://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:12 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
New design
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:32:26PM -0400, P. J. Alling scripsit:
Unfortunatly it hasn't been done. Most prime designs are at least 10
years old. In the case of the DA 40mm limited it looks like it's about
thirty years old, (see the M 40mm f2.8).
[256 lines snipped]
DA 35 Ltd. would appear to
On 4/17/2010 9:59 AM, Graydon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:32:26PM -0400, P. J. Alling scripsit:
Unfortunatly it hasn't been done. Most prime designs are at least 10
years old. In the case of the DA 40mm limited it looks like it's about
thirty years old, (see the M 40mm f2.8).
As far as my very limited experience allows me to opine, people don't
like primes because they don't like changing lenses.
-- Graydon
I love primes, but use a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 for the wide end. I could have
bought a DA 14 f/2.8 but I'd be limited to 14mm. Now if all the primes covered
by
] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:12 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
New design, optimized for size over performance. Quite a good lens, but
inferior in performance to both the DA 14/2.8 and DA 12-24/4. Smaller than a
FA 50/1.4 though
-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
LOL, That may have been true 5 years ago, but it simply isn't now.
Current state of the art in lenses wider than 21mm for SLR mounts are all
zooms
J.C. O'Connell wrote:
ultra wide primes
sure you meant 'zooms' here
require many more elements
than primes do and the results is more flare
they will never match a prime because even
primes need too many elements for high performance
flare performance.
That's good theory, contradicted by
] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
LOL, That may have been true 5 years ago, but it simply isn't now.
Current state of the art in lenses wider than 21mm for SLR mounts are all
zooms. There are no APS-C or 35mm
As an (important?) aside, I recently bought the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
(used) and read that it WILL cover a full 35mm frame down to 13mm. I
plan on trying this myself with my Z-1p. I'm sure the corners will
suffer, but WOW... a 13mm rectilinear focal length with no
field-of-view crop? If true, it is
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:58:23AM -0500, CheekyGeek wrote:
Well a focal length is a focal length is a focal length but if you are
an old school 35mm film shooter then a particular lens focal length
translates in your mind to a particular field-of-view. When you crop
that you haven't changed
: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
You're clearly not up on the latest developments in lens design.
Comparing the best UW prime on the market (The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon T*
in ZK, ZE or ZF mounts) and the best UW zoom on the market
, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
You're clearly not up on the latest developments in lens design.
Comparing the best UW prime on the market (The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon T*
in ZK, ZE or ZF mounts) and the best UW zoom on the market, the Nikkor
14-24mm f2.8
J.C.
how about trimming irrelevant cruft from your posts? I'm guess that
there were about 400 lines of dead wood, almost half of which were .sigs.
On 4/15/2010 10:35 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
How many times do I have to tell you to make the point?
A zoom has to do much more than a prime so
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:34:59PM -0400, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:58:23AM -0500, CheekyGeek wrote:
Well a focal length is a focal length is a focal length but if you are
an old school 35mm film shooter then a particular lens focal length
translates in your mind to
2010/4/15 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the range of
10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the answer one zoom.
Which is market logic. Just compare the systems of old and the systems of now.
Cheers
Ecke
--
PDML
What is marketable vs what is possible with
primes are two different things. What I didn't
agree with is the contention that SOTA zooms
can match or beat SOTA primes in the ultra
wide range of focal lengths. What is on the
market is a different matter altogether but
there is that 15mm DA lens, but
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the range of
10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the answer one zoom.
Can somebody point me to this 10mm rectilinear prime that would cover
the wide
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the range of
10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the answer one zoom.
Can somebody point me to this 10mm
Id bet that a good 10mm Prime DA Lens would
be way too high a cost to produce, even if it did outperform
the 10-20mm at 10mm. FWIW - Pentax DID eventually produce a 15mm for
full frame 35mm film which would similar to the angle of
10mm on APS.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join
From: CheekyGeek
As an (important?) aside, I recently bought the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
(used) and read that it WILL cover a full 35mm frame down to 13mm. I
plan on trying this myself with my Z-1p. I'm sure the corners will
suffer, but WOW... a 13mm rectilinear focal length with no
field-of-view
Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the
range of 10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the
answer one zoom.
Can somebody
Thanks for playing, Keith!
We have some lovely parting gifts for you...
:)
--
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 Apr 15, 2010, at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the range
of 10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always
On 4/15/2010 1:43 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the
2010/4/15 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
On 4/15/2010 1:43 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would
: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
You're clearly not up on the latest developments in lens design.
Comparing the best UW prime on the market (The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon T*
in ZK, ZE or ZF mounts) and the best UW zoom on the market, the Nikkor
14-24mm f2.8 G, the zoom has less elements (14 elements in 11
On 4/15/2010 2:38 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the
range of
10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the answer one
From: Keith Whaley
Larry Colen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 11:23 AM, CheekyGeek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
The analysis of would people rather buy three primes to cover the
range of 10-20mm or one zoom? seems to always come up with the
answer
] On Behalf Of P.
J. Alling
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
Unfortunatly it hasn't been done. Most prime designs are at least 10
years old. In the case of the DA 40mm limited it looks like it's about
thirty years old, (see the M 40mm f2.8
...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of P.
J. Alling
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
Unfortunatly it hasn't been done. Most prime designs are at least 10
years old. In the case of the DA 40mm limited it looks like it's
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 15:40, Keith Whaley wrote:
[...]
How the H*** can anyone BUY one if nobody will MAKE one?
That�s a real head-shaker...
Keith -
Perhaps you didn't read the same tone of irony in Larry's post that I did.
-Charles
Perhaps.
keith
--
PDML
John Sessoms wrote:
From: Keith Whaley
[...]
How the H*** can anyone BUY one if nobody will MAKE one?
That?s a real head-shaker...
I think you might not have picked up on just a touch of irony.
Happens from time to time...
keith
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:12 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
New design, optimized for size over performance. Quite
advantages show a lot less than on 35mm.
-Adam
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
High performance ultra wide zooms (UW) don’t really exist. Go with a UW
prime
and even that wont match basic wide primes.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join
2010/4/13 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Ecke, have you been taking spelling lessons from Brooks?
I'd most certainly feel very honoured had that been the case but no =P
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from
22:48
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms [Scanned][Spam score:8%]
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:26 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
The Sigma 10-20 comes in two versions f/4-5.6 a constant aperture f/3.5.
I have the former and am quite pleased
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
--
Bong Manayon
http://www.bong.uni.cc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Asked myself the same question to be prepared for when I have money to
burn and the DA* 11-16 is still not there...
Result I found in reviews and forum discussions (Caveat: this is hands
off information):
1. Best build, sharpest, most neutral color rendition, however pricey as hell
2. Worst
DA 12-24! The reviews are spot on. I grabbed one before Pentax raised
the price to DA* levels.
You could also switch to the dark side and grab a Tokina 12-24 for
canon or nikon. Used prices for the Tokina are max 300-350 euro. I see
a new (used) Tokina every 1-2 weeks. The DA version is 1050 euro
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
I don't think those focal lengths are 35mm-equivalent numbers. I suspect
they're double
Please repeat after me: There is no such thing as equivalent focal length!
They are APS-C lenses and the focal lengths are as marked. Super wide
angle lenses.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Keith Whaley keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
I don't think those focal lengths are
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Keith Whaley keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I don't think those focal lengths are 35mm-equivalent numbers. I suspect
they're double ~ such as the Pentax DA 12-24 is really like a 35mm lens of
24-48mm focal length.
Nice wide angle-to-normal lens, but hardly a
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Please repeat after me: There is no such thing as equivalent focal length!
They are APS-C lenses and the focal lengths are as marked. Super wide
angle lenses.
Amen.
I take those numbers for their face value. I
From: P N Stenquist
On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
I don't
On 12/4/10, David Parsons, discombobulated, unleashed:
Please repeat after me: There is no such thing as equivalent focal length!
They are APS-C lenses and the focal lengths are as marked. Super wide
angle lenses.
Very true, come on people!!!
But if they were equivalent focal lengths,
P N Stenquist wrote:
On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
I don't think those
There are two common crops for dSLRs as compared to FF SLR, 1.5 (Nikon
and Pentax) and 1.6 (Canon).
Canon has a 1.3 crop on some of their pro bodies.
PS sensors are a whole other barrel of fish and there are many sizes,
but they don't correlate because the lenses are not interchangeable.
On
High performance ultra wide zooms (UW) dont really exist. Go with a UW
prime
and even that wont match basic wide primes.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound
On Apr 12, 2010, at 3:38 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
High performance ultra wide zooms (UW) don’t really exist. Go with a
UW
prime
and even that wont match basic wide primes.
--
The DA 12-24/4 is reportedly comparable in performance to the DA
14/2.8, although it's a stop slower. I've also
Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of P N
Stenquist
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
On Apr 12, 2010, at 3:38 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
High performance ultra wide zooms (UW) don't really
-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of P N
Stenquist
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
On Apr 12, 2010, at 3:38 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
High performance ultra wide zooms (UW) don't really
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:26 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
The Sigma 10-20 comes in two versions f/4-5.6 a constant aperture f/3.5.
I have the former and am quite pleased with it, although I'm still learning
when and how to use it to maximum advantage. A lot of people
Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please repeat after me: There is no such thing as equivalent focal
length!
They are APS-C lenses and the focal lengths are as marked. Super wide
angle lenses.
Amen.
I take
Mail List
Subject: Re: Ultra-wide zooms
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please repeat after me: There is no such thing as equivalent focal
length!
They are APS-C lenses and the focal lengths are as marked. Super wide
angle lenses.
Amen
Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Tanya Love
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:27 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Ultra-wide zooms
I thought that equivalents were only if you were using FA lenses? I
thought that the Das removed
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:26:43AM +1000, Tanya Love wrote:
I thought that equivalents were only if you were using FA lenses? I
thought that the Das removed this need to convert?
Tan.
Not so. This is why thinking of it as a focal length conversion is bad.
A DA 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, and
Ecke, have you been taking spelling lessons from Brooks?
On 4/12/2010 6:13 AM, eckinator wrote:
Asked myself the same question to be prepared for when I have money to
burn and the DA* 11-16 is still not there...
Result I found in reviews and forum discussions (Caveat: this is hands
off
Bong - Here is a shot with the Pentax 12-24. (somewhat cropped.)
http://photos.stanhalpin.com/p155717848/e260095cd
I don't have much experience with this lens, I borrowed my brother's for a day,
at the end of which I tried to trade him one of my longer lenses for it. Very
nice lens.
No
Bong Manayon wrote:
Thinking of ...
1. Pentax DA 12-24
2. Sigma 10-20
3. Tamron 10-24
Am not into fish-eyes so those options are out. Any votes for or
against any of those listed above?
Thanks!
Bong
I have the 12-24. It never disappoints me.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
60 matches
Mail list logo
