The K lenses are a bit bigger and a better fit on the KM, KX, K2, K1000.
For the ME and MX, you want the smaller lenses as part of the matching kit.
And that's the real beauty of the M's. Carry a big, slow zoom or put the 50/1.4 on
the camera and the M85/2.0 plus M150/3.5 in the bag. You've
Walnuts? You've lost me.
John
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:22:59 -0500, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 10:17 PM 3/2/2004 +, John Forbes wrote:
I'm not totally convinced by the anti-M arguments.
First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the
preceding K lens, or
If you are having to crop heavily there is an argument that you were using
the wrong lens. However, I do understand that in a high-pressure
situation you have to work with what you've got.
John
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 00:50:20 -0600 (CST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Forbes [EMAIL
Hi Bob ...
For me it's different. I love the way the K lenses look,
fit, and handle on the MX, especially the wide angle
optics. I like the balance as well ...
As for zooms, don't forget that little jewel, the M 24~35,
and a lot of people like the M75~150.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The K
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
As for zooms, don't forget that little jewel, the M 24~35,
and a lot of people like the M75~150.
And the M80-200/4.5, which is said to be sharper than the M200/4 at
200. Although I had the 75-150, I bought the 80-200 instead of the
prime when I needed
Shel Belinkoff a écrit :
Hi Bob ...
For me it's different. I love the way the K lenses look,
fit, and handle on the MX, especially the wide angle
optics. I like the balance as well ...
The most representative M philosophy:
MX + M 2.8/40 Pancake
or
*ist D + M 2.8/40 Pancake
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
The most representative M philosophy:
MX + M 2.8/40 Pancake
or
*ist D + M 2.8/40 Pancake
I don't think so. The Pancake was an extreme case, making a statement,
is my retrospective understanding.
Kostas
At 02:24 PM 3/3/2004 +, you wrote:
Walnuts? You've lost me.
John
I think the T-90 would be an excellent walnut shell cracker. Though it
might pulverize them too much.
- MCC
I have a Canon T90 here, and I can imagine Catier-Bresson using it.
Assume that CB likes walnuts, of course...
I'm not totally convinced by the anti-M arguments.
First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the
preceding K lens, or to the following A lens, so I don't think that in
those (many) cases anybody can credibly claim that the Ks or As were
better.
Second, as has been
First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the
preceding K lens, or to the following A lens,
John
50/4, 100/4 400/5.6 are the K lenses that made it to M unchanged
optically but many M lenses went to A unchanged except for slightly
better coatings and, generally, lower
At 10:17 PM 3/2/2004 +, John Forbes wrote:
I'm not totally convinced by the anti-M arguments.
First, a great many M lenses were identical optically to either the
preceding K lens, or to the following A lens, so I don't think that in
those (many) cases anybody can credibly claim that the Ks
11 matches
Mail list logo
