You can get a f1.7 or f2.0 M pentax lens for less that $20.00 US if the point is to permanently mount a 50mm reversed on the bellows I would make the minimal investment in either of those. I think that in general the 1.7 has a flatter field of view. Unlike earlier bargain lenses such as the 55mm 1.8/2.0 combination The 2.0 is a different optical design.
At 02:11 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Have you considered divesting yourself if the converter entirely and using >a 24 or 28mm >lens backwards? > >Regards, >Bob... >-------------------- >"Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, >and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us >from the former, for the sake of the latter. >The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls >for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, >and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we >suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, >we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' >It is a very serious consideration that millions yet >unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." >- Samuel Adams, 1771 > >From: "Timothy Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Hi Leon... > > > > I'd avoid either of the fast 50's and go with a 1.7 or 2. With the 1.2 and > > 1.4 you'll get out-of-focus corners which may be fine for some shots but a > > nasty surprise at other times. The slower lenses will work better for all > > subjects. For more, refer to the "Macro question..." thread from last week. > > > > BTW, I just wanted to compliment you on your "Bek" photo in this month's > > PUG. The composition was well done. > > > > t > > > > On 1/28/02 2:30 AM, Leon Altoff wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am looking at permanently attaching a 50 mm lens reverse mounted on > > > my bellows - I usually use my FA50f1.4, but I'm starting to get annoyed > > > with taking it apart and putting it back together again. The question > > > I need answered is, as I'm going to dedicate a lens to the bellows, > > > which one would be best for my needs? > > > > > > I generally shoot with the lens stopped down to f16 or f22 to get the > > > greatest depth of field. My subjects are 3 dimensional, so a flat > > > field of focus is not 100% necessary. My subjects also tend to hide > > > from bright lights, so I can't use extra light to help me focus, and at > > > full extension of the bellows and a 2 times converter between the > > > camera and bellows (7 times magnification to the film), any extra light > > > is a bonus. > > > > > > I'll probably end up with a K or M f1.4 or a K f1.2, but the closest I > > > have come to an f1.2 is picking one up at a swap meet, so I have no > > > idea of it's optical performance compared with an f1.4 (particularly > > > reverse mounted on bellows for macro use). > > > > > > So my question to all you knowledgable people out there is: is a 50 mm > > > f1.2 as sharp as an f1.4 when stopped down between f11 and f22, and is > > > there anything you know about these lenses that I should know before I > > > go out and try to buy one? > > > > > > Any and all help is greatly appreciated. >- >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 .
