A Ham Radio/Electronics expert like yourself would have no trouble
picking up one of those old LX Motors with a dead battery and
retro-fitting some new batteries. Rob Studdert had a great 'How
To' site with pictures and all.
Well, all that is true, Bob, but I'm actually pretty content with
Fred,
I did the exact opposite. I kept the fisheye zoom 17-28 (zoomed in it
is near a 20mm), sold the FA 20, kept the FA *24, sold the FA 28, and
kept the FA 35.
The ones I sold were due to lack of use and this nasty habit called
P67.
Hi, Bruce. Hmmm - that's interesting. Although our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(My other great achievement
has been my fortitude in avoiding LX motor drives entirely, instead
making do with LX winders only - yes, I know that it's not really
much of an achievement, but we sometimes have to settle for
small victories, now don't we? - g)
Fred,
My Vivitar Series One 28/1.9K and Pentax SMC 35/2K rival the SMC
f/3.5Ks (except, perhaps, in freedom from distortion) while giving
me a brighter view. Yet if I were starting over, I'd get the SMC
30/2.8K to simplify my choices. I sold my SMC 24/2.8K for this
reason. (I have a 20.)
I've done
Fred,
I did the exact opposite. I kept the fisheye zoom 17-28 (zoomed in it
is near a 20mm), sold the FA 20, kept the FA *24, sold the FA 28, and
kept the FA 35.
The ones I sold were due to lack of use and this nasty habit called
P67.
Bruce
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 11:09:08 PM, you
Mike Johnston wrote:
One thing I've noticed over the years in dealing with
photo hobbyists is
that we like to think the solutions to problems. Often
we'd be better off
discovering the solution through _doing_ rather than
thinking.
How true! What is perhaps even worse than thinking the
Thanks,
I think I'm perfectly capable of solving such issues.
Just thought it might be fun to discuss. I thought
that's what this list was for. Oh well...
I'll try not to bother everyone so much in the
future.
Happy New Year!
--- John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mike Johnston
I think Mike was making a general comment, not criticising you.
I have noticed and commented before, that threads very quickly become
generalized, and replies should not be taken personally. But we all do that,
me more often then many. As you read the list you will notice that we tend
to be a
On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 06:22 PM, Steve Pearson wrote:
Thanks,
I think I'm perfectly capable of solving such issues.
Just thought it might be fun to discuss. I thought
that's what this list was for. Oh well...
I'll try not to bother everyone so much in the
future.
Happy New
Steve Pearson wrote:
Thanks,
I think I'm perfectly capable of solving such issues.
Just thought it might be fun to discuss. I thought
that's what this list was for. Oh well...
I'm sorry Steve. My comment was not aimed at you.
I just think that these questions would generate many far
I think I'm perfectly capable of solving such issues.
Just thought it might be fun to discuss. I thought
that's what this list was for. Oh well...
I'll try not to bother everyone so much in the
future.
Steve,
I certainly don't mind discussing it. If I sounded condescending, I
Sometimes it's hard to tell, with Mike...
I suppose he'll take THAT personally, too... Sighhh. g
I wasn't criticizing anybody! I was just responding as best I could. I think
the point is valid...that often we want to think about things rather than
try them out.
This is something I have to
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both focal lengths? Are
there actually times where you can say you had to have
the 28mm?
Are there any advantages of one over the other, that
This is a lot like asking if you need black shoes and brown shoes. It is
all a matter of subject and taste.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both
I have the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens and the SMC Pentax 35mm, F/3.5 (K
version) and have switched back and forth between the two on several
jobs. It is that or get a zoom, which do you prefer? When I have
time, I prefer the primes.
On Saturday 11 January 2003 01:01 am, Steve Pearson wrote:
I
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both focal lengths?
35/3.5 (K, not M by the way) is an exceptionnal lens. Very high
resolution and very low flare. I would keep it, and... also the
28/3.5:
Keep them both. They are not that close and they are exceptional lenses.
Vic
Bob, I'm with you. I have the two 28s/3.5s K and M, the K30/2.8 and the
K35/3.5. I wouldn't sell them. Once you have them hold on to them. You can't
get much for them but they might be hard to find. Itreat them like insurance.
If one ever breaks I always have the others.
Vic
In a message
Alright then, that settles it! I'm definately keeping
both, atleast for awhile. Just wanted to make sure.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts!
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep them both. They are not that close and they are
exceptional lenses.
Vic
Yes. There is a very large difference in field view for a very small change
in focal length when you go wide.
At 05:01 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth
20 matches
Mail list logo
