-4,5/24-135 for my MZ-S. Which one has the better optical and / or
>mechanical quality ? Does everyone have experiences with one of these
>lenses? Thank you for any comments about them.
I had terrible experience with their once
Hi all,
I want to buy the Pentax FA 3,4-4,5 / 24-90 AL(IF) or the Tamron
3,5-4,5/24-135 for my MZ-S. Which one has the better optical and / or
mechanical quality ? Does everyone have experiences with one of these
lenses? Thank you for any comments about them.
Stephan Schwartz
-
This messag
>That's true. My SP 2.8/35-105 did the same. It was an exceptional lens
>when I got it, (but wide open), but after year of semi-pro use it got
>wobbly and resolution dropped down. It's clearly visible in the slides
>I shot when testing it after purchase and slides now. And I have got
>the manual f
That's true. My SP 2.8/35-105 did the same. It was an exceptional lens
when I got it, (but wide open), but after year of semi-pro use it got
wobbly and resolution dropped down. It's clearly visible in the slides
I shot when testing it after purchase and slides now. And I have got
the manual focus
Pop Photo tested the Tamron 24-135 a couple of issues ago. All the specs
you need should be there.
DG
At 03:43 PM 7/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
>So sayeth Robert James:
>
> >inexcusable for a single barrel extension. I also have the new Tamron
> >24-135, and the build quality is much better...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I just bought two of these, and although I have not yet tested them
> optically, I am a bit disappointed in the build quality. Very plastic. Zoom
> feel not that great. And both my lenses have some barrel wobble.which is
> inexcusable for a single barrel extens
So sayeth Robert James:
>inexcusable for a single barrel extension. I also have the new Tamron
>24-135, and the build quality is much bettervery tight. Again, I have
I've been trying to find the specs for this lens. Tamron's web site
has been unreachable whenever I've tried (well over a
I just bought two of these, and although I have not yet tested them
optically, I am a bit disappointed in the build quality. Very plastic. Zoom
feel not that great. And both my lenses have some barrel wobble.which is
inexcusable for a single barrel extension. I also have the new Tamron
TED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 04. toukokuuta 2001 12:11
Aihe: questionm about new Pentax 24-90 zoom lens
>Hi,
>
>anyone know if this lens stays focussed when zooming?
>
>Frank
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
58 matches
Mail list logo
