the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 05. tammikuuta 2003 8:24
Aihe: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Of course.
Your comments
Hi Steve,
I have one or two I would offer for sale.
How close do you live to Venice area? Seem to recell you're south of
me in one of the beach cities. That so?
Drop me a post, and in the meanwhile I'll decide which ones I will sell.
Keith Whaley
L.A. ~ by Venice
Steve Pearson wrote:
Steve,
I led you astray! I responded with M-42 lenses I have, and for your MX
you'll need a bayonet version.
Sorry. Ignore my post just sent, 'cause those mention two M-42s...
keith
Steve Pearson wrote:
Actually, I have an MX as well, that needs a 50mm
lens. So, my Super Program has the A
Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Vs: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Where can you find a good 28-105 - they are all a bit soft at the long
end?
The 3.5-4.5/24-90 Pentax is sharp and the focal length range is extremely
esteem.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: jcoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 05. tammikuuta 2003 23:08
Aihe: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Raimo, I haven't
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Vs: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Hi John,
which lens are you referring to?
I had the Sigma 2.8-4/28-105 ASPH whatever - and that was not good.
I have looked at many tests and not seen any lenses that are quite sharp
at the long end.
But I
If you have to ask, you probably couldn't tell anyway.
I'm assuming that you said this tongue-in-cheek, right?
Humm...? Well, I did not mean it insultingly.
Well, that's what I was hoping to hear. ;-)
As I thought I made clear in the rest of the post you pretty much
have to be an expert
I always used to use the zooming with my feet technique, but found
my diminishing nimbleness and creaky knees preclude a lot of the
very akward positions I used to get into when I was gathering
photos on site... This little [35-70] zoom goes a long ways toward
making that a pleasant pastime
Of course.
Your comments are why there are so many choices of zoom lenses out there!
I feel the same restrictions, but I'd feel even more with a stock 50mm
lens. On both ends...
I suppose a very good 28-105 would be a LOT closer to my more usual
needs, but even if I could find one, I might well
!)
The 28-105 is certainly of good enough quality for most use.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Of course.
SNIP
I suppose a very good 28-105
- Original Message -
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? (Different 1.4 optical designs)
The one that gets you the best shots.
For me it was the Zuiko 50/1.4 (on an OM-1)
Beautiful lens. One of the best I owned.
William Robb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I'm still confused. Which is the best-the K, M, or A 50mm 1.4???
Steve,
Very confusing because the differences are pretty minimal.
Some folks claim that color rendition of the old K is special.
Others say the A's are plastic, but the coatings are improved.
Some
If you have to ask, you probably couldn't tell anyway.
They are all very good, and quite seriousy a good one of one series is
better than a average one of another series. The older ones tend to have
better build quality, the newer ones tend to have better optical quality.
That is simply a trade
If you have to ask, you probably couldn't tell anyway.
I'm assuming that you said this tongue-in-cheek, right?
Fred
It appears that Pentax makes both a 50 F1.4 SMC (52mm filter) and a
50 F1.4 SMC-M (49mm filter). Which one is better optically, build,
etc.?
Steve Pearson
They're identical optically (although the coatings *may* have been improved
in the M version). The SMC 50 f1.4 (52mm filter) has better
So, I'm still confused. Which is the best-the K, M,
or A 50mm 1.4???
--- Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It appears that Pentax makes both a 50 F1.4 SMC
(52mm filter) and a
50 F1.4 SMC-M (49mm filter). Which one is better
optically, build,
etc.?
Steve Pearson
They're
The one that gets you the best shots.
For me it was the Zuiko 50/1.4 (on an OM-1)
Jeff.
Steve Pearson wrote:
So, I'm still confused. Which is the best-the K, M,
or A 50mm 1.4???
--- Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It appears that Pentax makes both a 50 F1.4 SMC
(52mm filter)
So, I'm still confused. Which is the best-the K, M,
or A 50mm 1.4???
Steve
Sorry Steve if my long e-mail has been confusing.
Usually it is said that the K and the A lens (and later auto-focus
1.4) are better than the M. The differences are subtle and one
particular M lens might be better
The one that gets you the best shots.
For me it was the Zuiko 50/1.4 (on an OM-1)
Jeff.
Oh my God! A Zuiko!
Seriously, has anyone ever tried the screw mount Zuiko 50/1.4? Is it
different from the bayonet version?
Andre
--
I have just been playing with an M1.4 and an A1.4 on my z-1p. The
M is much smaller and lighter,
Gee, I think that the M and A 50's (of the same aperture) are
virtually identical in size and weight.
Fred
, January 01, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most think the 1.4 is a
better lens? Do you agree?
This has been one of the longest running discussions here on the
PDML, I think. Some swear by the 50/1.7's, while others (including
yours
Steve,
I think the major advantage of the 1.4's is the extra light for focusing. Of
course, this also helps with getting pictures in low light, but I think this
is secondary as you can always find a way to try using a slower shutter
speed.
The build on the A lenses is a bit different from
]
To: Pentax Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Hi again,
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most think the
1.4 is a better lens? Do you agree? Has anyone ever
done a side by side comparison?
I would like to pick up a 1.4, and also
f1.7 lenses at the
apertures I use. I do not have
the A f1.4 - it could change my opinion.
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens
. I do not have
the A f1.4 - it could change my opinion.
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most
think
Hi,
I have both the M and A 50/1.7's and a couple of M50/1.4's. It is my impression that
the 1.4's are better at apetures that I tend to use fast 50's for, i.e. wide open to
about f/4.5. I certainly prefer the bokeh of the 1.4's.
I sought out the M50/1.4's because my experience with the
yOn Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Steve Pearson wrote:
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most think the
1.4 is a better lens? Do you agree? Has anyone ever
done a side by side comparison?
I had the M1.7 and replaced it withte A1.4. I can't give any good reasons,
but I prefer the A over the M. Well,
Actually, I have an MX as well, that needs a 50mm
lens. So, my Super Program has the A 1.7 I thought
I might try to find an M 1.4 for the MX. Anyone have
one for sale? Then, I could always swap the two back
forth.
--- gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yOn Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Steve Pearson wrote:
I'm with you Fred. Convenience often wins out...
Vic
In a message dated 1/1/03 11:13:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where I should be castigated, I think, is in my perhaps too-frequent
use of zooms that cover the 50-ish FL range. Because I often end up
using an A 28-135/4 or a VS1 35-85/2.8
Fred,
tell me more about the SMC, K, 55 f1.8 lens-do you
have this exact lens? If so, how do you like it?
Does a price of $39 sound about right for this lens
(in good condition)?
Thanks,
Steve
--- Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't the 55 f1.8 lens that you like a screw
mount? If it is
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Hey Bob,
Isn't the 55 f1.8 lens that you like a screw mount?
If it is available in the K mount, I would consider
looking for one of these as well.
--- Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Fred,
There are some among us that prefer the 55 f1.8
I have both, the K feels a little bit better (and that's saying something, the M feels
very nice indeed) and I prefer the slightly greater girth of the focusing ring to
accomadate the 52mm filter thread (also one of the reasons I like my K30 and K105 as
well). Optically, I haven't done any
Hmm I thought Boz uncovered some sort of hard evidence that they are slightly
different? Anyway, I know that my K outperforms both of my M's wide open.
I agree that the coatings may have been improved, however, I cannot observe any
difference, either in appearance or performance WRT
Keith:
Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of
these confusing options!
--- Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one 52mm filter ring 50 f/1.4, and it felt so
much
William:
When you say the K lens (w/ the 52mm filter), is
this a 50mm or a 55mm lens? I assume this is not an A
lens?
--- William Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have both, the K feels a little bit better (and
that's saying something, the M feels very nice
indeed) and I prefer the
Steve Pearson wrote:
Keith:
Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of
these confusing options!
Just says SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 followed by the ser. no. 1,043,xxx.
It has the
Yes, that is the pre-M K model built between 1975-77.
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:57 pm, Keith Whaley wrote:
Just says SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 followed by the ser. no. 1,043,xxx.
It has the red/orange IR mark outboard of the left hand f/4.0 mark on
the barrel.
Sports 8 aperture leaves. F/22.0
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Pearson wrote:
Keith:
Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of
these confusing options!
Just says SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 followed by
Ken Archer wrote:
Yes, that is the pre-M K model built between 1975-77.
Knew the years, just guessing on it being a pre-M model, plus, it has
7 elements in 6 groups, for those who are counting...
keith
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:57 pm, Keith Whaley wrote:
Just says SMC PENTAX
Well,
I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
I think:
http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=4302990SKID=PK0699900172906SID=newusedBID=PKCID=06SOID=NISPRICE=76.0
Thanks again for all the input. Looking forward to
- Original Message -
From: Steve Pearson
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Keith:
Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of
these confusing options!
A 50mm f/1.4 lens
Yup. That be the one...
Price is sure up there, tho'. Can't comment on that.
I paid $50 for mine, at a camera repair shop.
keith
Steve Pearson wrote:
Well,
I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
I think:
K50/1.4. The M, A, F, FA 50/1.4's are all 49mm thread.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 12:44:00 PM, Steve Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William:
When you say the K lens (w/ the 52mm filter), is
this a 50mm or a 55mm lens? I assume this is not an A
lens?
--- William Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, that is the K, or pre M.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 12:57:15 PM, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Pearson wrote:
Keith:
Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all
Yep, that's the one. I think that you will love it.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 2:04:27 PM, Steve Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well,
I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
I think:
I have only seen A50/f1.4s with plastic aperture rings. However, I have
seen A135/f2.8s both with plastic and metal aperture rings, so I can
well imagine that there are different versions of the A50/f1.4, too.
Arnold
Peter Spiro schrieb:
I agree with Mark that lenses with metal aperture rings
I alsoo had the A50/2. I preferred this one to the M1.7 for both
the A setting and the fact that it was incredibly small and light.
The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most
dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I
would tend to suggest the A
Fred, tell me more about the SMC, K, 55 f1.8 lens-do you have this
exact lens? If so, how do you like it? Does a price of $39 sound
about right for this lens (in good condition)?
Yes, Steve, I have a K 55/1.8, although I don't end up using it as
often as I should. I do like using it, as
I'm with you Fred. [Zoom] Convenience often wins out...
Perhaps, Vic, although for me it is not always just laziness:
I think that a good zoom is a useful substitute for prime lenses
under some conditions. It's not always laziness that keeps me from
zooming with my feet for framing:
Especially when you can buy one off ebay in Excellent condition like I
did recently for $13.09+ sh.
On Thursday 02 January 2003 03:48 am, Fred wrote:
The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most
dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I
would tend
I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most think the 1.4 is a
better lens? Do you agree?
This has been one of the longest running discussions here on the
PDML, I think. Some swear by the 50/1.7's, while others (including
yours truly) prefer the 50/1.4's. I personally think that the extra
51 matches
Mail list logo
