Rob Studdert wrote on 13.03.06 4:43:
Har, don't go there, consider the implications for most of the DA lenses :-)
I must say Rob, that most of DA lenses have excellent build quality. I can't
imagine that one could made something better from polycarbonate - anyway
they feel much better in hand
Stan Halpin wrote on 13.03.06 4:06:
I got one two years ago, right after I had a chance to use one at GFM
(thanks Don!).
Buy it. At worst, you will decide you don't use it often enough and
will resell for +50%. But I think you will find it is in your must
carry kit for any nature walk/hike.
It's a star lens. There is no need to ask about it.
And surely you know of Stan's site:
http://stans-photography.info/
John
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:43:52 -, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stan Halpin wrote on 13.03.06 4:06:
I got one two years ago, right after I had a
Oh go on Paul.
chomp
Dave :-)
On 3/13/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Troll away. I won't bite.
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 at 22:21, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Most of the DA lenses are excellent lenses. Those are the only
implications
Hi!
I have an opportunioty to buy one of the last new FA *200/4 macro
lenses. And here are some questions - I would use it also as normal
200/4 telephoto. How good it is at infinity (I guess it is first rate
at macro range - and ED glass should ensure low CAs)? What about its
build
after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12. mars 2006 12:24
To: PDML
Subject: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Hi!
I have an opportunioty to buy one of the last new FA *200/4 macro
lenses. And here
On Mar 12, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
I have never used this lens. I don't recall seeing anything taken
with this
lens. I don't know anybody who has told me anything significant
about it.
It is crap, don't by it ;-)
Yeah, so it must be real crap :-P Thanks Tim, I appreciate your
: 12. mars 2006 12:58
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
On Mar 12, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
I have never used this lens. I don't recall seeing anything taken
with this
lens. I don't know anybody who has told me anything significant
about
I have often wondered about this lens, too. Specifically, I used to have
an A* 200/4 Macro, and I'd often wondered how the two optically different
200/4's compared.
OTOH, it probably just a crappy piece of glass, worth no more than a
paperweight, so don't buy it. vbg
Fred
)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
-Original Message-
Wrom: GMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTF
Sent: 12. mars 2006 12:24
To: PDML
Subject: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Hi!
I have
On Mar 12, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Fred wrote:
I have often wondered about this lens, too. Specifically, I used
to have
an A* 200/4 Macro, and I'd often wondered how the two optically
different
200/4's compared.
Optical diagrams are different and FA* is IF lens.
OTOH, it probably just a
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk
Subject: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Hi!
I have an opportunioty to buy one of the last new FA *200/4 macro lenses.
And here are some questions - I would use it also as normal 200/4
telephoto. How good it is at infinity (I guess
Sorry to hear it Bill.
= g =
Dave
On 3/12/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snp
I snagged on last year.
snip
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Sorry to hear it Bill.
Thanks. The pain of not having a concept checker is almost more than I can
bare
William Robb
On Mar 12, 2006, at 4:07 PM, William Robb wrote:
I snagged on last year.
Excellent lens, right from infinity to 1:1, and the build seems
quite good as well.
If you can afford it, I don't think you will be sorry.
Thanks William! Oh no, it seems more and more likely that I'll have
to buy
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Thanks William! Oh no, it seems more and more likely that I'll have to buy
it. Damn :-)
Be realistic, Sylwek. Have you heard about a bad macro lens?
Especially from Pentax? :-)
Kostas
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote on 12.03.06 19:28:
Be realistic, Sylwek. Have you heard about a bad macro lens?
Especially from Pentax? :-)
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare
for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-)
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare
for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-)
But the 100/3.5 is not a real Pentax lens.
P.
On 12 Mar 2006 at 17:25, Powell Hargrave wrote:
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare
for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-)
But the 100/3.5 is not a real Pentax lens.
Har, don't go there, consider the implications for most of the DA lenses :-)
Rob
posted files so I have room for
some test shots on a few lenses, I'll see if I can i.d. some shots
done with the FA* 200/4 for you...
Stan
On Mar 12, 2006, at 9:07 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk
Subject: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Hi!
I have
Most of the DA lenses are excellent lenses. Those are the only
implications that matter.
Paul
On Mar 12, 2006, at 10:43 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 at 17:25, Powell Hargrave wrote:
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts -
compare
for instance 100/3.5
Powell Hargrave wrote:
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare
for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-)
But the 100/3.5 is not a real Pentax lens.
Even for a rebadged lens, disguised as a Pentax, it was a pretty good
lens for the money.
I owned one for about
On 12 Mar 2006 at 22:21, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Most of the DA lenses are excellent lenses. Those are the only
implications that matter.
..to you.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Troll away. I won't bite.
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 at 22:21, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Most of the DA lenses are excellent lenses. Those are the only
implications that matter.
..to you.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)
On Mar 13, 2006, at 4:13 AM, William Robb wrote:
Thanks. The pain of not having a concept checker is almost more
than I can bare
I don't think we could bear seeing you bare.
- Dave
25 matches
Mail list logo
