Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone out there has had any opportunity to
compare
the FA 24-90 to the A 35-105 for general imaging quality. I
am
considering getting the FA 24-90 to replace the A 35-105 for
some of
my wedding work. The usage would be basically a
Are you guys talking about usage on 35mm (FF) or APS
digital?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gianfranco Irlanda
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:22 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens question
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you guys talking about usage on 35mm (FF) or APS
digital?
jco
I am talking about APS digital...
Bruce, after checking more carefully the shots and making a few
more I have something more accurate to say about the sharpness
of the two: the 35-105
Gianfranco Irlanda
JCOC Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:22 AM
JCOC To: pdml@pdml.net
JCOC Subject: Re: Lens question
JCOC Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone out there has had any opportunity to
JCOC compare
the FA 24-90 to the A 35-105 for general imaging quality
Great information! I really appreciate the time you have taken. I
have owned the Tamron in the past and it is a fine lens - however, I
prefer the rendering of the A 35-105 over it.
There are a few issues that may be solved by the 24-90. One is the
range it covers. I have the DA 16-45 also,
On 4/2/07, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
I;ll compare weight with Cotty at GFM this year.
Later we'll see how much our big body cameras weight.
LOL
Har! I better start pushing down the Yorkshire puddings ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
Reviewing those, wide open at longer focal lengths I saw a small and
easily correctable amount of CA when fitted with the teleconverter,
which just about disappeared 1-2 stops down where I'd normally use
the lens. Without the teleconverter, I see no CA of any significance.
Yes, I'm
My 300 F4 works well and feels solid.
My 100-300 is so so.
My 10-20 works well and feels solid.
Dave
On 2/3/07, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Owens wrote:
From what I've heard and also from limited personal experience,
Sigma lenses are very good optically, but suffer in build
My 300 F4 works well and feels solid.
My 100-300 is so so.
My 10-20 works well and feels solid.
Dave
The Sigma 300 f/4 APO Macro is clearly a professional quality lens and it
shows both in build and optical performace, a forerunner of the EX series of
lenses. The early Sigma EX 70-200
On 4/2/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
The early Sigma EX 70-200 f/2.8 APO is right up there with the best
at that range, even the Canon L series and Pentax FA* lenses.
I don't know about optical quality, but I do know about build quality
between the Sigma and the Canon and I
The early Sigma EX 70-200 f/2.8 APO is right up there with the best
at that range, even the Canon L series and Pentax FA* lenses.
I don't know about optical quality, but I do know about build quality
between the Sigma and the Canon and I can tell you that of the two there
is no contest -
On 4/2/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'll amend that, I was referring to optical quality.
No argument. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO is a top performer.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Thanks all of you who replied.
Well, there is only one problem with Sigma 70-200 2.8 beside its
price. It is over 1 kg in weight. It would seem to me that I will have
to confine myself to focal lengths no longer than 200 mm and actually
I may even confine myself further making my 77 ltd the
I have read about Tamron 70-300 and looked at sample images. It is
not that much better than FA 80-320 if at all... Several people also
reported that it suffers from CA as well, so the sample variation
seems to be significant.
I've read a few reviews on the Tamron and most seemed quite
I'll amend that, I was referring to optical quality.
No argument. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO is a top performer.
I just wish I'd had it with me on Friday walking round the park instead of
the FA 135, I'm still working on some Cormorant shots 8)
John
I have to smile at your comment on the weight. After using an
80-200/2.8 from Tokina, I finally sold it because of weight. That is
what led me to the A 70-210/4. Optically as good, but much lighter
and usable than the 2.8 series of lenses. I had really hoped that
Pentax would have released the
Well, although the DA50-200 goes to f/5.6 at maximum tele, it is IMO
the best zoom available as yet that covers this focal length range
for the digital SLR line, and it is tiny/light weight. The
DA*60-250/4 will likely be a better performer and has more range, but
it will not be anywhere
Well, although the DA50-200 goes to f/5.6 at maximum tele, it is IMO
the best zoom available as yet that covers this focal length range
for the digital SLR line, and it is tiny/light weight. The DA*60-
250/4 will likely be a better performer and has more range, but it
will not be
On Feb 4, 2007, at 3:07 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
Well, although the DA50-200 goes to f/5.6 at maximum tele, it is IMO
the best zoom available as yet that covers this focal length range
for the digital SLR line, and it is tiny/light weight. The DA*60-
250/4 will likely be a better
Phatt, only a Kilo.
I use my Nikon 70-200 Vr f2.8 for weight in my pick up during the
winter to help keep the tires on the road during snow storms.:-)
My neck is extremely bent out of shape after a full day of shooting
horses with that lens and what ever Nikon body i use.
Those are heavy
I have the Pentax FA20-35/4 AL. No experience with the Tokina. I'd be
very interested to know how it performs, comparatively.
The FA20-35/4 is as close to having four prime quality lenses in one
as I have seen in a zoom.
G
On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
One of our folks
I can't directly answer your question, as I tend to steer clear of Sigma.
But last year when I was at a camera store I only rarely visit I had a
play with the Sigma 100-300 f4 APO (non DG version) that they had in
store. I only took 2 shots with it at the 100 300 FL's. For what
they're worth
From what I've heard and also from limited personal experience, Sigma lenses
are very good optically, but suffer in build quality.
Bill
Hi!
People, could anyone tell if except Sigma APO lenses there exist other
xx-300 zoom lenses that do not exhibit strong purple fringing towards
the 300 mm
Tamron 70-300 LD Macro (aka Nikon 70-300 ED)
-Adam
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
People, could anyone tell if except Sigma APO lenses there exist other
xx-300 zoom lenses that do not exhibit strong purple fringing towards
the 300 mm focal length?
Thanks.
Boris
--
PDML
I've had three Sigmas, and still have one.
-
Oh...PS. I used (but did not own) the Sigma 20 mm F1.8 DG. I considered
getting one because I was dissatisfied with the wide open performance of
the FA* 24 F2. But when I compared the Sigma 20 to the FA 20 F2.8, the
Pentax lens was so superior
From what I've heard and also from limited personal experience, Sigma
lenses
are very good optically, but suffer in build quality.
Bill
-
I've had three Sigmas, and still have one.
APO 70-300 F4.5.6 Macro. Really sucked at 300 mm. Images appeared out of
focus, especially at the edges.
Bill Owens wrote:
From what I've heard and also from limited personal experience,
Sigma lenses are very good optically, but suffer in build quality.
Depends which one you get. The one Sigma I own is built as well as any
of my Pentax lenses.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
No info on that one, but I have one I am curious
about, its the Vivitar Series 1 24-70mm lens (I think
its F3.5-4.5) from about 15 years ago? anyone
ever used it on film or digital?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Micah B. Kleit
Sent:
Vivitar lenses, even Series 1s from that era are supposed to be pretty
crappy. I know the 17-28mm I had from a few years after that was
mechanically pretty bad..
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
No info on that one, but I have one I am curious
about, its the Vivitar Series 1 24-70mm lens (I think
Micah,
One of our folks in the local camera club has this lens for Nikon. He
seems to really like it. I realize this is not much, but that's all I
can tell *sigh*.
Boris
Micah B. Kleit wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina AF 20-35mm f/2.8?
It's a constant aperture wide
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Lens Question A50/1.2
Hi ... I've used a few A series lenses and, except for the A* series, many
have come across as lighter weight and more plastic and cheap in their
construction. My standards have always been the Super Taks
On 1 Jul 2005 at 7:13, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi ... I've used a few A series lenses and, except for the A* series, many
have come across as lighter weight and more plastic and cheap in their
construction. My standards have always been the Super Taks through the
K-mounts. I like their feel
Thanks Rob ... Boz's site shows the A version to be quite a bit lighter
than the K version. Any idea if this is correct, and, if so, why is the
lens lighter? It would seem - at least on first surmise - that something
had changed in materials or construction.
Shel
[Original Message]
From:
On 1 Jul 2005 at 7:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Thanks Rob ... Boz's site shows the A version to be quite a bit lighter
than the K version. Any idea if this is correct, and, if so, why is the
lens lighter? It would seem - at least on first surmise - that something
had changed in materials or
Hi Rob ...
I've the following Pentax 50mm lenses: ST50/1.4, K50/1.2, K50/1.4, K55/1.8,
M50/1.4, M50/1.7, M50/2.0, A50/2.0
I don't think I ~need~ comparison shots, although it's always nice to see
such things ... right now I'm more concerned with the construction and feel
of the A50/1.2. I've
I have the A50/1.4, A50/1.7, A50/2 and A50/2.8 Macro. The A50/2 feels
a bit cheap, the A50/1.7 a bit less so, the f/1.4 and f/2.8 Macro
feel like high quality lenses. I hope the A50/1.2 has the same high
quality feel as the f/1.4 and f/2.8.
Performance-wise, the A50/2 is the poorest
The A version is smooth and solid, but keep in mind that it's the same lens
as the K version - just a different package.
A vs. K
Aluminum vs. Brass
Regards,
Bob...
-
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose
as to
A has the A contacts, the M and earlier K lens mounts are a solid block
of metal. There are different optical formulas
that may be involved in seemingly identical lenses. Look here and all
will be revealed:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/
Gateway wrote:
I see that some people refer to M or A
Here's something I posted a while back in response to the same question:
The first of the Pentax bayonet lenses were not given a
letter designation, they are commonly refered to as K
lenses after the mount type. (As opposed to M42 screw
mount)If you have a good imagination the one long and
two
There are several series of lenses Pentax made for the K-mount cameras.
This list covers most of the Pentax lenses made since 1975 or so.
The original K-mount lenses are labeled SMC Pentax (no letter designation on
the lens) but are usually listed here on PDML as K series lenses.
The M series
M lenses are the compact series that was released for the MX, ME and
the like. The A series lenses have contacts to communicate aperture to
the camera. They followed on the heels of the M series. You might also
have heard people speak of the K series or SMC Pentax lenses. These
were released
I see that some people refer to M or A type lenses. I assumed that that
meant they were auto or manual but seemingly not.
What does it stand for?
I was looking for a 28/3.5 but apparently one is better than the other.
if anybody has any thoughts on the 28/3.5 they would be appreciated also.
SMC-M lenses (M meaning compact design) are for shutter autoamtics. They are
designed for K- and M-bodies.
SMC- A lenses (have electronic contacts) are for cameras that has Aperture
Automatics and Program Automatics (the camera kan choose shutterspeed AND
Aperture, when lens is set to A). They are
Butch Black mused:
Often, but not exclusively, the K's were considered the best built with the
best feel, followed by the M's, with a lot of members not caring for the
build feel of many of the A lenses.
I've not commented on this before, but I've always had my doubts. So the
other day,
44 matches
Mail list logo
