. The plan is to carry the *ist D and an LX (I will probably > take my original one - white cobra) as camera bodies. Lenses will be FA* > 24/2, FA Limited 31/1.8, K 50/1.2, and FA Limited 77/1.8. Film will be slide > probably 50 ISO. The 645n will stay at home. Since I do not have anything > wider than a 28 in my screwmount I will not be taking along any M42 gear... > Though the 85/1.9 would be tempting.
What has the 85/1.9 got that the 85/1.8 does not? I know it is a different optical design so I'll believe that some property is better, but I understood the 85/1.8 to be a better design (plus of course there was a K version). Those 85/1.9s are still pretty expensive, or I'd buy one and find out for myself. Unfortunately, the Takumar lens line was fairly weak wider than 28. This may be true of other brands of the time, too. I didn't get the impression that the K-mount line was all that strong wider than 28, with the exceptions of A/FA20, K18. Realistically, while Canon and Nikon may have a few better lenses sub-28, nobody has really good ultrawides with the exception that most companies seem to make a good 20. > This is how I have been travelling around lately. With the intense sun > during most of my shooting I have relied on an external light meter for both > cameras. As a matter of fact I have not had the batteries in my LX for > quite some time. Just out of curiosity, wouldn't a K1000 be almost as good as a batteryless LX? A lot of the nifty LX features involve the meter and flash circuitry. I've got a lot of Spotmatics that I run batteryless, because they are cheaper than any modern camera that can be run batteryless (and not real impressive WITH the battery, compared to a modern camera). DJE
