If you can handle the cost, it can be an excellent strategy to purchase one
in-between focal length in place of two. I was going nuts choosing between
my Zenitar 20/2.5K and my Pentax SMC 24/2.8K. I sold both when I found a
Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8K that's more like 22mm. (The Jena is actually an
Many sellers seem to misread the 1:2 as 1.2. In fact, only one prime lens
seems to be mislisted more often: The 135/3.5M is listed as a 135/3.5K. I
occasionally also see constant-f/4 zooms listed as f/1.4.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
attachment: winmail.dat
Only two 50mm f/2 K-mount primes stand out as worth getting over an f/1.4:
the XR Rikenon and the Rikenon P. I briefly owned the P and was startled at
its corner-to-corner sharpness at f/2.8. Either model can be found for $20
to $30. Their only drawbacks are that an f/2 lens is harder to focus
The photo at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1178334 ranks with
the most compelling, unsettling street shots I've seen. To glance at this
photo and not be moved to help the homeless, one must have a heart of stone.
A fine use of a 300mm lens, a use that argues strongly for the virtues
I've found that using a 2X flip-down eyepiece magnifier improved my
focusing, especially when using a lens wider than 50mm. But the more than
once the magnifier's rubber eyepiece caught on my hard contact lens, in one
case making me lose the lens. For this reason, I no longer use it.
It's
Please turn off the HTML (MIME format). It blows up some people's email
(and it takes up a lot of room)
My apologies to all for the bloat of my first four or five messages as a
renewed PDML member. The strange thing is, I use MS Outlook 2002 set to Rich
Text--not HTML. Nothing like this has ever
There's a 30/2.8K in Mint- for $375 at http://www.kevincameras.com .
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with Jonathan on all his points, especially regarding the 24/2.8K's
contrast and saturation. Back in 2000, I believe, I voted the SMC 24/2.8K my
favorite lens, adding that it makes me look like a better photographer than
I am. Yesterday I mentioned that I sold it, and my Zenitar 20/2.5K,
My wife is Russian, and our family spent the weekend visiting her relatives
in Brooklyn, New York. Saturday night was the main event, the celebration of
her cousin Ilya's 50th birthday at a Russian restaurant. (The vodka flowed
like water.)
I went armed with two SLRs: A Super Program and a Ricoh
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Text is a effectively the same as HTML.
Herb (and William Robb),
In Outlook express, there is a choice of plain text or Rich Text (HTML).
But Outlook 2002 offers three modes: Plain Text, HTML, and Rich Text. I had
thought that this meant Rich Text Format
My apologies (Eezveenee), Gleb.
Gleb Baida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the general story funny and the
quoted statement offensive. ... The case you described exsisted, I am sure,
but leads to not very correct generalization. ... I personally thought that
we lost that war because of wrong
Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more
than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading
new books, Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old ones.
I assume I could still mix old bodies with new lenses, and vice versa. Yes?
It's been said many times on PDML that there's little advantage in using an
extra-sharp lens unless you fix the camera to a tripod. I'm having
difficulty following the math. Won't a sharper lens partially compensate for
camera shake?
Here's what I mean: Suppose you have two lenses. Lens A
This one-touch zoom was made for just 9 months during 1976. It was sold with
a reversible screw-on metal hood made especially for this lens.
I've noted just three since 1999:
$350 obo, posted Feb. 2, 2001, on
http://camerex.com/discuss/messages/3/249.html?FridayFebruary220010...
$364 EX KEH 6/99
Bob Rapp wrote:
There were 2 85-210 K zooms. One was f4.5 and identical to the SMC Takumar.
This one is f3.5!
The Takumar's filter size was 58mm. I use the Tak's metal screw-in hood on
my Tokina ATX 90/2.5 macro, via a 55-to-58mm step-up ring. (Photography
measured the Tokina's focal length to be
Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bracing myself with my left elbow in,
hand under the lens barrel, inhaling deeply, letting about 1/2 the air out
of my lungs, holding and shooting between heart beats makes my photos
better. A tripod makes my photos even better yet.
First, let me thank the
Sigma XQ 500 f/4; photo shown (T mount?), $1199 Canadian
http://www.camera-exchange.com/teasers.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I think I'd rather have the Nikkor 85/1.5. Anyone know anything about
that lens?
See http://www.cameraquest.com/8515.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since I believe that a tripod mount is highly desirable on a 300mm lens, I
had long wanted the F*300/4.5. But I couldn't justify the price, given how
few pictures I shoot at 300mm. Last Spring I found the next-best thing: An
XR Rikenon APO 300/4.5 (67mm filter).
It's one of only two manual-focus
919470 USED PENTAX PK 35 2.0 SMC $135.00 9+
at
http://www.thompsonphoto.com/indexused.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote: It's one of only two manual-focus 300/4 or 300/4.5 K-mount lenses
that I know of that has a reasonably close focus (2.5 m) AND a tripod mount.
The other is the multicoated Soligor 300/4.5 PKA (which weighs just 740 g,
and uses 72mm filters).
To clarify: I don't know how closely the
Jos from Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Paul,
What is special about this lens? And why you call it a bargain?
Jos,
The SMC 35/2K is regarded as the third-best Pentax 35mm lens ever made; the
two best are the 35/2 FA and the 35/3.5K. So the 35/2K is the best 35 that
is both fast and manual
Erstwhile PDMLer and sharp-lens fanatic Shel Belinkoff wrote that this is
the zoom for people who don't like zooms. He prefers it to the Pentax 24-50
f/4 PKA. It's the only zoom he uses regularly, and the build quality leaves
nothing to be desired.
If the idea of a 24-35mm manual-focus zoom
Don't get me wrong: While I use film only (color print film, to be specfic),
I consider the scanned JPEG the main product. It's the JPEG that will
receive the widest audience. It's the JPEG that I get to crop after the
fact.
But I'm puzzled: If digital cameras solve so many problems, why don't I
I have three bodies: Super Program (TTL); Ricoh XR-2s (no TTL, no flash
used), and Ricoh XR-P (TTL). I've been using a Ritz Quantaray QTB-9000A
tilt/swivel/bounce flash with the SP. The beauty of a Quantaray modular
flash (or ProMaster, the actual maker) is that you can use it in TTL on
Pentax
For most of 2001, I belonged to Cameraquest.com's Classic Rangefinder
discussion list. I tried various fixed-lens RFs by Yashica, Olympus, and
Konica. I never tried the Canonet GIII, but it enjoyed one of the most
devoted (fanatical?) followings for its sharpness and ergonomics. The Web is
full of
Most of what I know about Catholics and Catholocism comes from novels. There
were John Powers's trilogy about growing up Catholic in Chicago, starting
with Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up? Later I read a
couple Irish novels: Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and Angela's
Ashes.
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use a tripod for about 90% of my pictures and I'm working on my laziness
to eliminate that other 10%.
Tom,
You put me to shame! Using a tripod more often is a New Year's resolution
I'd be sure to break; I simply shoot too many stealth shots of people.
Last
From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I lean towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180 is
sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh effect, and
built like tanks. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
I second Steve's two candidates. I own both,
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Paul,
How's that Tokina 9- ?
Must be great as a fisheye. ;-)
Jeff,
Er, make that a Tokina 90/2.5. When I used to write to PDML from work, I
claimed that I shouldn't be using company time to proofread. Nowadays, I
just want to get off before my wife finds out I'm
David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks...
I've been considering getting a body to use with my beautiful 50mm f1.4
SMC-M. I was looking at the MZ-M used. What do you all have to say for this
baby compared to the older MX/K1000/K2 etc. bodies? any experiences for
those who own an MZ-M?
Mark D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the
flash from the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit
made for it. Would the universal model fit?
Mark,
When you order on Stofen's site (http://www.stofen.com) , Click On-Line
Store, click Omni-Bounce Units,
Steve Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does a Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro go for these days?
Your wife and kids
Seriously, about $600 to $700. For that bread, you can get a Voigtlander APO
Lanthar 125/2.5 1:1, which Rob Studdart reports is even better.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rodelion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it like... I came across and wonder what it is...
All I know is from German Ebay ads. It's available new, in K mount; extends
to f/22; f/4 to f/4.5 at the wide end; is manual focus, of course; uses 72mm
filters; has a built-in hood; appears to be a
For the past few months, I've been having my color prints developed at Dale
Labs of Hollywood, Florida. Most of their business is mail order.
Some of you may recall that back in the 80s, PhotoGraphic magazine rated
Dale Labs one of the 10 best color print labs in the United States. I seem
to
So you've got the urge to buy big glass but you can't afford long + fast
in K mount. True, you can adapt an M42 screwmount lens. But who wants to
fiddle with an adapter each time he installs or removes the lens?
You won't have to...if you fit the lens to a K-mount adapter, then fit the
adapter
Thanks for the warning, John. Now that I compare specs, it appears to be the
same as the Phoenix, made by Samyang.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After 9/11 and the anthrax scare there was talk of scanning mail with
x-rays in a dosage that would have been fatal to film. I hadn't heard
whether any of this has been implemented but, based on your recommendation
of Dale's mail order processing, I would
Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He took old Helios 44K-4 lens (58mm f/2) and took out all but front element.
Funny you should mention the Helios, Boris. Just last week, I wrote to the
Russian who sells Gelios lenses on U.S. Ebay. I informed him that
Westerners spell--and pronounce--that
Jeff and anyone else poising to buy a long screwmount lens,
I've collected facts, figures, opinions, and photos of most M42 and T-mount
lenses of 300mm and longer. Some of these lenses are heavier or longer than
you may realize. If there's a specific model that interests you, or a
specific focal
Dave wrote:
Short comings is its a slow lens f 5.6 at least. Dark through the
finder even in good daylight.It is hard to focus,looks fuzzy in the
finder(i am using SP500 and Spotties)
If it's big, heavy, and all-metal, Jeff could be speaking of the Hanimex
300mm f/4. Or maybe it was an f/4.5.
I bought it from Adorama used in 2002. I've used it only four times. Glass
is clean. There are some scratches and scuff marks on the built-in
retractable hood, but few on the lend body itself. Everything operates
smoothly.
Optically, the PKA improves on the 400/5.6M by offering close focus (2.8
$100 is not a bad price to check out this focal length. In the M42 mount,
slower 400s (f/6.3) are a dime a dozen and often preset or manual aperture.
Faster M42 400s are scarce; the models I know of are
- Sport Zoomar 400/4 and Zoomar Killfit Sport 400/4.5 (I think these are two
different
On my Tokina 90/2.5 macro, I use the Pentax SMC Takumar 85-210 threaded
metal hood with a 55-to-58mm stepup ring.
Fred, those macro shots you posted are so sharp, I had to put bandaids on my
fingers!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've used Ulead Systems' PhotoImpact since it was called ImagePals 2.0 in
1993. I've just upgraded to PhotoImpact version 8. The PhotoImpact 8 home
page is at
http://www.ulead.com/pi/runme.htm?SN=111A3-08000-00067725LN=21TYPE=220103
Many reviewers now consider it the best low-cost alternative to
Herb wrote:
What version of PhotoExplorer is included and can it be installed
standalone? i like using it for thumbnail viewing and file organization (but
not cataloging). i have 7.02 Pro.
7.03--not the freebie version 6 that won't read GIFs and burdens you with
popup reminders to buy the real
Minimize camera shake.
All right, I've cheated, because this is a catch-all rule whose
ramifications are:
1. When possible, use a tripod, a cable release, and mirror lockup (or a
timer).
2. When you can't use a tripod, use a monopod.
3. When you can't use a monopod, try to find a makeshift
First impressions sent to me from the buyer, Kelvin Lee:
The 135/1.5 arrived today. It's a real monster! Takes size 95 filters.
Fortunately, the hood from my Pentacon-6 Sonnar 180/2.8 fits. It weighs a
good 5 pounds. The lens completely dwarfs the Pentax LX I tried it on. It is
singularly bigger
Alan Chan wrote:
The built-in hood alone is worth to choose F* over the FA*. Hoods for
FA* lenses are simply too wide to fit in bags.
Like the F and FA 300/4.5, my XR Rikenon 300/4.5K uses a 67mm filter. It has
a shallow built-in hood, but I found a Spiratone threaded metal hood on Ebay
that's
It's so obscure, even I haven't heard of it. :) Nor is it listed on the
Third Party Lens Megasite at http://medfmt.8k.com/third/table1.txt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q: Is this a good lens?
A: No; it's a great lens. I use it during my lunchtime walk around a lake.
Q: How is its flare control?
A: I've never had problems with the multicoated K-mount version; the M42
version was single-coated. I used to own it but never aimed it toward a
bright light, so I
Ketil,
I tried to send you my collected comments about these two lenses, but your
email mailbox was full. Please delete your old messages, then let me know
when your mailbox can accept new mail.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's a suggestion: Don't buy a 300mm now. Wait a year, save up your money,
then buy a 300/2.8 (Tokina or Tamron SP). Then, add one or more
teleconverters (1.4X, 1.7X, 2X) and you'll have a 300/2.8, a 460/4, a 510/5,
and a 600/5.6.
I didn't do that, and felt a bit stupid seeing my 300/4.5
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dont want to start another WAR but the very best
Macro lenses are only fair at infinity. There
is a new generation of Macros optimized for both
closeup and infinity, but these are compromized
for closeups... Which type is the viv VS1?
My extensive notes
A Google search will turn up several sites that discuss the Zoomars,
including the Third Party Lens Megasite's Zoomar page at
http://www.cameraquest.com/kilzoom.htm .
Zoomars tend to show up at http://www.igorcamera.com in the USA and
http://www.arsenal-photo.com/ in Germany. Also on German EBay.
I found this at http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html :
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: Gregg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re: Vivitar 135 1.5
I recently came across the Aug/Sept 1967 edition of Camera 35, which
includes a brief review and test of the Vivitar 135 f/1.5 T-mount
The Tamron 200-500 f/6.9 that you saw at
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3001482349category=33
44 is one of several third-party zooms of that focal-length category:
Cosina 100-500/5.6
(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3000759700category=4687
)
Sigma 170-500
Vic wrote:
Would this lens not be the same as the Kiron 28F2. Kiron made many of the
Vivitar lenses. There appears to be slight differences but I suspect they
are one in the same. No??
No. I used to own both; I sold the Kiron. While both used floating elements,
focus to 12 inches (0.3 m), and
http://home.earthlink.net/~richditch/aboutme.htm
and
http://www.birdsasart.com/b5.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fred wrote:
However, I still don't have a K VS1 200/3.
Steve replied: You should try one, they`re nice.
Fred wrote: I'm trying, Steve, I'm trying - I just haven't come up with one
of 'em yet, that's all - g.
If it's basically a stretched out version of the VS1 135/2.3, then
it ought to be
I bought a used Ricoh PG-4 winder with my XR-P body. The winder uses just
two AAA cells and is rated a modest 1.4 frames per second (fps). It has only
one mode: single shot.
Well, each time I press the winder's shutter release, the camera takes three
shots!
Any ideas why? Could some contacts
Andre wrote: Could the difference in saturation be caused by a slight
difference in exposure (because of diaphragm margin of error)?
Could be, but certain VMC coating formulations--or is it the
glass?--produced consistently more saturated colors. I can tell at a glance,
for example, which of my
Lately the 28/1.9's distortion has been making me wish I had a Pentax
28/3.5K. You can see the distortion in the diverging edges of the buildings
in JCO's photo. But JCO has shown that the tonality of this lens is
outstanding. And we both know about its color. You can't have everything;
all said,
I don't shoot enough macro shots to hold on to this, and now that I have a
Tokina ATX 90/2.5 with 1:1 adapter, this cult classic belongs to someone
who will use it regularly as a superb closeup lens.
Magnifies 1:2 at 180mm, 1:4 at 90mm. See discussion and photos at
Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I once had XR-P with PG-4 grip, but so long ago I don't remember much.
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ricoh_pg-4/ricoh_pg-4.htm
OK, I cleaned the contacts (on winder and camera), as Fred suggested. But
the winder still seemed to take at least 2 shots. I say at
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... the Pancolar for sure... a screw mount lens more expensive than SMCT
85/1.8..
But much easier to find, often for less than $200. I can't recall when I
last saw an SMC Takumar 85/1.8T for that little.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCO wrote:
While i agree that this lens isnt distortion free,
I dont think this shot in particular reveals that.
Where are you noticing obvious disortion in the shot?
Like Christian, I noticed it, but it wasn't obvious. You can see it in the
sloping walls of the buildings at the far left and
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a trade off to adding elements:
A. on one hand they reduced abberations IF precisely ground and placed
B. BUT on the other hand, the extra air glass surfaces REDUCE contrast (and
apparent resolution).
Didn't Super Multicoating (SMC)
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a guy who sells a Photoshop action that does this, but I forget his
name. It blends two separate exposures to create effectively ideal dynamic
range.
PhotoImpact 8 (for Windows only) does this.
PhotoImpact can use PhotoShop plug-ins.
[EMAIL
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LESS is an amount or volume word. FEWER is a number word.
Mike is correct. In English, less modifies a mass noun (like Jell-o);
fewer modifies a count noun. A word is a count noun if it can be
preceded by a or an.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian wrote:
Gotcha. I am not the smartest person in the world when it comes to
interpreting distortion. I thought barrel and pincushion distortions were
varieties of perspective distortion. Search on the web has explained a lot
to me. Ignore my previous post.
I, too, withdraw my
Vivitar made at least two 135/2.8s. The only one that comes close to Series
One quality was their 1:2 Close-Focus model, made by Komine. The 20-inch
close focus was achieved strictly by a l-o-n-g helicoid. It uses a 62mm
filter and is said to be very good. It was also sold as Maginon and probably
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Truly? I've rarely seen Pancolar 80mm for less than 300, but I don't
check for this lens on a regular basis. Most come from eastern
europe. Are they worth, say, $200? I guess you can find good ones
and bad ones, also.
Andre,
The Pancolor is almost
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the _only_ PDMLer who is impressed with the little OptioS? Until now,
via Boz' post, I've not heard one person comment on this little jewel. Well,
other than a lot of palaver about how it will fit inside an Altoids box...
Granted, it's not out yet. Maybe
JCO wrote:
My Vote: the 55mm F1.8/2.0 Super-Takumars
Great performers (even without SMC) and they sell for less than $15.00 !
I would have to agree with JCO, though I cast my vote for the 55/1.8K,
widely available for $30 to $50.
I prefer it over my Rikenon P 50/1.4 from f/5.6 to f/16; I prefer
JCO wrote:
Anybody here have any experience with RMC Tokina lenses? I think they are
late 70's issues. I searched the third party lens website
and they didnt make the 1600+ list. I've owned 3 of them and they were all
SUPERB ( believe it or not):
35-105 F3.5 Macro( sold it - stupid mistake)
28-85
Indeed, Olympus made a handful of fine 35mm fixed-lens rangefinders, but the
35 SP--and perhaps its predecessor, the 35-S--were the only fixed-lens RFs
to use a 7-element, 5-group lens.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are not misclassified, so I feel nothing wrong about noting that it's
not often to find two 400/4-class Pentax-compatible lenses on US Ebay at the
same time:
Tamron SP 400/4 (in Nikon Adaptall mount, but why should that group get it?
Nikon made several semifast 400s):
As I mentioned, the Vivitar Series One 135/2.3 that I nabbed on German Ebay
looked yellowish in the photo, causing me to worry that it was the older
screwmount version. The seller confirmed to Boz that it is K mount.
But is it VMC-coated? Probably. Take a look at the coating on this 135/2.3
in
Marcel Laufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike,
Where would Konica be in your ranking of 'best lens coatings'? Marcello
According to a Konica lens site( http://cyberdenis.topcities.com/lenses.htm
), Around 1973 lenses were changed by replacing the metal focus ring to a
mooth, round ruberized,
Many years ago--late 1980s, I think--in a comparison test, Consumer Reports
or maybe Popular Science severely downrated the Mac because their testers
couldn't figure out how to turn it on.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not at all the same as the Super Tak or SMC Tak 1.9 or 1.8. Not in the
same league. Avoid it. Do consider the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolor 80/1.8,
which is virtually the same as the Pentax, right down to the diaphragm
design.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I used to own the Kiron 105/2.8PK; I now own the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5PK. The
Kiron didn't deliver sharp results until about f/5.6. That's why I sold it;
I use my portrait-length lens for general purpose, including shooting indoor
events under available light.
The Tokina is very sharp, even at
I'm not at the same computer that contains the PDML Digest in which someone
asked me to document my statement that the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8
is similar to the Pentax Super Takumar 85/1.8. My source is a series of
postings and private mailings in 2001 and 2002 by PDML's sadly missed CZJ
Well, since graduating from college in 1978, I've earned my living as a
technical writer, technical editor, or technical journalist. I haven't
earned a killing, but I've earned a living. It beats the $100 or so that I
receive for publishing a personal essay that took me 15 hours to write.
[EMAIL
Last night, my daughters performed in a piano recital held by their piano
teacher. Her policy has been, no flash photography while a child is
playing. But last night she didn't even try to stop the parents who did so,
using digital cameras.
I suspect that many who buy digital cameras are
Someday, somebody will invent a dynamic dedicated hood for zooms, so
that the length and shape changes as you zoom :-)
Andre wrote: There are two brands that make zoom rubber hoods, Hoya and
Hama.
--
Tamron made an ingenious rigid-plastic telescoping hood for its SP
70-210/3.5. The lens
Dan Scott wrote: I want to put a hood on my FA 100/2.8 macro, 58mm filter
thread.
John Mustarde replied:
The only other Pentax hood I know about which might work is the nicely made
metal hood for the Takumar-Zoom 1:4.5 85-210. It actually looks great on my
FA 100/2.8 Macro, and does not vignette
Do Pentax wives play the same games played by Pentax husbands: having
equipment sent to their work address so their spouses won't know?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It goes for about $180 to $350. Low to mid $200s seems typical.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:48:52 EST
Bob S ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There are a number of folks who like the Older K lenses.
(I think of Daphne the Israeli who was collecting them.)
Shel Belinkoff, a longtime member of this list, was the K-series lenses'
most articulate and passionate advocate.
in K mount:
Pentax SMC 85-210/3.5
in screwmount:
Takumar 18mm f/11
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Digital camera obsolescence is REAL obsolescence. It shows not only in the
dropping prices of new items, but in the failure of used items to hold
value, and in the increasing REAL capability of the equipment.
If anyone doubts this, compare the number of
Bruce wrote:
It's tiny, cute and will get you lots of babes.
Yep. It's the Canon Elph redeux. The Elph, men learned, was a babe
magnet--better than pherimones.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apart from it's size, can anybody roughly tell me what the Optio S offers in
terms of specifications in comparison to other existing digital Point and
Shoots in the same price range?
You might want to consider the Casio version. The Casio--I can't think of
Bob Keefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can usually easily tell the difference between tv shows/movies shot on
film and those shot direct on video, though I'm not certain I can articulate
the difference. Does the same difference in look apply to still photography?
Bob,
The difference that you
I wrote: Do Pentax wives play the same games played by Pentax husbands:
having equipment sent to their work address so their spouses won't know?
Mike J replied:
HEY! You're giving away Guild secrets!
The worst offender I knew was a fellow I worked with who collected classic
European optics. He
William Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't this the same design as the SMCK 300/4? I'm curious as to how it
compares to the M*/A* 300/4.
It is, indeed, the same fine design. Even better, most of the Taks came with
a tripod mount; none of the Ks had the mount.
Some collected comments
The Takumars are outstanding in their own right. But keep in mind that they
pre-date the advent of APO lenses, internal focusing, and other techniques
now commonly used to provide apochromatic correction on lenses above 200mm
and close focus.
Pentax never made a fast (f/2.8-class) screwmount
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than being sarcastic, perhaps we might gently point out to John (who
may not know better) that we have a general agreement that we don't mention
ongoing eBay auctions for Pentax related gear, for the reasons that Fred has
already mentioned. Not all
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
