I guess I should lecture you a little more.
Always nice to attend leatures when there is something to learn.
First off, the bokeh on the
24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely
used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity.
Completely disagree. There are
Completely disagree. There are time I like to shoot very chose to the
subject for some interesting effect. The background will appear very
out-of-focus.
Like this one, for example:
http://anders.hultman.nu/album/en/pride-2003?13
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
Alan wrote:
To surprise you, I feel the FA*85/1.4 has the worst
bokeh in this bunch. It excels on certain portrait,
but I like the bokeh of FA77 better.
From what I can see, the FA*85 has slightly stronger
bright-ring bokeh than the FA77. Sometimes the
backgrounds just appeared a little odd
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I guess I should lecture you a little more.
Always nice to attend leatures when there is something to learn.
First off, the bokeh on the
24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely
used in situations
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times
more
money and putting
AC even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give
AC that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far).
Well, they didn't mine. Photodo is, by now, old, they do not explain
enough how they test the lenses, and where did they get the lenses (some of
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
From what I've heard of that lens, and what I've seen of other 24s
(especially f/2 versions) that is not saying much. Most ultrawides stink,
especially at wide apertures and towards
Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times more
money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference
between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference
between setting the ISO from
Mark Roberts wrote:
Photodo is a joke.
It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I
can only quote their ratings. ;-)
Regards
Nenad
- Original Message -
From: Nenad Djurdjevic
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Mark Roberts wrote:
Photodo is a joke.
It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my
FA28-70/4 I
can only quote their ratings. ;-)
Their ratings are meaningless
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence
to
prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe,
but
even what I consider the most
Well, they are a lot better than your own tests - which are trully
useless.
On 25 Jun 2004, at 14:24, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Nenad Djurdjevic
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Mark Roberts wrote:
Photodo is a joke.
It may be. But as I have not got a FA28
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective
evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't
want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable
results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than
the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the
length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind,
and I think that
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built
quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some
Sigma lenses do.
In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about
5 years. The
Um.
That should read ..taken with the FA*80-200/2.8, of course.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija?
He
I wrote:
What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first
requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is
well
built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is
perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it
I wrote:
What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first
requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is
well
built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is
perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty,
poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses
don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a
well-looked after, as-new, example I
the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A*
400/2.8
Wow! Heresy Alert !!! vbg
Fred
Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she
submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the
submissions except one were taken with the FA* [80]-200/2.8.
Here are links to the ones with this lens:
http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html
-
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence
to
prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want
Gosch - that's beautiful photographs!
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. juni 2004 19:13
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Anyone remember the Chinese
I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of
the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On
close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems
to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
My personal experiences with pentax and non-pentax lenses similar to
the ones you mention suggests that a lens could
, June 25, 2004 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A*
400/2.8
Wow! Heresy Alert !!! vbg
Fred
If you need it yes, it is worth it. If you don't well that's another
question.
Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
Compact size and weight are more important to me than lens speed,
especially since the *ist D is pretty noise free up to ISO 800 and
still very usable at ISO 1600.
I understand that bokeh is very hard to get right in many zoom
designs. Leica and Zeiss don't seem to make many zooms, which might
help with their above average bokeh.
I don't think it's a zoom or prime issue (bright-ring bokeh at least), but I
have primes only now if that's what you implied.
Canon Sigma have more crappy bokeh do not make Pentax good, but relatively
better only. But thanks for lecture. I feel sorry for myself that I can only
afford so few and so low end non-finest Pentax lenses like FA*24/2,
FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, FA*85/1.4, FA100/2.8, FA*200/2.8, F*300/4.5.
in this
regard, or is it excellent???
-That Guy
-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Canon Sigma have more crappy bokeh do not make Pentax good, but relatively
better
Hi,
I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany
(Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder
- what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller case
and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New
Perhaps they finally noticed it didn't sell after so many years? Personally,
I am not that optimiztic. Remember the A70-210/4 was replaced by
F70-210/4-5.6? Perhaps Pentax will go the f4 route since Pentax f2.8 zooms
don't sell. Or they might just make some DA f2.8 zooms to keep the cost
down?
The FA*70-200/2.8 has been a special order item for quite some time already.
Which is sad, because it's one of the best lenses in that zoom range regardless
of brand.
Now if they could make a new version where they just remove the autozoom motors
and put in some gyro stuff...:-)
Jostein
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly
superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a
lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow
zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/24/04 03:28AM
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly
superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a
lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow
zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS.
How about an
on 24.06.04 15:24, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly
superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a
lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow
zooms might be a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly
superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a
lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow
zooms
Me three! I would love a 55-200/4 DA to go with the 16-45. Same
image quality as the 16-45. That would be superb!
Bruce
Thursday, June 24, 2004, 8:53:24 AM, you wrote:
aw On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms.
I wrote:
How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same
as
a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that!
alex wetmore wrote:
Me too. I'd take an f4 version too.
I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller
lenses for Pentax. I think that
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
I wrote:
How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same
as
a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that!
alex wetmore wrote:
Me too. I'd take an f4 version too.
I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:21:36 +0200, Jostein wrote:
The FA*70-200/2.8 has been a special order item for quite some
time already. Which is sad, because it's one of the best lenses
in that zoom range regardless of brand.
I'd give my eye teeth for an FA* 80-200/2.8 ... and one day hopefully
I'll
I'd be hoping for the FA* to be replace with a New FA* w/o power zoom.
Seems unlikely thought...
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
on 24.06.04 9:28, Alan Chan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps they finally noticed it didn't sell after so many years? Personally,
I am not that optimiztic. Remember
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to
prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but
even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give
that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so
The problem is Pentax seem to be happy with the good optics average/poor
built strategy recently. But that's understandable when they must keep the
cost down in order to compete, just hope they won't make the FA28-70/4
mistake again.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I think we could see
44 matches
Mail list logo
