Shel, it sounds like the K85/1.8 is a superb lens. I`ll have to go through
those slides again and find those that I shot with yours. I never noticed
that the Vivitar was not so vivid with colors, but that is an interesting
comparison. I`m going to have to compare it to a Pentax in a side
by side shoot.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
> Steve, if you recall, I used your Viv1 135mm to photograph some parrots
> when we went to the zoo in Santa Barbara last year. I only shot three
> or four frames with it, and then went back to using the Pentax K85/1.8.
> When the photos were printed, it was obvious that the color saturation -
> the vividness of the colors - was noticeably less than that of the
> K85/1.8. Granted, the photo was quite sharp and detailed, but I was
> surprised at the difference in color quality. Have you ever made some
> direct comparisons in this area with other lenses? It might be
> interesting to compare the K135/2.5 with your Vivitar.
>
> Paul sent me some lenses to play around with, and I think one was a
> wide-angle Viv1. If so, I'll compare it to some Pentax and other lenses
> with a similar focal length - and will finally be able to check the
> 50/1.2 focusing you asked about, too.
>
>
> Steve Larson wrote:
> >
> > I can agree with that. I do not have any experience with the Pentax
135/2.5,
> > but I can attest to the
> > VS1 135/2.3 as being a great lens, especially the K-mount variety with
the
> > superb coatings.
> > Steve Larson
> > Redondo Beach, California
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Didn't someone want a 135/1.8?
> >
> > > Fred wrote:
> > > Almost as fast as the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (and more plentiful
> > > and often less expensive), and a superb lens in its own right, is
> > > the K 135/2.5 ("the poor man's A* 135/1.8").
> > >
> > > Fred,
> > > The SMC 135/2.5K is a fine performer from f/5.6 onward. But it has not
> > lived up to my hopes at f/2.5 to f/4. That's why, though I already owned
the
> > K, I bought the Vivitar. (That, and the Vivitar's 0.9 m close focus). I
> > think my fellow Series One enthusiast Steve Larson would agree.
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
