"Ask Google" ;-) (Even if it sometimes might give a wrong result, when
the crowd IS wrong, - it can give you some clues.)
Varafocal: About 449 results
Varifocal: About 5,210,000 results
Igor
PS. You would probably start yelling "boring", if I were to start telling
you that the first word root "vari" comes from "variable"... and not
"varaible" ;-)
P.J. Alling Sat, 29 Oct 2016 14:52:39 -0700 wrote:
Either one stumped the spell checker, so I was at a loss. The actual name
of the lens is "VMC Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm 1:2.8 Auto Variable Focusing"
so I suppose I should have known how to spell it, but I'm lazy.
On 10/29/2016 4:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Hi P.J.
Let me just link my previous response to a very similar question earlier this
year:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg731281.html
You may want to read my yet earlier response linked within that message.
I hope this helps.
Igor
P.S. It is "varifocal", not "Varafocal". ;-)
In the era of film cameras, I was happy to get Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70/2.6-2.8,
as besides being fast it was parfocal. With zoom, that allows zooming in to
focus more precisely. Also, changing zoom after you've focused is easier: you
don't need to think about refocusing.
P.J. Alling Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:08:41 -0700 wrote:
So I've been getting along using a combination of a Manual focus Varafocal,
(Vivitar 35-85mm f2.8), and a FA 20-35mm which satisfies most of my needs,
but they can be damnably inconvenient, the varafocal makes me think that
sometimes I need extra fingers and more inertial processing for my brain to
keep track of stop down metering, re-framing and refocusing, which leads to a
lot more missed shots than I'm happy with. Swapping to the 20-35 and back, is
sometimes necessary at very inconvenient times which also leads to missed
shots.
It doesn't look like a Full Frame camera is in my budget for quite some time,
and let's face it, I've come to terms with APS-C. The K-5II is more than
sufficient for most of what I do, in fact is better than most needs. A more
identical backup body is what I'm more likely to get than an actual full
frame camera, maybe a K-7 another K-5[II(s)], or K3 thought the latter would
have some of the same problems as using the K20D as backup, though the K5II
hasn't failed me yet.
So I'm looking at APS-C lenses.
I've kind of narrowed it down to five lenses, at this point, based on
reviews.
Pentax FA* 16-55 f2.8 available new.
Sigma 17-50 f2.8, comes in couple versions, latest version still available
new.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 also comes in a couple of versions latest version still
available new.
Pentax FA 17-70, seems to be discontinued, but still available new.
Sigma 17-70, three versions, latest one still available new.
All of them have pluses and minuses, the Pentax FA* is the most expensive,
the first version of the Tamron is least expensive, of course it's only
really available used. I like the idea of the 17-70 as it would cut down on
the necessity of changing lenses when things are moving fast.
I know there are people on the list who've used later Sigma 17-70, and the
two Pentax lenses, but what about the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50 has
anybody got any experience with them? Optically good? Mechanically crap? Vice
Versa?
It comes down to the fact that I don't trust most reviewers. I'll pick up
something that's gotten bad reviews play with it a while and think, this
isn't nearly as bad as I expected, hell this even seems to be pretty good,
and things that have gotten good reviews and think, what the f*#k was that
guy talking about this is pretty horrible. You guys have real world
experience, what is it.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
