Re: Oh, the temptation...
Thats why i'm holding out for the 60-250 or Tammy 70-200 Dave On Feb 14, 2008 7:18 AM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:18 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: The current crop of digital sensors aren't able to capture the full resolution that the best prime lenses are capable of. That kind of levels Primes and Zooms as far as resolution is concerned. .. LOL ... On the one hand there are people saying that digital sensors aren't capable of obtaining the full resolution of today's best lenses. On the other hand there are people saying that today's lenses aren't capable of delivering the kind of resolution that today's sensors demand of them. Meanwhile, ninety percent of the people complaining about lens performance and image quality refuse to use a tripod. It's a mixed up, messed up, dazed and confuzed world, eh? Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
The 200mm prime should be quite a bit lighter. Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Hmmm... Which hand would be the more sinister, I wonder? :-) Jostein (who's signing off today for 10 days of winter mid-term holidays and to keep an appointment with a certain Mouse.) 2008/2/15, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LOL ... On the one hand there are people saying that digital sensors aren't capable of obtaining the full resolution of today's best lenses. On the other hand there are people saying that today's lenses aren't capable of delivering the kind of resolution that today's sensors demand of them. Meanwhile, ninety percent of the people complaining about lens performance and image quality refuse to use a tripod. It's a mixed up, messed up, dazed and confuzed world, eh? Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
From: Beaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/02/15 Fri AM 02:45:45 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Left in Latin is Sinister. Exactly. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
AlunFoto escribió: The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... I understand you, Jostein. Right now, the temptation for me is a K10D at the present low prices. I keep telling myself that the *ist DS I have now is enough for my modest photographic needs, and that I should save for lenses, not camera bodies, but the K10D is very tempting for its additional features. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
The prime should be quite a bit better than the zoom, particularly wide open. Fewer compromises. It might also be more compact. Paul On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
:-) Jostein 2008/2/14, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Toralf Lund wrote: AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Hmm... Hard to tell... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxWB_R7Ucc And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJowl_UxjN4 ;-) - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Same here...but I am more tempted maybe by the K200D since I prefer its size (I would loose the 2 wheel options though). However, if the K20D reviews are really good in the IQ side, I could even consider it, although I am a bit disappointed by its non-improved AF. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original De: Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Enviado: viernes, 15 de febrero, 2008 10:48:02 Asunto: Re: Oh, the temptation... AlunFoto escribió: The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... I understand you, Jostein. Right now, the temptation for me is a K10D at the present low prices. I keep telling myself that the *ist DS I have now is enough for my modest photographic needs, and that I should save for lenses, not camera bodies, but the K10D is very tempting for its additional features. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ ¿Con Mascota por primera vez? Sé un mejor Amigo. Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas http://es.answers.yahoo.com/info/welcome -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Yahoo has much to answer for... Jaume Lahuerta wrote: Same here...but I am more tempted maybe by the K200D since I prefer its size (I would loose the 2 wheel options though). However, if the K20D reviews are really good in the IQ side, I could even consider it, although I am a bit disappointed by its non-improved AF. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original De: Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Enviado: viernes, 15 de febrero, 2008 10:48:02 Asunto: Re: Oh, the temptation... AlunFoto escribió: The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... I understand you, Jostein. Right now, the temptation for me is a K10D at the present low prices. I keep telling myself that the *ist DS I have now is enough for my modest photographic needs, and that I should save for lenses, not camera bodies, but the K10D is very tempting for its additional features. Carlos -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I remember translating the tale of Mucius Scaevola, a left handed soldier in the Roman army, who distinguished himself by taking advantage of his opposite handed-ness to protect his commander in unusual circumstances way back when in Latin IV classes. They must have some dangerous Latin IV classes back then! ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
When I had my Canon gear, I had the 100/2, 70-200/4L and the 300/4L IS lenses. I found myself preferring the primes most of the time, and it wasn't because of the image quality or focal length. The prime lenses just let me work the way I want to. I had the 200/2.8L in my sights ... Godfrey On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Feb 14, 2008 6:43 AM, AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... If someone could show me an unprocessed, warts and all, 10 minute exposure taken with the K20D, and the results are halfway decent, I'd buy ASAP. Otherwise, I'm in no rush. Cheers, Dave (I already have the FA* 200mm so I'm in no rush for that either) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/02/13 Wed PM 09:43:57 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Oh, the temptation... The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
2008/2/14, AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? The personage _on_ the shoulder, that is... :-) -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? Size weight. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Cotty wrote: Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? Mainly because I feel that's a whopper of an assumption. :-) The FA* 200/2.8 is /so/ good, I'd expect a zoom that can match it's quality would be horrifically expensive. I understand that even the vaunted FA* 80-200/2.8 is only close but not quite there. I've never used the 80-200/2.8, though. But, /if/ the quality was there, I'd often use a 70- or 80-200/2.8 zoom. I'm not sure I'd get rid of the 200/2.8, though, because it ought to be a bit lighter than a zoom that reaches 200mm at f/2.8. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Hmm... Hard to tell... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxWB_R7Ucc - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? Size weight. ...or lack there of. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On 14/02/08, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: Please see http://www.cafepress.com/robertstech.215324984 D'oh. Of course, stupid question ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Pointy. AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? The personage _on_ the shoulder, that is... :-) -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On 2/14/08, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. William Robb Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G, both outperform all but the rarest Zeiss and Leitz lenses in their ranges. The Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 for the Contax N is even better than the Nikon. The 14-24 in particular is stunning at the wide end, possibly the best 14mm lens ever made. Also the Nikon 80-200 AF-S and Minolta/Sony 70-200 f2.8 G SSM are known to match or beat most f2.8 primes in their range. Downsides to all of these lenses is size. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. I don't really buy the sharpness argument for primes, either at the pixel-peeping or holistic level. I've looked and looked and maybe my eyes aren't good enough. But for me, the smaller/lighter issue is huge, I want to be able to carry the camera around in one hand all day. Even more important is the fact that with a prime, you can shoot faster, because there's one less thing to twiddle before you click. Compose with your whole body then tune the composition in Lightroom or equivalent. I've ranted on this twice, in reviews of the 40mm and 21mm Pentax Pancake Primes: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/04/27/Pentax-P-DA-40mm http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/05/24/Pentax-SMC-DA-21mm -T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G, both outperform all but the rarest Zeiss and Leitz lenses in their ranges. The Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 for the Contax N is even better than the Nikon. The 14-24 in particular is stunning at the wide end, possibly the best 14mm lens ever made. Also the Nikon 80-200 AF-S and Minolta/Sony 70-200 f2.8 G SSM are known to match or beat most f2.8 primes in their range. Downsides to all of these lenses is size. ... and of course that unmeasurable: the quality of their out of focus blur or rendering aspects. In this most primes still thump most zooms, even ones with superlative sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberration and rectilinear correction, hands down. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
William Robb wrote: From: Cotty DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. This is exactly right. You can get amazingly good zooms -- FA*80-200/2.8 is damned close to the quality of a top-notch prime -- but the better quality the zoom, the bigger the size/weight penalty you seem to pay. The 80-200/2.8 is one big and heavy beast. I'd probably gain precious little image quality switching to the 200/2.8 prime, but I'd lighten my camera bag a lot. (Of course, I'd also lose a lot of focal length options, which is why I have the zoom and not the prime. yet...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/02/14 Thu PM 12:13:07 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Definitely not feathery. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Definitely not feathery. Ach, crivens! Then I've been listening to the wrong one. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Weight and size, and optical quality. I had a FA*200/2.8 on loan for a while, and it is considerably smaller than the Sigma 70-200/2.8. If you still recall that lens... :-) I would say the optical quality is a notch or two higher in the prime too. Yesterday I got to compare size and weight of the FA* with the DA* directly. They are, as far as I could tell, exactly the same size and weight. The optical formula is different, though. The DA* has a couple of other things going for it too. The SDM works wonders for AF; it is practically silent compared to the FA*. I don't know about speed and accuracy. Both seemed good enough for me in broad daylight...:-) Then there is weather protection. This, and the SDM, is not currently found in any xx-200/2.8 zoom. Nor does Pentax have plans for any 2.8 zoom in this range. The nearest you get is the planned 60-250/4 due in June/July. 2008/2/14, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Left in Latin is Sinister. Betcha it's the pointy one. Beaker -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Beaker wrote: On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Left in Latin is Sinister. Betcha it's the pointy one. Oh, how gauche. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Cotty wrote: DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. Please see http://www.cafepress.com/robertstech.215324984 -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Left in Latin is Sinister. Trivia lesson of the day: Sinistra, not sinister. The word sinister is derived from sinistra... Roman battle gear was designed for squadrons of right handed shield bearers. Left-handed shield bearers caused the possibility of attack to an unguarded flank, that's why sinistra became associated with bad or evil. I remember translating the tale of Mucius Scaevola, a left handed soldier in the Roman army, who distinguished himself by taking advantage of his opposite handed-ness to protect his commander in unusual circumstances way back when in Latin IV classes. It was quite unusual for them to sing the praise of a left-handed soldier! :-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:27AM -0500, Doug Franklin wrote: Cotty wrote: Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? Mainly because I feel that's a whopper of an assumption. :-) The FA* 200/2.8 is /so/ good, I'd expect a zoom that can match it's quality would be horrifically expensive. I understand that even the vaunted FA* 80-200/2.8 is only close but not quite there. I've never used the 80-200/2.8, though. But, /if/ the quality was there, I'd often use a 70- or 80-200/2.8 zoom. I'm not sure I'd get rid of the 200/2.8, though, because it ought to be a bit lighter than a zoom that reaches 200mm at f/2.8. Indeed. That's one reason why I've kept the A* 200/2.8, even though the FA* 80-200/2.8 is such a good all-rounder. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
Toralf Lund wrote: AlunFoto wrote: 2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left shoulder Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one? Hmm... Hard to tell... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxWB_R7Ucc And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJowl_UxjN4 ;-) - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
The current crop of digital sensors aren't able to capture the full resolution that the best prime lenses are capable of. That kind of levels Primes and Zooms as far as resolution is concerned. I expect that the new 14mp sensor in the K20 will more readily show the difference. On film I only had two zooms that had resolution that rivaled my best prime lenses. But those were rather special. Additionally to really take advantage of the greater resolving power of prime lenses extra care in focusing and camera steadiness was required. I seldom bother since that tends to negate one of the advantage of a mini format, which is portability, even when using what is by comparison a honking big lens. Tim Bray wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. I don't really buy the sharpness argument for primes, either at the pixel-peeping or holistic level. I've looked and looked and maybe my eyes aren't good enough. But for me, the smaller/lighter issue is huge, I want to be able to carry the camera around in one hand all day. Even more important is the fact that with a prime, you can shoot faster, because there's one less thing to twiddle before you click. Compose with your whole body then tune the composition in Lightroom or equivalent. I've ranted on this twice, in reviews of the 40mm and 21mm Pentax Pancake Primes: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/04/27/Pentax-P-DA-40mm http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/05/24/Pentax-SMC-DA-21mm -T -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
The three zooms that I've used that out perform most of the primes I've used are the Vivitar 3S1 5-85mm varifocal, and the Vivitar S1 90-180 flat field, and the prosumer smcp F 70-210 4~5.6. The Vivitars were quite expensive when they were new and very sharp suffering only from increased flair when compared with almost any other lens I've ever used. I don't use them as much as I used to because they aren't A lenses. They were rather slow working lenses when the were supported by open aperture metering. I'm especially looking forward to seeing what the flat field lens does on the K20D. I'm expecting very good resolution and sharpness to compensate for the lack of OA metering. Adam Maas wrote: On 2/14/08, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... DA*200/2.8. Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. William Robb Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G, both outperform all but the rarest Zeiss and Leitz lenses in their ranges. The Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 for the Contax N is even better than the Nikon. The 14-24 in particular is stunning at the wide end, possibly the best 14mm lens ever made. Also the Nikon 80-200 AF-S and Minolta/Sony 70-200 f2.8 G SSM are known to match or beat most f2.8 primes in their range. Downsides to all of these lenses is size. -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
On 14/02/08, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. Funny, a lot of people have told me this over the years. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Oh, the temptation...
There is a Latin adjective sinster, sinistri meaning left, and perverse, unfavourable etc. in a figurative sense. For the Latin auspices it meant unlucky, but for the Greek auspices it apparently meant lucky. Sinistra, sinistrae is the corresponding noun. Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 15 February 2008 03:54 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Left in Latin is Sinister. Trivia lesson of the day: Sinistra, not sinister. The word sinister is derived from sinistra... Roman battle gear was designed for squadrons of right handed shield bearers. Left-handed shield bearers caused the possibility of attack to an unguarded flank, that's why sinistra became associated with bad or evil. I remember translating the tale of Mucius Scaevola, a left handed soldier in the Roman army, who distinguished himself by taking advantage of his opposite handed-ness to protect his commander in unusual circumstances way back when in Latin IV classes. It was quite unusual for them to sing the praise of a left-handed soldier! :-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
- Original Message - From: AlunFoto Subject: Oh, the temptation... The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. I am so tempted by both as well. I'll probably fall for the 200, though it may cost more than money at this point in my life. I am going to try to not buy the K20 until I see what Pentax means by their higher specc'ed camera. If it is a 645, I'll buy the 20D, if it is a nicer, full K-mount compatable camera, I'll be glad I waited, William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Oh, the temptation...
The lure of the K20D. And the DA*200/2.8. Saw them both today, at Pentax Norway. Oh well... Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Oh, the temptation...
William Robb wrote: I am going to try to not buy the K20... William Robb MARK! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
