Bolo, I just got back my first two rolls shot with the new 300, so I ought to report in.
The fit and finish of the lens is great. It is very smooth to focus, much like the older K/M 35mm lenses. It is quite large, but still hand-holdable. I shot a mix of flash on monopod, flash handheld, handheld and on monopod. All shots were of people at the closer end of focus. For a few, I used extension tubes. My general impressions of the photos was great. The lens is way sharp and wide open the backgrounds blur very smoothly. Optically and physically I am very happy with the lens. As I suspected, close focus is the biggest problem. Using the tubes overcomes that at the cost of time to put on and remove the tube. I have decided to keep the lens and work with my speed of using the tube. I echo others who have given a very positive review of this lens. Outside of the minimum focus, it is a great lens. Bruce Dayton Wednesday, April 10, 2002, 12:15:24 AM, you wrote: >> For what it is worth, I am using BesFile from B&H. They hold 3 strips >> of 4 horizontally. I have purchased oversized binders to hold them B> They are similar to the clearfile product I have at the moment. A bit B> more compact actually, mine have a strip at the top to bring them up B> to some "standard" size. >> and it works just fine. To me, the key here is "storage". If I end >> up using 2 negative pages per roll of 120, I have effectively doubled >> my storage requirements. That is why I am very happy to have these >> slightly oversized pages. B> Thickness of storage is a good point which I hadn't considered. B> I've been looking for some nice "sealed" / crushproof binders to hold B> the larger pages in storage. I have some from plastic box binders B> from clearfile for my 35mm negatives which work out well. The boxes B> are too small for the larger pages. >> As for contact sheets, I can't make them at home anyways, so it is not >> of as much concern. B> I am not doing any darkroom right now, but I want to start working B> at it. Contact prints of B&W seem to be easiest and lowest risk way B> to start it up. Developing my own negatives next, and then on to B> printing. So, it is a bit of a consideration. The flip-side of the B> "perfect" 6x7 format is that it just doesn't break down nice onto an B> 8x10, unlike the other 6x formats. >> However, the 6X7 negative makes it pretty easy to >> directly see them by just setting the page on a light table, even >> though they are negatives. B> You are right about that! It's been a long time since I've seen B> fresh MF negs. After 35mm for many years I am amazed by the 6x7 B> negs, they are a joy to behold in their own right. B> Thanks B> Bolo -- Josef T. Burger B> ps: How's the 300mm working out? B> - B> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, B> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to B> 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 .
