Re: LENS QUALITY

No. They're the same products, just bundled as far as packaging and pricing. G > On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Alan Cole wrote: > > Are consumer lenses bought individually generally better quality than the > same lenses bundled in "kits"? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net

LENS QUALITY

Are consumer lenses bought individually generally better quality than the same lenses bundled in "kits"? Alan C -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the

Lens quality overkill

This from Oct. '06 Shutterbug Digital Help feature. Premise is a given, but precise factors are almost certainly subjective grabs. This in response to a question having to do with buying lenses for a Nikon D50. SB: The limiting factor, given that the lens is well corrected for distortion, is

20s and lens quality

William Robb said: I was quite surprised when I came onto this list and discovered that some of my favourite lenses are considered to be crap. I like the M28mm f/2.8, and I have the really bad one with the chrome trim ring, not the less awful one. Not that I like the 28mm focal length that

Tripod and lens quality (WAS: Film for graduation (and a LONG note on zooms, primes, 'n' st uff))

Mark wrote: I can suggest a short answer: In these circumstances a prime won't be sharper. Using long focal lengths under conditions like these, technique (camera steadiness) will totally overwhelm all but the grossest diferences in lens sharpness. Michael Reichmann (the Luminous Landscape guy)

Re: Tripod and lens quality (WAS: Film for graduation (and a LONG note on zooms, primes, 'n' st uff))

- Original Message - From: Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very true. Far too few invest in a sturdy tripod and use it. If you want the best from your lenses a tripod is mandatory. Pål And, not that cheap video tripod that most dealers carry these days. I still use a rock solid

Lens Quality

For some this is old news, but since i just stumbled across this page i thought I'd post the URL. http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/variations.html Seems that there is a wide variation in lens quality, even of the same lenses, and that comments made here and elsewhere wrt the quality

RE: Lens quality and distance (SMC-A 35/2.8. Mediocre or Mali1gned?)

A lens would be damned for any other optical defect, so why not for this? Field flatness at all distances is a worthwhile goal for any lens to achieve. Regards, Anthony Farr Sure it's a worthwhile goal. Look at the price for a 14mm rectilinear. About $1200, the last time I looked.