On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:34:07 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> [...] when I was shooting motorsports for car magazines. But my most
> used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, [...]
That's good to hear since I shoot motorsports and I just took delivery
of my first FA* lens today (FA* 200/2.8 from KEH). :-)
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
> > probably over 90% were 50mm.
>
> That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses
availabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
> probably over 90% were 50mm.
That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses available on
ebay demonstrates how ludicrous this remark is.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
I don't know if I was a "professional" when I was shooting motorsports
for car magazines. But my most used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, and I
used to clean the bits or rubber and dust off it by wiping it with my
t-shirt. I made many many thousands of dollars with that old hunk of
metal and glass.
>This is a constructed argument. Sure there are rare Pentax lenses but they
>can be counted on one hand. But there are rare Nikon lenses too, I'll bet
>that any Nikon lens available for two years only, like the K 105mm, are
>hard to find as well. I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find th
In a message dated 6/18/2002 7:09:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm denying that pentax lenses in
> general are rare.
>
Pal,
Deny it all you want. Nobody was saying as much. We're all agreed on this!
-Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
In a message dated 6/18/2002 6:01:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now look for a Nikon
> AI 105/2.5. It doesn't matter how many Pentax 105's were
> made, there aren't any for sale.
>
Bingo!!
-Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
In a message dated 6/18/2002 3:59:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Pentax lenses aren't rare.
I didn't say they were rare. I said that the finer versions are rather harder
to find than comparable lenses of other makes. What's more, you normally pay
more for a really f
Pål Audun Jensen commented:
June 18, 2002 7:05 AM
Why some Pentax lenses are rare in North America may be that Pentax
didn't
sell many there and/or that people simply don't offer them for sale. I'm
also sure that the Pentax lens population may look different from the Nikon
lens population but
Bruce wrote:
>Yes, there were millions of Pentax
>lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
>probably over 90% were 50mm. Pentax was a value camera
>here, and few people invested in a lot of OEM lenes.
What does my post have to do with North America? I was refering to
production n
I wrote:
I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than Nikon lenses but that
doesn't make Pentax lenses rare.
Correction:
It is supposed to be: "I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than
Pentax lenses..."
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscrib
Bruce wrote:
>Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always
>seems to be at least one thread of having looked for
>months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in
>some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax
>lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
>prob
Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always
seems to be at least one thread of having looked for
months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in
some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax
lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably over 90% we
Mishka wrote:
>anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a
>completely different game with completely different rules, many not so
>obvious.
I don't think so. I believe the run-of-the-mill pro is less concerned about
lens quality, as long as it is good enough, than the
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
> Guys: Face the facts. How many of us shoot for top notch
magazines that use
> art directors that would notice the difference. Maybe there's
a little bit of
> splitting hairs
On 14 Jun 2002 at 9:44, Mishka wrote:
> as for me, an amateur, the rules are really simple: maximum quality for
> minimum money. for truly critical things, M/LF is the answer anyway. so
> apart for exotics (600mm tele or 15mm short, tilt/shift, etc), 35mm
> (leica included) is really a convenienc
On 14 Jun 2002 at 15:06, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
> Now to the 135mm contest: Pentax 135/1.8 vs. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3.
> Somehow, all my collected comments on the Pentax have been erased. The
> comments I've collected about the Vivitar state that it's sharp at all
> apertures. The Pentax,
In a message dated 6/14/2002 11:42:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> it's a PIA
huh?
Exactly; it is masochistic!
-Brendan MacRae
-
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
v
Knut,
You're right about the 35/2 FA; I had forgotten about this autofocus lens.
I guess I stand corrected about the Sigma 50 macro being sharper than the
Pentax 50/2.8 FA. It sharpness is nothing short of phenomenal. Yoshihiko
Takinami writes: "This macro is excellent not only for macro work
This would also seem to be the definition of
masochist. "It feels sooo good when I stop banging my
head against the wall!" It's not like Pentax is the only
company that makes/made decent lenses and bodies. If
you're into the joy of collecting, then this is
satisfying. If, on the other hand, y
One reason many Pentax users covet their lenses as they do is simply because
the finest Pentax lenses are not a dime-a-dozen as they are with other makes.
This gives us the feeling that when we are able to acquire a "good" lens, say
the 20mm f2.8 vs. the more commom f4, we want to dance.
I jus
William Robb
> Here is where it matters, and is something that would probably
> not occur to non professional print film users.
>
> If one is shooting a job on chrome film and has a mish mosh of
> lenses from different manufacturers, then it will be impossible
> to get a consistent look. Art d
Just to add:
Formally tested the F 50/2.8 is definitely better than the Sigma 50/2.8 EX
in contrast as well as resolution according to the www.photodo.com website.
Knut
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don
In a message dated 6/14/2002 8:24:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Art directors have a funny way of
> noticing little things like changes in colour rendition.
> I found this to be such an issue that I changed from Nikon to
> Pentax, partly to get similar rendition betwe
I'm sure Pentax is surpassed at times, but I'm surprised at your statements
concerning the following comparisons:
1) FA 35/2.0 AL versus Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (M42)
I would bet that resolution will be better for the Pentax, especially in
the corners at at any f-stop below f4. I'm not sure in what
more than Zeiss T*85/1.4 -- go figure!)
but, feel free to disagree.
best,
mishka
> From: William Robb
> Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro
vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:09:41 -0700
>
> Here is where it matters, and is somethin
>"I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or
>without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a
>Nikon or Canon lens. Come on guys. Bokeh smokeh. Get real."
I don't know about Canon, but I used to have some AF Nikkors. The colour
reproduction f
27 matches
Mail list logo
