On 1/7/2021 13:22:36, Bob Pdml wrote:
On 7 Jan 2021, at 18:15, John wrote:
It only requires a simple majority in the House to impeach.
The Senate has to have a two-thirds majority TO CONVICT & REMOVE.
BOTH Houses must agree by a two-thirds majority to remove the President under
Section 4
been
incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
Note, let's not get ourselves exercised about this. I am genuinely
curious.
bill
Technically no. The Constitution defines treason very narrowly and this
doesn't fit within that definition.
OTOH, it's not too late to impeach him
> On 7 Jan 2021, at 18:15, John wrote:
>
> It only requires a simple majority in the House to impeach.
>
> The Senate has to have a two-thirds majority TO CONVICT & REMOVE.
>
> BOTH Houses must agree by a two-thirds majority to remove the President under
> Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
>
, John wrote:
On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has
been
incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
Note, let's not get ourselves exercised about this. I am genuinely
curious.
bill
Technically no. The Constitu
21 20:20:21, Paul Stenquist wrote:
A 2/3 majority opting for impeachment is possible after today. But it would
require all of the time remaining in Trump’s tenure to achieve. Not worth it.
He will be ruined and quite possibly go to jail.
Paul
On Jan 6, 2021, at 6:45 PM, John Francis wrote:
hn Francis wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:17:56PM -0500, John wrote:
> >>>> On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
> >>>>> Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has
> >> been
> >>>>> incite
-0500, John wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has
>> been
>>>>> incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, let's
ance.
>
> bill
>
>
>> On Thu., Jan. 7, 2021, 1:44 a.m. John, wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2021 18:44:28, John Francis wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:17:56PM -0500, John wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Given the br
ote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:17:56PM -0500, John wrote:
> >> On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
> >>> Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has
> been
> >>> incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
> >>>
&g
On 1/6/2021 18:44:28, John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:17:56PM -0500, John wrote:
On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has been
incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
Note, let's not get ourselves
A 2/3 majority opting for impeachment is possible after today. But it would
require all of the time remaining in Trump’s tenure to achieve. Not worth it.
He will be ruined and quite possibly go to jail.
Paul
> On Jan 6, 2021, at 6:45 PM, John Francis wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:17:56PM -0500, John wrote:
> On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
> > Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has been
> > incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
> >
> > Note, let's not get ourselves
On 1/6/2021 17:08:28, Bill wrote:
Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has been
incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
Note, let's not get ourselves exercised about this. I am genuinely curious.
bill
Technically no. The Constitution defines
I read an argument that it would be sedition not treason based on the
definitions.
On January 6, 2021 2:08:28 PM PST, Bill wrote:
>Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has
>been
>incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
>
>Note
Given the brouhaha going on in DC at the moment and the fact it has been
incited by #45, does what he has done constitute treason?
Note, let's not get ourselves exercised about this. I am genuinely curious.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Am 19.11.16 um 16:07 schrieb Boris Liberman:
Had a very quiet walk this morning in Jerusalem Botanical Gardens...
Very nicely seen. Thanks for sharing.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio :
Interesting, Boris!
J
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Literally:
>
> http://pentax-ways.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-45-hanging-by-thread.html
>
> Had a very quiet walk this morning in Jerusalem Botan
Boris Liberman wrote:
http://pentax-ways.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-45-hanging-by-thread.html
+++
Well observed and captured Boris.
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML
Interesting. Power of the web?
Alan C
-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 5:07 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Boris PESO #45 - Hanging by a thread
Literally:
http://pentax-ways.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-45-hanging-by-thread.html
Had
Literally:
http://pentax-ways.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-45-hanging-by-thread.html
Had a very quiet walk this morning in Jerusalem Botanical Gardens...
Thanks for looking.
--
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
A couple years ago, my first 16-45 took a tumble off a low table onto
a carpeted floor. Something broke inside and the zoom and focus were
jammed and wouldn't turn all the way. I bought another one
second-hand to replace it and stuck it on a shelf to collect dust.
I took it off the shelf
That's rather deceptive. I thought it was the official Pentax made
model, from the description.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Thanks, Bipin. I’ll check it out. I got the hood I ordered from NewEgg. Not
happy with it. It screws on instead of slipping on
On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's rather deceptive. I thought it was the official Pentax made
model, from the description.
So did I. Though disappointed, I appreciate your calling it to my attention in
the first place.
Yeah, shoulda read more carefully. I might still have hoped that it functioned
the way the Pentax hood functions, though.
On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Eric Featherstone eric.featherst...@gmail.com
wrote:
This bit of the item name ...Pro Digital Lens Hood (Flower Design)
(67mm)... made me
On Jul 23, 2015, at 7:46 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
$22.95 shipping included.
Make that $26.90.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
“...we are a form of invitation to
On Jul 20, 2015, at 12:20 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
too late for Erik, but the 17-70 hood apparently works well on the 16-45 and
is $23 at BH; one can imagine a perfect 17mm hood would cause slight
vignetting wide open at 16mm, but i'd be surprised if the hood is perfect
On 2015-07-23 15:36 , steve harley wrote:
i would send it back and get the one for the 17-70; you'll save money even
with return shipping
i should say, i haven't tried the 17-70 hood, but i found a discussion or
review that said it would work just like the regular hood (e.g. reversible);
i
This bit of the item name ...Pro Digital Lens Hood (Flower Design)
(67mm)... made me think it wasn't the genuine hood.
On 23 July 2015 at 22:31, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's rather deceptive. I thought it was the official Pentax made
model, from the description.
On Thu, Jul
On Jul 20, 2015, at 12:20 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
too late for Erik, but the 17-70 hood apparently works well on the 16-45 and
is $23 at BH; one can imagine a perfect 17mm hood would cause slight
vignetting wide open at 16mm, but i'd be surprised if the hood is perfect
On 2015-07-23 15:28 , Eric Weir wrote:
Thanks, Bipin. I’ll check it out. I got the hood I ordered from NewEgg. Not
happy with it. It screws on instead of slipping on the way the original Pentax
hood does, which means it can’t be mounted on the lens backward, which was very
convenient when the
Thanks, Bipin. I’ll check it out. I got the hood I ordered from NewEgg. Not
happy with it. It screws on instead of slipping on the way the original Pentax
hood does, which means it can’t be mounted on the lens backward, which was very
convenient when the lens is not in use. I may get a chance
On Jul 21, 2015, at 2:06 AM, Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Eric Sir, here is a printable lens hood for the 16-45. You can
cut one out on a black thin plasticised foam.
You can even fold it to stow away in your camera bag. I don't see the
need to spend $$ on a lens hood.
http
Hello Eric, I have seen this rubberised foam sheets - about 1 to 2 mm
thick and as light as a feather - at Michaels, Wall Mart and other
craft stores. Paid 89 cents for a sheet. Here in India it is dirt
cheap. Comes in one side black and the other side white, full black or
full white.
Kids use
Dear Eric Sir, here is a printable lens hood for the 16-45. You can
cut one out on a black thin plasticised foam.
You can even fold it to stow away in your camera bag. I don't see the
need to spend $$ on a lens hood.
http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php
Regards
Driving along the Little Tennessee River, returning home from a paddling trip
to Western North Carolina, I lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that came with
my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too ridiculous.
Scouring the web when I got home it appears it will not be easy
lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that came with
my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too ridiculous.
Scouring the web when I got home it appears it will not be easy to replace
the hood. Any suggestions about how/where I might be able to obtain a Pentax
hood for the 16-45/4
As you probably know, the real deal is available from a couple of eBay
sellers, but is $59-60. Ouch.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:45 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm
hood.
--
Life is too short to put up
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm
hood.
On 7/20/2015 8:40 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Driving along the Little Tennessee River, returning home from a paddling trip
to Western North Carolina, I lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that came with
my 16-45/5. I
On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
NewEgg has it for about $32 shipped.
http://goo.gl/VoSsgz
That's the best price I could find.
Thanks, Darren.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur,
, but from
my first outing with the 16-45/4 I can tell it’s going to be on my camera a
lot.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
Our world is a human world.
- Hilary Putnam
--
PDML
On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:45 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm hood.
Maybe Newegg has it? Or perhaps I was just fortunate that Newegg had one for
the 16-45/4—and that Darren found that it did and informed
On 20 Jul 2015, at 13:40, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Driving along the Little Tennessee River, returning home from a paddling trip
to Western North Carolina, I lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that came with
my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too
oops Eric (i try to be careful about names)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:45 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm
I'm still trying to find my hat
hood.
On 7/20/2015 8:40 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Driving along the Little Tennessee River, returning home
probably know, the real deal is available from a couple of eBay
sellers, but is $59-60. Ouch.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:45 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm
hood.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality
On 2015-07-20 7:18 , Darren Addy wrote:
NewEgg has it for about $32 shipped.
http://goo.gl/VoSsgz
That's the best price I could find.
Hope that helps.
too late for Erik, but the 17-70 hood apparently works well on the 16-45 and
is $23 at BH; one can imagine a perfect 17mm hood would cause
The 24-90 hood works too, and is what is now on my 16-45.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:45 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable
BH has it for $60.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618598-REG/Pentax_34779_PH_RBA58_Lens_Hood_for.html
On 7/20/2015 9:45 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Hell, I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for the FA 20-35mm
hood.
On 7/20/2015 8:40 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Driving along the Little
wrote:
On 20 Jul 2015, at 13:40, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Driving along the Little Tennessee River, returning home from a paddling trip
to Western North Carolina, I lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that came with
my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too ridiculous
On Jul 20, 2015, at 12:21 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
oops Eric (i try to be careful about names)
I’ve committed worse errors than that here. No problema.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
with my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too
ridiculous.
Nothing is too ridiculous for the PDML.
I put it on the hood of my car while I cleaned the filter and lens. Then drove
away with it still on the hood. When I realized it was missing back to the
site. Checked
On Jul 20, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote:
Some of us have done that with lenses...
I almost did it with a camera and lens once. Fortunately one of the hike
leaders noticed it and alerted me before I'd gone very far.
Eric
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
North Carolina, I lost the Pentax tulip flower hood that
came with my 16-45/5. I won’t go into the details. Too involved and too
ridiculous.
Nothing is too ridiculous for the PDML.
I put it on the hood of my car while I cleaned the filter and lens. Then
drove away with it still
On Jul 20, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Rick Womer rickpic...@gmail.com wrote:
The 24-90 hood works too, and is what is now on my 16-45.
Is that because the filter diameter is the same? (On the 16-45 its 67 mm
You may remember the EX-rated 16-45/4 I bought from KEH on which the aperture
didn’t open when the lens was put on the camera. I called them, explained that
problem seemed to be that the little lever that opens the aperture when the
lens is mounted seemed to be bent and arranged to take
Anxious to learn your opinion, Eric.
J
- Original Message -
From: Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 2:12:05 PM
Subject: Update on KEH (16-45/4 saga)
You may remember the EX-rated 16-45/4 I bought from KEH on which
Glad to hear!
They uphold their reputation, at least in my mind.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
Subject: Update on KEH (16-45/4 saga)
You may remember the EX-rated 16-45/4 I bought from KEH
My understanding is that Keh has a good service record.
Hope you find it true, Eric.
J
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:51 PM, Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org wrote:
Yes - it's disappointing when something
On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:51 PM, Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org wrote:
Yes - it's disappointing when something like this happens and, if the lens
were mine, I'd just bend the pin back.
However, mine's an older lens not under warranty. In your case I'd probably
let KEH deal with it
On Jun 5, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote:
My understanding is that Keh has a good service record.
Hope you find it true, Eric.
I think I will, Jack. The only problem is it’ll take more time that I’d like.
I’d really like to splurge on a 20-40/2.8 limited. So much
at no
additional cost to me.
...
Igor
Eric Weir Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:35:31 -0700 wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I.m totally
baffled. ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
7:26:31 AM
Subject: Re: Baffled by my 16-45/4
Long ago I bought an LX from KEH. It came all nicely securely packed, nestled
in a bunch of those plastic foam “peanuts.” Unfortunately they did not put on a
body cap nor put the camera in a plastic bag and so the body was quite well
filled
@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 7:26:31 AM Subject: Re:
Baffled by my 16-45/4
Long ago I bought an LX from KEH. It came all nicely securely packed,
nestled in a bunch of those plastic foam “peanuts.” Unfortunately
they did not put on a body cap nor put the camera in a plastic bag
and so the body
On 6/4/2015 7:34 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I double checked mounting. Still have the problem. With the lens off
the camera, pushing the lever the aperture opens and closes smoothly.
When I compare the levers on the 16-45/4 and the 35/2.4 the one on
the 16-45/4 is ben in towards the center
Your experience is good news. Especially if recent.
J
- Original Message -
From: John sesso...@earthlink.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 10:03:30 AM
Subject: Re: Baffled by my 16-45/4
They're human and make mistakes like everyone else.
The key
believe they'll make good for any mistake on their part.
Wouldn't think twice about buying another item from them.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: Stan Halpin
s...@stans-photography.info
Subject: Re: Baffled by my 16-45/4
/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
Subject: Re: Baffled by my 16-45/4
Long ago I bought an LX from KEH. It came all nicely securely packed,
nestled in a bunch of those plastic foam “peanuts.” Unfortunately they did
not put on a body cap nor put
: Baffled by my 16-45/4
Long ago I bought an LX from KEH. It came all nicely securely packed,
nestled in a bunch of those plastic foam “peanuts.” Unfortunately they did
not put on a body cap nor put the camera in a plastic bag and so the body
was quite well filled with the foam peanuts. I sent
On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I would try gently bending it back to position and save the time and money of
shipping it back. You could also call and ask. There is a small, but
non-zero chance that bending it back could break off the lever.
It would
On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Mark C pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:
Mount it on the camera and look through the front of the lens to see if the
aperture is open. Given that it is used, you just bought it, and it is
malfunctioning in a manner that could not be caused by user error - that's a
Eric Weir wrote:
On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Brian Waltersapathy...@lyons-ryan.org wrote:
Quoting Eric Weireew...@bellsouth.net:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black
Quoting Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m
totally baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark,
almost black. With the lens wide open I can barely make out objects
in the field of view only when pointed directly
seems fine then its possible you might not be
turning it enough, but I'm kind of assuming you have mounted it
correctly.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Eric Featherstone
eric.featherst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2015 at 23:35, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH
On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Igor PDML-StR pdml...@komkon.org wrote:
I've had one lens that came with a deffect from KEH (not working AF).
KEH paid for the shipping to them, repaired it and sent it back to me at no
additional cost to me.
I would not waste much of time trying to figure
Quoting Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Igor PDML-StR pdml...@komkon.org wrote:
I've had one lens that came with a deffect from KEH (not working AF).
KEH paid for the shipping to them, repaired it and sent it back to
me at no additional cost to me.
I would not
On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org wrote:
Quoting Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black.
With the lens wide open
would not waste much of time trying to figure out what the problem is.
The lens doesn't work properly.
As somebody already mentioned, in your case they might just send a
replacement.
Good luck, Eric!
Igor
Eric Weir Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:35:31 -0700 wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put
/2015 6:35 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black. With
the lens wide open I can barely make out objects in the field of view only when
pointed directly at a strong
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black.
With the lens wide open I can barely make out objects in the field
On 4 June 2015 at 23:35, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black.
With the lens wide open I can barely make out objects in the field of view
only
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I look through the viewfinder it’s very dark, almost black. With
the lens wide open I can barely make out objects in the field of view only when
pointed directly at a strong light source. And I can’t
, but I'm kind of assuming you have mounted it
correctly.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Eric Featherstone
eric.featherst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2015 at 23:35, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Picked up my 16-45/4 from KEH today, put it on the camera, and I’m totally
baffled. When I
So sorta I fixed my 16-45. I will send my worst copy off to CRIS and
have them tighten and align it since I think it has problems beyond
just a wobbly barrel and looks sort of decentered. My fix was simple.
Realizing that when the barrel was aligned and not drooping I was
getting fairly sharp
tighter.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The 16-45
I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images. I
used it extensively on a
number of overseas
standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images. I
used it extensively on a
number of overseas trips, and most of the images I got from it were sharp
corner to corner: those
that were not are probably due to being taken
.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images.
I used it extensively on a
number
and
right. vertically it feels tighter.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images.
I used
have either two bad samples or very high standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great
images. I used it extensively on a
number of overseas trips, and most of the images I got from it were
sharp corner to corner: those
.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great
images. I used it extensively on a
number
:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards!
The 16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great
images. I used it extensively on a
number of overseas trips, and most of the images I got from it were
sharp
Bruce Walker wrote:
Given the state of lens-correction data these days (eg ACR, Lightroom)
that small amount of vignetting (couple of tenths of a stop?) is a
complete non-issue. Even minor barrel distortion isn't worth worrying
about, but especially vignetting.
Unless you just want something to
must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The 16-45 I
got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images. I
used it extensively on a
number of overseas trips, and most of the images I got from it were sharp
corner to corner: those
that were
to the left and
right. vertically it feels tighter.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The
16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great
images. I used
, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle jco...@iinet.net.au
wrote:
Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards!
The 16-45 I got from another
PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great
images. I used it extensively on a
number of overseas trips, and most
said,
and I don't exactly baby my equipment.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Zos Xavius
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013 10:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: 16-45 corner softness...(was re: 16-50 f2.8
On 7/25/2013 7:45 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
More to the point, light fall-off in the corners (not vignetting,
which is darkening caused by an obstruction) is rarely a problem. In
Lightroom I *add* this effect frequently and only *very* rarely feel
the need to correct for it.
I once read
expensive.
Regards,
Jaume
- Mensaje original -
De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
CC:
Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47
Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses
one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a
bit expensive.
Regards,
Jaume
- Mensaje original -
De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
CC:
Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47
Asunto: Re: the 16-45
:47
Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses
can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It
successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0
(notice faster long end of the zoom range
-70s and the Pentax one seems a
bit expensive.
Regards,
Jaume
- Mensaje original -
De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
CC:
Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47
Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Dave, I've (the oldest
1 - 100 of 923 matches
Mail list logo
