I kind of like the ugly military look of the early F lenses. The cameras they were designed for however...
Markus Maurer wrote: > Hi Shel > What about the Pentax-F 1:1.7. Ugly military look but should be quite good > on a DSLR? > greetings > Markus > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:37 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Macro Lenses > > > It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro > lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, > I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when > used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 > or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything > wider than 5.6 .... > > Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: William Robb >> Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, >> get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension >> tubes, it will probably serve you better >> as general purpose equipemnt than a >> slow 50mm macro lens. >> > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
