or not, but the K 135/2.5 and the M 50/1.4 are both very
good lens designs.
Fred
as that...
;-)
Fred
to mirror lens design,and the loss of contrast can
sometimes be small. (There's more than one way to [design] a
cat.)
Fred
So, how far away does a star have to _be_ to be
rendered out of focus. :-)
About 10 or 15 feet... ;-)
Fred
., the proximal
ring was the focus ring while the distal ring was the zoom ring - it
was truly Pentax backwards - g. In any event, it was not an
intuitive lens to use at all (although quite a nice lens in other
respects).
Fred
of shooting that can ~ever~ possibly
tell you everything you need to know about a lens. But, I'm not
going to say, therefore, that no one should ever post an image of
[this] or an image of [that], etc.
A toolbox with just one tool in it will never be full...
Fred
Hi, Frantisek.
F You might even consider replacing the ME Super film door with a
F door from a defunct Super Program/A or Program Plus/A
Hi Fred, excellent idea. Are the MES/SP/SA doors freely changeable
- same in dimensions?
Yes, indeed. I've had an ol' Super Program film door installed
(There's more than one way to [design] a cat.)
Good one Fred!
Don't encourage me, Steve - g.
Fred
Hi, Bob.
Does anyone know how it compares to the A 2X-S or L ? ...or the
Vivitar 2X Fred mentioned?
I've never compared the Vivitar Macro-Focusing TC with the A 2X-L,
but I have shot it side-by-side (on an A* 300/4) with the A 2X-S and
the T6-2X, and I've found the three TC's to be quite
F If you (or anyone) can come up with the URL for that site, please
F let me/us know - I'd be curious to see what some people have done to
F their LX's. Thanks.
Hi Fred,
it's
http://www.pentax-fan.jp/BODY/LX_CHG.html
Thanks for the tip, Frantisek, although (after rummaging around a
bit) I
than f/2.8.
http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/135252.jpg
[The SMC K 135/2.5 is on the left, while the Takumar Bayonet
135/2.5 is on the right.]
Fred
one of our French PDMLers has a web page dedicated to the
discussion
Might you have the URL handy, Rob?
Fred
If you could use either old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF
lenses or new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses, which
would you choose?
Ooh, that's cruel, Paul, very cruel...
Fred
, though, and perhaps someone who really
knows what they're talking about can jump in...)
Fred
be a Vivitar (non-VS1) 28-50/3.5, or something
like that, but I don't really know anything about it (so I certainly
can't say which is sharper - g). The VS1 24-48/3.8 is the
widest zoom I've ever used myself. (The widest Pentax zoom I've
used is the A 28-135/4.)
Fred
(than the Cosina site's) photos of the
lens at both the top and the bottom of:
http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt%20SL.htm
It's really pretty retro in style - g.
And, if you're reading this, Rob, do you have any photos taken with
this lens online?
Fred
BTW, how did you get an attachment through?
WW (wondering why). I thought attachments couldn`t be sent through
the server.
It's because he had his attachment running at a higher-than-synch
speed, and the server shutter curtain couldn't catch it in time...
;-)
Fred
.)
What got me is the constant aperture throughout the zoom - that's
a big bonus.
Yes, a constant f/3.5 for a moderate-wide to moderate-telephoto zoom
is nice.
Fred
with or knowledge of this lens
to share?
2. Does anyone know of any magazine reviews or any online reviews
of it?
This inquiring mind wants to know...
Thanks.
Fred
to A.
However, I think that the M lenses have slightly better builds.
I think...
Fred
I have just been playing with an M1.4 and an A1.4 on my z-1p. The
M is much smaller and lighter,
Gee, I think that the M and A 50's (of the same aperture) are
virtually identical in size and weight.
Fred
, or for tucking in the bag
just in case you might sometimes forget to bring a proper macro at
the appropriate time.
Fred
numero uno favorite for
a macro lens (for flowers or otherwise). I won't quite say that
it's changed my life, though, Bob (heh-heh), but it surely has
made many a macro shooting session quite enjoyable.
Fred
that it deserves, rather than the
shameful neglect that it suffered at my own hands - g.)
Fred
that it deserves, rather than the
shameful neglect that it suffered at my own hands - g.)
Fred
numero uno favorite for
a macro lens (for flowers or otherwise). I won't quite say that
it's changed my life, though, Bob (heh-heh), but it surely has
made many a macro shooting session quite enjoyable.
Fred
, or for tucking in the bag
just in case you might sometimes forget to bring a proper macro at
the appropriate time.
Fred
/2 as a very cost effective and (as
gfen has suggested) very portable little normal lens. (If I wrote
for Consumer Reports - g, I'd make the A 50/2 a Best Buy...)
Fred
Fred, tell me more about the SMC, K, 55 f1.8 lens-do you have this
exact lens? If so, how do you like it? Does a price of $39 sound
about right for this lens (in good condition)?
Yes, Steve, I have a K 55/1.8, although I don't end up using it as
often as I should. I do like using
try this someday on the AF400T's AFT2
adapter, also. Maybe...
Fred
I'm with you Fred. [Zoom] Convenience often wins out...
Perhaps, Vic, although for me it is not always just laziness:
I think that a good zoom is a useful substitute for prime lenses
under some conditions. It's not always laziness that keeps me from
zooming with my feet for framing
(it was optically and
mechanically just fine, but it had enough minor rubs and snubs to
make it cosmetically less pretty than the other two) for $350 USD.
Fred
sentence above, John? Thanks.
Fred
/snaps/photogear/tillie.html
Rule # 4 - Don't type, but instead copy and paste, URL's - g.
Fred
PS: I've always thought of Mike as a ~first rate~ sophist.
That makes me wonder - is it better to be a first-rate sophist or is
it worse? g
Fred
It's not semantics.
Yes it is - the thread (for full emphasis) should read:
We doan' need no steenkin' rules. ;-)
This will be my only contribution to these Rules threads.
Fred
even smaller, I would think.
Thanks for sharing the scans, Alan.
Fred
for the
comfort of the rest of us.
Fred
(pronounced as loop), right? (Of
course, I doubt that loupe is a purely English word - it's
probably imported from French, I'll bet - so the spelling probably
isn't really even English spelling... - g)
Fred
, and
the rather light A 35-70/4.
Fred
If you have to ask, you probably couldn't tell anyway.
I'm assuming that you said this tongue-in-cheek, right?
Fred
However, these 2 lenses were rated by photodo 4 2.2
respectively, so I must be missing something.
Or maybe Photodo is missing something...
Fred
to see the difference between those lenses in
everyday photos.
I would agree with that. The differences are all rather small, and
there probably is more variance within a model than there is between
the averages of the various models.
Fred
in The Bat. I did turn my numbering off some time ago,
after rummaging around in all the settings the program has to try to
find out how - g.
Now if I can only get The Bat to impose some sort of quality
filtering on my outgoing posts...
;-)
Fred
I think the golden age of fine photographic lenses with excellent
build quality was in the 70-80s. At least it was for me... There
wasn't quite the split between pro glass and amateur glass.
I have to agree with that statement. (Unfortunately...)
Fred
on the footwork - i.e., I still have to
zoom with my feet a bit to get approximately in the right place,
but then I let the zoom lens take over for the final framing (as
opposed to footwork followed by some touch-up footwork).
Fred
in my LX's - g.)
Fred
than Kodak, as I recall. (For
terrestrial shooting, on the other hand, I've used mostly Fuji print
film for a couple decades now.)
Fred
lighter and a little smaller than, say, the A 70-210/4.
It's also a fine lens, too (although I personally prefer the bigger
and heavier A 70-210/4 and Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 myself).
Fred
three.
Fred
a full stop faster. Nonetheless, I
find myself using the long end of the 60-120 more than the short
end, and I do think that the range of 75-150 represents quite a good
range for a portrait zoom.
Fred
, but that's at least partially because it's
fairly easy to find one of 'em and not very expensive to buy.
Fred
Yes Fred. I didnot mean ugly in a bad way.Its just it is
completley differnt from all the earlier cameras. It took me a bit
to get used to it, but once i did i liked it. I like the big grip
built into the body. Even though i have small chunky hands,it fits
nicely. Balances well with the Sigma
fast zoom.)
Fred
Many enjoy the off-topic threads more than anything...
Unfortunately...
Fred
Got myself a Pentax microfiber cloth for lens cleaning. [snip]
It's not as fluffy as others, but still does the job.
Ah, that's Pentax for ya...;-)
Fred
Fred
How many of us hams have HF privileges? Maybe we could set up a
sked and meet via radio? Probably 40 or 20 meters?
Well, I have full HF privileges (Extra class license), but I also
have almost no ham gear any more (much of it was turned into Pentax
gear - g - so, fellows, carry on...
Fred
primarily as a manual focus lens).
Fred
to a totally fluid) focus
feel. (I ask, since I've never focused an FA* 300/4.5 before, but I
do know that the FA* 85/1.4 does not have any mechanical focus
feel.)
Fred
Today I received my newest Ebay prey: An excellent F*300/f4.5
EDIF to replace my FA*300/f4.5 EDIF.
The advantages of the F
) sometime soon...
Fred
define (or
how would you describe) swirlies? ;-)
Fred
, but the
manual focus AT-X 100-300/4 is as sharp at 300mm as it is at 100mm.
See:
http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x1003004/x1003004.htm
Fred
on the site, but it
is very impressive so far. A very nice, very refreshing change,
Boz. Kudos are definitely in order.
Fred
There is also a link with a photo that shows swirlies for those
who were wondering what they are.
So, are swirlies referring to the sort of concentric circular
bokeh effects, then?
Fred
???!!! 'B' is ~MUCH~ rarer than 'A' !!!
[Just kidding - heh-heh).]
Seriously, though, Boz, that (the rarity rating) is a neat feature.
And, it'll make for all sorts of increased traffic here on the
P-Discussion-ML... ;-)
Fred
represent a form of bad bokeh
- in other words, there are several ways that a lens can provide
unpleasant (yes, I know that's a subjective term) out-of-focus areas
in an image, and a bad case of swirlies is just one of them.
Fred
I can help. She's using my term for this effect seen in the leaves
in the background: [snip] If there is an accepted term for the
effect, I don't know it.
Thanks, Dan. I guess swirlies fits as well as anything - g.
Fred
is free from the body.
It's almost harder to describe than it is to do. Works for me...
g
Fred
style, I really don't need a
30mm lens between the 35mm and 28mm FL's, or a 24mm lens between the
28mm and 20mm FL's (although the gap from 20mm to 28mm is a lot
wider than is the gap from 28mm to 35mm).
Fred
I have a Vivitar hood for it, but it`s too short.
I'm assuming that you mean some other Vivitar hood, right? I
don't think that there is a dedicated VS1 90/2.5 Macro hood...
Fred
years since I've tried any reverse-mounted rig - g.) It does
sound like an interesting pairing, though - thanks for the tip.
Fred
Thanks for all the interesting material Fred.
Glad to help, Paul.
I'm a big fan of this lens.
I can understand why.
It's probably my most used 35mm lens, and it continues to amaze
me.
If I assume that you don't shoot macro all the time, then may I
assume that you use it for portraits, too
(or Lenszilla ?) - g.
Fred
By the way, I have an old magazine ad featuring this lens, so I'll
have to scan it and put it on my site. Stay tuned...
I`m looking forward to the scans Fred!
Here you go, Steve -
Ad from Modern Photography (Jan., 1975) -
http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v13523/v13523ad7501mp.jpg
VS1
I hope Kelvin will be able to post some monster pics wide open...
I asked Kelvin and he wrote back -
Lenszilla (and it really is - weighs 5 pounds) needs a CLA ... so
that's where its going before any photos are taken.
Fred
have indeed been optimized
for closer distances - g.
Fred
Fred,
I did the exact opposite. I kept the fisheye zoom 17-28 (zoomed in it
is near a 20mm), sold the FA 20, kept the FA *24, sold the FA 28, and
kept the FA 35.
The ones I sold were due to lack of use and this nasty habit called
P67.
Hi, Bruce. Hmmm - that's interesting. Although our
Thanks Fred! Interesting reading, you never cease to amaze me
with the data you have!
It's too bad, though, that I ~do~ cease to amaze people with the
knowledge I actually have... ;-) I think that I fit your signature
line, Steve, pretty darn well - Everyone has a photographic memory.
Some
. (Some of the VS1 lenses probably get used a lot by many of
us simply because they are often quite good, and also often a good
buy nowadays, but others get used a lot because they are ~unlike~ a
lot of other lenses.)
Fred
, since I also like to shoot manually
sometimes, and I'm one of the guys that like those little Up and
Down shutter speed buttons - g.)
Fred
the Takumar Bayonet 135
because it's a novelty of sorts, and maybe also because it would
probably bring me only a few dollars in a sale (and it would be too
few dollars to buy any other lens - g).
But, it's really not ~that~ bad a lens... ;-)
Fred
that shows my reflection (g) - is on the
right.]
Nonetheless, while it is not SMC, and while it is probably an f/2.8
lens in reality, it still is a ~decent~ lens, especially considering
that it sometimes sells very inexpensively.
Fred
.
Fred
with the precision of experience - g. The winder is
merely a convenience for getting ready for the next breach, right?
;-)
Fred
on eBay).
Well, I think that I may have overstated that somewhat- I think
that the original VS1 70-210/3.5 (with 67mm filter threads) must
be the most common. sheepish grin
Overstated is right, Fred! The 28/1.9 is readily found in other
mounts, but the aforementioned 28/1.9 specimen was only
attention
to Sigma as maybe I should have, and I'm pretty much a newbie when
it comes to all the newfangled autofocus lenses, anyway. I'm glad
to hear that Sigma is trying to be creative.
Fred
thanks for the LATE heads up. :(
On the contrary. Thanks for not mentioning it.
Fred
://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdos01.jpg
Weird, eh? Just like ol' 3D comic books - g.
Fred
Fred wrote:
However, I still don't have a K VS1 200/3.
You should try one, they`re nice.
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 darned good. ;-)
Fred
of differences between the newer and
older bodies, but the sound difference seems to me to be the most
striking.
Fred
) of the newer autofocus bodies.
Fred
on cropping it substantially).
[end of quote]
Fred
/third/cult.html ).
Fred
with a
pencil eraser (whittled as needed to ~carefully~ fit any recessed
contacts).
Fred
to focus ( manually of
course ). Never liked the darkish 28mm F3.5 SMCT as far as
focussing goes, this is way nicer.
True, but the SMCT/SMCP 28/3.5 design is still impressive.
Fred
to 1.3 ft.
[and]
Very fast moderate wide-angle lens. Speed is the key to this
10-element, eight-group K-mount wide-angle lens. The only other data
available are minimum aperture (f/22), close-focus distance (0.4 m),
weight (420 g), and filter size (58-mm).
sigh... drool...
Fred
- g.
Just my 2 f-stops worth...
Fred
event, since JCO didn't photograph a nice brick wall (since he
obviously couldn't be torn away from relaxing at the pool - g), I
think it would be difficult to see evidence of less than 1%
pincushion distortion in his particular test photo.
Fred
, exactly...
If I don't want to see such perspective distortion in a photo, I
would have to shoot with, say, a 50mm (or longer) lens.
Fred
1 - 100 of 2095 matches
Mail list logo
