Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
In a message dated 10/13/2006 8:45:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That reminds me. What ever happened to Ms. Reed? Has she left the building? Worse, has she left *Pentax*? keith She left the building. Something about women and their general smartness in avoiding heavily contentious groups (i.e. an overabundance of male testosterone). :-) Actually, really she just wanted more time with her kids and her hubby. She was a pretty avid Pentax fan, so I seriously doubt she's left Pentax. I contacted her about eight or something months ago and asked. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:56 PM, DagT wrote: Fra: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. If I buy anything in that range I'll buy the 43mm, as it is about the same size as the 21 and 70. You may have to trawl eBay for one soon. I know, but I've already got both FA35 2.0 and FA50 1.4, so I don't really need a 43mm (or 40mm). At least, that's what I'm trying to tell myself... I've also got both FA35 and FA50, see no need for a 40-43mm lens. Now a 28mm ... sigh ...and I've still got my old A28 2.0. I've even got the old A85 1.4, so I don't need the 70mm either. Exept that the 85 is a little bit large. Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take som new pictures... DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On 13/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take som new pictures... How can you make new pictures without a new camera? :-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Fra: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 13/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take som new pictures... How can you make new pictures without a new camera? :-) Great! I'll try that argument on my wife .-) DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take some new pictures... Mark! (should go in the traditional section, I think) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Oh - I thought he said newd pictures. Never mind BTW, can you make old pictures? Shel [Original Message] From: Digital Image Studio DagT wrote: Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take som new pictures... How can you make new pictures without a new camera? :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
DagT wrote: Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:56 PM, DagT wrote: Fra: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. [...] At least, that's what I'm trying to tell myself... I've also got both FA35 and FA50, see no need for a 40-43mm lens. Now a 28mm ... sigh ...and I've still got my old A28 2.0. I've even got the old A85 1.4, so I don't need the 70mm either. Exept that the 85 is a little bit large. Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take som new pictures... DagT Dag., I think that's good advice for all of us! Easily overlooked. I'll be among the first to apply it to myself! g keith whaley -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
mike wilson wrote: From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take some new pictures... Mark! (should go in the traditional section, I think) Yep: Get out and take some pictures! - Doug Brewer While digging through my archives for that, I found quite a few other good ones that are worth re-posting. Here's a sampling from the past several years: It seems the ones that shoot the least complain the most. - Herb Chong Where the imagination goes, the wallet is sure to follow. - Malcolm Smith Any idiot can buy a Canon or a Nikon, but it take's a special kind of idiot to buy a Pentax! - Steve Desjardins Clients paid me to make things work, not whine about how it's too hard or too inconvenient. - William Robb All the mathematics in the world won't change your mind when you're happy with your images. - Steve Desjardins Yes I know I'm evil, but hell, it pays the bills - Peter J. Alling Technology comes to help you, but not to replace your brains with some electronic appendage. - Boris Liberman Oh heck, set the little round thingy to the little green thingy and go take some pics! - Don Sanderson I hope my work is never judged by the type of camera I use to produce it. - Paul Stenquist I don't think you're allowed to make sensible remarks of that nature on that subject. - ERN Reed And one from 2006: Use? Connection vessel yes it is cheap the equipment spiral shellfish mouth? - Babelfish translation of something from Pentax Japan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
And one from 2006: Use? Connection vessel yes it is cheap the equipment spiral shellfish mouth? - Babelfish translation of something from Pentax Japan For all we know that could be a perfectly accurate translation of the original. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Mark Roberts wrote: mike wilson wrote: From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take some new pictures... Mark! (should go in the traditional section, I think) Yep: Get out and take some pictures! - Doug Brewer While digging through my archives for that, I found quite a few other good ones that are worth re-posting. Here's a sampling from the past several years: [...] I don't think you're allowed to make sensible remarks of that nature on that subject. - ERN Reed That reminds me. What ever happened to Ms. Reed? Has she left the building? Worse, has she left *Pentax*? keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
keith_w wrote: That reminds me. What ever happened to Ms. Reed? Has she left the building? Worse, has she left *Pentax*? Worse than that, she left us. Someone insulted her, I think. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
That's too bad. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike wilson Sent: 13. oktober 2006 23:04 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. keith_w wrote: That reminds me. What ever happened to Ms. Reed? Has she left the building? Worse, has she left *Pentax*? Worse than that, she left us. Someone insulted her, I think. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Geez, thanks for reminding me. It's not paying the bills so well these days. Mark Roberts wrote: mike wilson wrote: From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I don't need any new lenses or a new camera. I should just go out and take some new pictures... Mark! (should go in the traditional section, I think) Yep: Get out and take some pictures! - Doug Brewer While digging through my archives for that, I found quite a few other good ones that are worth re-posting. Here's a sampling from the past several years: It seems the ones that shoot the least complain the most. - Herb Chong Where the imagination goes, the wallet is sure to follow. - Malcolm Smith Any idiot can buy a Canon or a Nikon, but it take's a special kind of idiot to buy a Pentax! - Steve Desjardins Clients paid me to make things work, not whine about how it's too hard or too inconvenient. - William Robb All the mathematics in the world won't change your mind when you're happy with your images. - Steve Desjardins Yes I know I'm evil, but hell, it pays the bills - Peter J. Alling Technology comes to help you, but not to replace your brains with some electronic appendage. - Boris Liberman Oh heck, set the little round thingy to the little green thingy and go take some pics! - Don Sanderson I hope my work is never judged by the type of camera I use to produce it. - Paul Stenquist I don't think you're allowed to make sensible remarks of that nature on that subject. - ERN Reed And one from 2006: Use? Connection vessel yes it is cheap the equipment spiral shellfish mouth? - Babelfish translation of something from Pentax Japan -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
The DA21/3.2 Limited isn't very pancake. It's a nice, compact lens with excellent quality performance. The DA40/2.8 Limited is the only true pancake lens. It's too small to be useful for me. Godfrey On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:01 PM, gfen wrote: The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. If I buy anything in that range I'll buy the 43mm, as it is about the same size as the 21 and 70. DagT Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] The DA21/3.2 Limited isn't very pancake. It's a nice, compact lens with excellent quality performance. The DA40/2.8 Limited is the only true pancake lens. It's too small to be useful for me. Godfrey On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:01 PM, gfen wrote: The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On 12/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. If I buy anything in that range I'll buy the 43mm, as it is about the same size as the 21 and 70. You may have to trawl eBay for one soon. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Fra: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. If I buy anything in that range I'll buy the 43mm, as it is about the same size as the 21 and 70. You may have to trawl eBay for one soon. I know, but I've already got both FA35 2.0 and FA50 1.4, so I don't really need a 43mm (or 40mm). At least, that's what I'm trying to tell myself... DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:56 PM, DagT wrote: Fra: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/10/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. I like the 21mm and want the 70mm, but the 40mm is too small. If I buy anything in that range I'll buy the 43mm, as it is about the same size as the 21 and 70. You may have to trawl eBay for one soon. I know, but I've already got both FA35 2.0 and FA50 1.4, so I don't really need a 43mm (or 40mm). At least, that's what I'm trying to tell myself... I've also got both FA35 and FA50, see no need for a 40-43mm lens. Now a 28mm ... sigh Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Doug Miles wrote: Too bad these things have sacrificed some useful speed in the interests of unnecessary compactness. You are making the assumption that MF is dead, which I don't think it is. Aesthetics are personal, but the 21 looks like it's just had an accident. Yeah, I know, what matters is the pictures how about the slow speed that Doug mentions and the distortion? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: Some c'mon Pentax, where are the DA* or DA-Limited lenses? ;) And, since you're omitting aperature rings, make 'em cheap for us thrifty types, I can't afford the 31 Limited. On the other hand, there's a Sigma 30/1.4! Now, that's what I'm talking about.. I gotta go find me some review of this guy.. Anyone here with first hand experience? I'd hate to give up Pentax SMC, but you can't win 'em all... -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. What do you mean, he just told you what they are, see below: On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. Sounds like there's a new equivlent and furthermore, an expansion of the pancake line... -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. JC, what are you on about? You are losing even the slightest bit of credibility and leverage with uninformed statements like that. If you are genuinely interested, brush up. While doing that, (I will pass on the opportunity to rhyme) don't write nonsense like the above. Please. Pentax has openly admitted that lenses has been their weakness and they are working on it. I don't like the pancakes, but that's my problem. Look up the options. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Exactly right; I agree completely on the pancake issue. OTOH, when all the usual lens controls are handled on the body, then I suppose it makes sense to minimize the lens itself. Too bad these things have sacrificed some useful speed in the interests of unnecessary compactness. I am very pleased though with the FA Limiteds... :) Mi Doug On 10/10/06 07:01, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Technically, it is. It is known to cover 35mm though, and several on the list use it successfully on film. It does lack an aperture ring, limiting it to program and shutter priority modes only on bodies which can't set aperture manually from the body. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Actually it appears that it's one of the lenses that covers the full 35mm format without vignetting J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I thought those were FA. My bad. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Actually it appears that it's one of the lenses that covers the full 35mm format without vignetting J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
DA means that it may not cover full frame. The 40 really should be listed as an FA J lens, since that seems to be what it was designed as. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought those were FA. My bad. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Actually it appears that it's one of the lenses that covers the full 35mm format without vignetting J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
They are, Pentax doesn't guarantee the results from this lens, but it seems to be the same as the M 40mm in most respects optically, though slightly optimized to give better sharpness in the center of the image circle. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I thought those were FA. My bad. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Actually it appears that it's one of the lenses that covers the full 35mm format without vignetting J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Well, except for the 40mm f2.8 DA Limited Pancake, you know? Essentially the exact same lens in AF form? -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. These lenses should be fully supported as you cant Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want pancake lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the pancake ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I'd just note that it's about the same size as a Canon EF body cap. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Isnt the focal length a little odd for pentax digital (60mm equiv.)? They need a 26mm pancake to emulate the old 40mm on film. No? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
The new 40 is smaller, although the 21 and 70's are closer to the old 40 in size. The new 40 covers FF, but is billed as a DA lens, the 21 is DA, the 70 is unknown at this time. DA is Pentax's term for lenses for the DX format, which is not APS. (Canon uses the APS-H and APS-C formats) DX is a Nikon-derived format slightly larger than APS-C. Pentax and Sony/Minolta also use DX format due to using sensors originally designed to Nikon's specs. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:47:05 +0200, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't the 40mm focal length a little odd on 35mm as well? I always thought it was the focal length that allows design of the smallest possible lens, given the mount specifications. If I'm not completely off-base with that, it would not have changed between M and DA... Can anyone confirm or deny? -- Regards, Lucas Isnt the focal length a little odd for pentax digital (60mm equiv.)? They need a 26mm pancake to emulate the old 40mm on film. No? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- Groetjes, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:47:05 +0200, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't the 40mm focal length a little odd on 35mm as well? I always thought it was the focal length that allows design of the smallest possible lens, given the mount specifications. If I'm not completely off-base with that, it would not have changed between M and DA... Can anyone confirm or deny? 40-45mm is typical for the smallest lens designs. Right at the normal length for film and well suited to very simple designs with excellent performance (Tessar et al). I'd love to see a 28mm Tessar, if it's doable (May not be due to register issues). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
60mm is about as common as 40mm on 35mm film. In fact there are more 60mm's on the market today (2, Macros from Nikon and Canon, although one is a subframe lens for some idiotic reason) than 40mm's. I certainly wouldn't mind a 28mm pancake, but like Godfrey, I want a 28/2 DA first. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Isnt the focal length a little odd for pentax digital (60mm equiv.)? They need a 26mm pancake to emulate the old 40mm on film. No? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On most camera formats the normal lens is defined as the the diagonal of the format, on 35mm that's in the 42-43mm range. 40 is closer to a true normal than 50mm is. So it's not that strange. Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:47:05 +0200, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't the 40mm focal length a little odd on 35mm as well? I always thought it was the focal length that allows design of the smallest possible lens, given the mount specifications. If I'm not completely off-base with that, it would not have changed between M and DA... Can anyone confirm or deny? -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I look at it as more like a old style 58mm normal lens, abet a bit slow. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Isnt the focal length a little odd for pentax digital (60mm equiv.)? They need a 26mm pancake to emulate the old 40mm on film. No? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. It's smaller, really a pancake, since it has no aperture ring. It's a DA lens that covers full frame, but it's not guarantied to cover full frame. If you use it on film and don't like the results you have no right to complain. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
Canon doesn't use an APS-H format, Canon uses a 1.3 crop sensor with actual physical dimensions of 29x19mm roughly the same 3:2 aspect ratio as APS-C and DX. In fact actual APS-C would be 25.1mm x 16.7mm which is a bit larger than the canon APS-C sensor which is actually 22x15mm as well. A real APS-H would be an aspect ration of 16:9 the same as HDTV with actual dimensions of 30.2x16.7mm. If you're going to be pedantic get it right. Adam Maas wrote: The new 40 is smaller, although the 21 and 70's are closer to the old 40 in size. The new 40 covers FF, but is billed as a DA lens, the 21 is DA, the 70 is unknown at this time. DA is Pentax's term for lenses for the DX format, which is not APS. (Canon uses the APS-H and APS-C formats) DX is a Nikon-derived format slightly larger than APS-C. Pentax and Sony/Minolta also use DX format due to using sensors originally designed to Nikon's specs. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't aware that they had added a new pancake and already Stated that. Is it as small as the original pancake? I still Am not clear as to whether the new one is APS or FF? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gfen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax professional DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
I know what your getting at but with APS digital the Angle of view is kinda odd. Just another drawback of converting Old lenses to new format sizes. This is why digital From scratch systems may be superior in the long run If not going to use FF 24x36 sensor. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Well, that's it, I cracked. Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:47:05 +0200, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't the 40mm focal length a little odd on 35mm as well? I always thought it was the focal length that allows design of the smallest possible lens, given the mount specifications. If I'm not completely off-base with that, it would not have changed between M and DA... Can anyone confirm or deny? 40-45mm is typical for the smallest lens designs. Right at the normal length for film and well suited to very simple designs with excellent performance (Tessar et al). I'd love to see a 28mm Tessar, if it's doable (May not be due to register issues). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Well, that's it, I cracked. I know what your getting at but with APS digital the Angle of view is kinda odd. Just another drawback of converting Old lenses to new format sizes. This is why digital From scratch systems may be superior in the long run If not going to use FF 24x36 sensor. Sure, and then we would get to listen to you crab that Pentax has completely abandoned it's customer base. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On 10/8/06, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel so...dirty. (Re: DSLR purchase) Mark! Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, David Savage wrote: On 10/8/06, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel so...dirty. (Re: DSLR purchase) Mark! Que? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On 10/8/06, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, David Savage wrote: On 10/8/06, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel so...dirty. (Re: DSLR purchase) Mark! I thought that line deserved to be included in the 2006 PDML quotable quotes list. I was just bringing it to Mark The Quote Keeper Roberts attention. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
gfen wrote: Some c'mon Pentax, where are the DA* or DA-Limited lenses? ;) And, since you're omitting aperature rings, make 'em cheap for us thrifty types, I can't afford the 31 Limited. gfen, who'd like it known his DSLR order did come with a box of 4x5 film. ;) The DA*'s are coming next year, along with two D-FA*'s. 16-50 f2.8, 50-135 f2.8, 60-250 f4 for the DA*'s. D-FA*'s are a 200 and 300, runoured to be f2.8 and f4 espectively. DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
