I agree, Fred, on all counts.
It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that it's
a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for cheaper.
I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5 135mm
from Shel. A much superior lens, in
Lasse,
Is it me, or have you been away. On the bike?
Nice to see ya,
frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
the Pentax converter works OK for small prints, and only if they need
minimal processing.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter
The Pentax converter is just fine,
Bruce,
Great pix. I wish I could do nature stuff like that. I got back my first
roll from GFM today (1st of many to come...), and I realized from looking at
my pathetic attempts at Nature Photography that I pretty much suck at it.
Gives me something to work on for next year, I guess... vbg
the 8-vs 16-bit issue was what made me look at the SE version instead. i see
now from the new data sheet comparing the four versions that there isn't
nearly as much difference anymore. i wish it produced Photoshop files
directly instead of TIFF-16. OTOH, i have a lot of Photoshop plugins to
This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the
time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes
and a couple of Sigma primes.
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the
time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes
and a couple of Sigma primes.
Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to
Thanks for the info Alex.
John
John Whittingham
Technician
-- Original Message ---
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
You can get an M 135/2.5 for $60 or so. It's far superior to the
Takumar lens.
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5
A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are
fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all are here, but most. If
you want a decent file size copy of your pic, email me off list and I
will oblige.
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps
Warning - one large page with 43 pics
Hi Frank,
I agree with your evaluation of the SMC 135/2.5. The Takumar may be
acceptable, but there are so many superior lenses available for
approximately the same price that it doesn't appear to be a good buy.
Both the SMC Pentax 135/3.5 and the M version of the same lens can be
had for
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those on the list that actually like to look at pictures and
discuss photography, I have culled down my GFM pictures to this
gallery. I present them for your enjoyment (or not). I'm sure they
are not perfect, but I find them at least pleasant to look
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, Fred, on all counts.
It's not as bad a lens as everyone says. $50 is a bit high. Not that
it's a bad lens for $50, but rather, they can usually be gotten for
cheaper.
I have one, and I wasn't unhappy with it - until I bought the SMC 2.5
135mm from Shel. A
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree with the
Get the lens hood for the SMC Tak M42. It fits perfectly and except for
a slight difference in finish seems to match this lens
much better than the plastic clip on that was originally supplied.
Gonz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, Fred, on all counts.
It's not as bad a lens as
Great snaps Cotty. Love the one with the alien and the bridge.
You're commentary made my laugh, you are a natural comedian. Looks like
you guys had a lot of fun. Are you doing it next year again?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics
But I have a feeling Doug might tell me it's my fault, so I hesitated
to mention it again. :-)
No, its affecting too many of us. One of mine just this morning didn't
come through.
Doug?
Thanks,
Joe
Cotty gets the award for the best snap of me so far.
Only problem is, he placed me in a grouping where my piddly little 70-210
zoom looks simply pitiful next to those HUGE lenses.
Anybody else thinking you were transported into the Perspective Theme
PUG?
Cory
At home waiting for PDML messages
Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt
#2, here goes.
What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I
do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love
it.
Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to
include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm
tempted to offer
Doug was telling us at GFM if we get 200 messages in a day, he'll get 900
with all the bounced email messages. If you want to ask him a question,
don't rely on him reading a post here. Email him directly.
AND
Keep your fricken in-boxes cleaned-out.
Cory
Just finished his third roll of Kodak BW
--- Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: GFM envy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi GFM guys and gals,
Just few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and
all the pictures posted
Hi GFM guys and gals,
Just a few words to say how much I appreciated your reports and
all the pictures posted (although I was expecting way
more...)
I guess I should start planning (and saving) for the next
year.
Ciao,
Gianfranco
PS: second attempt to send the message, something doesn't
Hi everybody,
It seems I cannot stop buying new pieces of equipment as soon
as the opportunity arises...
I had the chance to buy a couple of demo lenses from the local
importer at a more than reasonable price.
One of the lenses is the FA 35/2 AL, a lens I was more than
once ready to buy new, but
I'll disagree. I have a couple of 20x30 inch prints that were processed
with PhotoLab. They'll knock your socks off.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re:
Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a
landscape/nature photog, so I'll spare you the grief. These were taken the
first day, so many of the contingent had yet to arrive. They were also
taken with the MX, and since I used the LX as the flash cam, no night (ie:
party
$50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more
than $30 for it.
Personally, I loved it. Some people say it's soft. I couldn't tell with
largish prints. It isn't multicoated, so don't shoot into the sun.
Otherwise, I thought it was a fantastic portrait lens.
I sold
I loved it. So there! :-p
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
Aha, the opinion police are back!
I've owned
I agree, not worth $50 but not the dog it's made out to be. Definitely not
a paperweight.
I loved mine.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Takumar
I'd put this one up there with Cassino's insect shots:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2436610
Nicely captured! ;-)
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:11
that only tells me how much better they would be if you processed them in
Photoshop CS.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: *istD Raw Converter
I'll disagree. I have a
Gianfranco,
Some old-fashioned guys (like me g) had to wait to get film back from the
lab! First pix just posted, with another 5 or 6 rolls back by next Tuesday.
I've only just begun!!
BTW, if you show up next year, I'm there for sure! (not to scare you away
or anything g). I really hope
Jon,
I have owned the Takumar 135/2.5 once in the past. I bought one new off
the shelf in 1982, paid about $80 in 1982 dollars for it. I was so
disappointed in it's performance that I sold all my Pentax equipment a
few months later. ( I was pressured somewhat in this by my two best
friends
I'm always mildly amused to hear the immature challenge others to a fight. You know,
you never know who you are dealing with.
Interviews after the TV series 'Band of Brothers' crystalized it for me. They
interviewed old men, grandfathers, generally kind and gentle looking. They were once
BTW, I'm surprised that anyone would challenge Aparicio for offering an
opinion on a lens. Let's try to maintain some balance here.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Fred wrote:
is asking $50 for it
The Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet is a dog - best avoided,
Well, I would tend to disagree
Gonz,
Every year. First weekend after Memorial Day (so you don't have to miss
Indy).
This was my first year, but I'm not gonna miss it any more if I can help it.
Ya gotta go!!!
-frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert
Frank, I'm surprised, some of these are really quite good. From your
disclaimer I expected drek taken by a drunken sailor.
I especially liked your nature shot, (the one of the drunken moth).
frank theriault wrote:
Got back my first GFM roll today. Discovered that I suck as a
landscape/nature
What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it
was a dog. If anyone else where to have said it wasnt a good lens - as
many have over the years you would no doubt have agreed and said, yes
its only worth $20 or $30 ... given that the questioner is being asked
$40 for the
Christ, Antonio,
Give it a freaking rest!! You've made your freaking point, do you have to
go on and on and on and on? Do you kniow what beating a dead horse is?
We know you don't like the lens. We know you used to own one. Enough
already.
Just because Christain says it's not worth the $50
Hey Cotty,
Thanks for sharing - it brings out much of the fun that was there and
even a few things I missed out on.
Bruce
Friday, June 11, 2004, 4:49:04 PM, you wrote:
C A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the Powershot pics are
C fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect. Not all
Frank,
Thanks, man. I wish I could do that city/street stuff like you do - I
think I would need to watch and learn a bit before trying it. Glad
that I could meet you there.
Bruce
Friday, June 11, 2004, 4:15:10 PM, you wrote:
ft Bruce,
ft Great pix. I wish I could do nature stuff like
Woopsy Poopsy:
A second reading reveals that Cotty was replying to Treena, not Tanja.
Oh well, just substitute appropriate names where necessary, and substitute
Pentax for *istD (since I don't know if Treena has one).
Or, better yet, just ignore my earlier post. Now that I think of it, just
Tony, why do you like to argue so much? I REALLY, honestly, think that the
Takumar (Bayonet) 135 F2.5 lens is a good lens for $30. My recommendations
to the original post were:
$50 is too high. I got mine for $20 or $25 I think. I wouldn't pay more
than $30 for it.
That was a fair and honest
Fun stuff.
-Original Message-
From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: GFM Pix: No Bunny Ears, Guaranteed!
FINALLY, somebody posts some pics that don't include any bad
photos of me!
Woohoo...
I miss you
Woo hoo!
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:49 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Cotty's GFM pics
A day earlier than advertised, here ya go. Some of the
Powershot pics are fuzzy but it's a Canon - waddya expect.
Not all are here,
Shawn,
You're sick. Seek help. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Your behaviour on
the list of late is not normal. You may be a danger to yourself or others.
I'm really not joking. I hope you take my advice, for your sake, and the
sake of those around you.
This will be my only post on this
lol thanks for that Dario. I tried the same search for pentax mz 5n
earlier, and it it didn't yield any limited lenses, so i didn't try 'mz 3'.
doh..
Cheers,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:07 AM
Mr Cottrell you've truly outdone yourself! Wonderful shots and I think it's
great browsing the creativity of one shot to the next. Love the captions
too- Ewoks indeed. You're probably still recovering from compiling this
essay, but I already can't wait for the next one!
Cheers,
Ryan
PS. Cougar
I like the one of the drunken moth too Frank.. though silly me was thinking
What a big moth. Waste of a bucket of ale.. Then I saw the tin (Diet
Coke?) and realised, in a very Oprah moment, it wasn't a bucket, and I have
to come to terms with being a lush.
What I would really have liked to see
Only just got a chance to take a look at the pics, but Bruce they're
fantastic! And I agree with Steve on the mountains fading into the next-
very nice.
Any of the mountain lion not playing hard-to-get though?
Regards,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Back then, there was this black labrador who peed on a hydrant in a rather
posh neighbourhood, and when a group of yellow labradors woofed him to pee
elsewhere, the black labrador refused to give up his hydrant. These days
black or yellow labs pee wherever the heck they want, but if anyone says a
The SMC 2.5/135mm is not an M, it's a K.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. juni 2004 01:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) any good?
You can
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
