On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, keithw wrote:
Oooo! That'll make the wallet thinner, won't it?
I think it will be a good opportunity for some of us to put our money
where our mouth is.
Kostas
I think it will be a good opportunity for some of us to put our money
where our mouth is.
?? I don't understand..
I am happy to see this lens is here (there in US). Anybody knows if
(or when) it is available in EU?
Peter Belak
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, David Nelson wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I believe a FF (35mm) 50-200/4 is on the cards.
You sure? I think the pentax roadmap didn't mention its speed or exact focal
length (just that it would be a High-performance D FA Telephoto zoom) -
personally I'd expect it
I can't find the roadmap diagram anymore, so no. 210? Why?
Nothing terribly significant but the FL range oval on the roadmap goes
deliberately past 200mm (the DA 50-200 stops obviously at 200).
http://www.tekade.de/news/html/pentax-roadmap.html
You sure? I think the pentax roadmap didn't mention its speed or exact
focal
length (just that it would be a High-performance D FA Telephoto zoom) -
personally I'd expect it to be 50-210 f/2.8
Got any other sources?
I can't find the roadmap diagram anymore, so no. 210? Why?
Could
John Whittingham wrote on 17.06.05 11:31:
I think an affordable constant aperture f/4 with excellent image quality
would sell very well.
Especially with ED glass, internal focusing and removable tripod mount :-)
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, David Nelson wrote:
I just reckon that an f/4 version would be hard to market as being better
than the DA unless it was well touted as being super sharp wide open (hard to
imagine). I suppose there's always the FF thing.
Exactly, and the constant aperture. One is clearly
Especially with ED glass, internal focusing and removable tripod
mount :-)
Oooh stop you're getting me all excited now 8)
You only have to look at the Pentax A 70-210 f/4 reputation, people are still
raving about it now and it's been around 20+ years!!!
Constant aperture, reasonable
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Peter Belak wrote:
I think it will be a good opportunity for some of us to put our money
where our mouth is.
?? I don't understand..
I mean that many people have (correctly, in my opinion) moaned for a
long time that Pentax never really produced a successor to the
[1] I think we two have had this discussion; I was also talking to
Joaquim Carvalho just yesterday about it; John Whittingham as well in
the past, the list just goes on.
I was actually waiting for this type of telezoom lens.
I have some nice M primes (135, 200) and A70-210 but I wish to have
John Whittingham wrote on 17.06.05 11:47:
Oooh stop you're getting me all excited now 8)
If all that comes true, your wallet will be less excited ;-)
You only have to look at the Pentax A 70-210 f/4 reputation, people are still
raving about it now and it's been around 20+ years!!!
So it
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
John Whittingham wrote on 17.06.05 11:47:
Oooh stop you're getting me all excited now 8)
If all that comes true, your wallet will be less excited ;-)
How much was the A70-210/4 new? And how much was the Super-A (I don't
expect 1985 money
Oooh stop you're getting me all excited now 8)
If all that comes true, your wallet will be less excited ;-)
Yes, definitely 8)
You only have to look at the Pentax A 70-210 f/4 reputation, people are
still
raving about it now and it's been around 20+ years!!!
So it is the highest
How much was the A70-210/4 new?
I can look it up tonight from the last price list I have.
And how much was the Super-A
Bloody expensive, at least 2 MX's
John
it may not have sold well, but it was constantly out of stock and is
definitely an excellent lens.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED
How does one do street shooting with a 200mm lens? You get out on the
street and trip the shutter vbg. Yes, I frequently shoot on the
street with a 35/2, but I don't always like intimacy in street
shooting. Sometimes I like to catch people unawares. Here's a shot with
the VS1 70-210/3.5 at
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
How much was the A70-210/4 new?
I can look it up tonight from the last price list I have.
And how much was the Super-A
Bloody expensive, at least 2 MX's
And how much is that in MZ-5ns?
Thanks John!
Kostas (if I knew how much the MX was, I
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Sometimes I like to catch people unawares. Here's a shot with the VS1
70-210/3.5 at 210 mm. It may not fit your definition of street
shooting, which is a fuzzy term to begin with, but it's on the
street, and it's a shot.
I don't know if he heard the mirror. But I stopped him when he came out
of a store and showed him the pic. I then gave him a card with my
e-mail address and told him I'd be happy to send it to him. Never heard
from him, which is typical in my experience.
Paul
On Jun 17, 2005, at 7:23 AM,
And how much is that in MZ-5ns?
Err dunno 8)
I'd guess the Super A when released c.1983 would be equivalent to what the MZ-
S costs now (New!) IIRC it was somewhere in the region of 250-300 GBP for
the body in the UK. My first MX body c.1979 cost me 89.00 but it was
discounted slightly I
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/06/17 Fri AM 11:38:21 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
And how much is that in MZ-5ns?
Err dunno 8)
I'd guess the Super A when released c.1983 would be equivalent to what
What does it look like?
It's not a style typical of Pentax.
Tokina? Tamron?
Sincerely,
Collin
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
How much was the A70-210/4 new?
I can look it up tonight from the last price list I have.
And how much was the Super-A
Bloody expensive, at least 2 MX's
Super A body (1983) 249
SMC Pentax A 24mm f2.8 (1984) 110
SMC Pentax-A 35-70 f4 (1984) 110
SMC Pentax-A 70-210 f4 (1984) 150
Motor
Bounced for enhanced text (!!), so I am deleting the pound marks and
trying again.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
Super A body (1983) 249
SMC Pentax A 24mm f2.8 (1984) 110
SMC Pentax-A 35-70 f4 (1984) 110
SMC Pentax-A 70-210 f4 (1984) 150
Motor Drive A = battery pack (1984)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:49:37 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
Bounced for enhanced text (!!), so I am deleting the pound marks
and trying again.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
Super A body
Paul,
That's a nice tele-portrait of a man and child, but street shooting
to me captures the environmental context of the street and the people
who populate it. The perspective in such a tele-portrait is not
intimate, nor does it capture the context of the street at all.
Photos like
Some of us look for intimacy and some of us look for voyeurism. vbg
I don't see how you do street shooting with a 200mm lens on 16x24mm
format anyway ... even a 50mm lens on the DS is a portrait telephoto,
a 200mm lens is the equivalent of a 300mm field of view in 35mm film
camera terms
At 7:32 AM -0400 6/17/05, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't know if he heard the mirror. But I stopped him when he came
out of a store and showed him the pic. I then gave him a card with
my e-mail address and told him I'd be happy to send it to him. Never
heard from him, which is typical in my
I've heard all the narrow, pretentious definitions of street shooting before.
I think anything that defines a genre too narrowly is merely limiting. Yes, HCB
shot with normal lenses, and I frequently shoot with normal to wide lenses as
well. But that's not all I do. I care not a hoot for
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 14:13, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Photos like these two from my PAW: People Portaits 2005 series
are a little closer to the notion of street shooting as I see it:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/13.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/15.htm
Sigh. To each his own means what the fsck do I care about your
opinion? which basically means 'end of discussion' to me. But I'll try.
Definitions are important, Paul: they're the foundation of
categorization and judgement. Otherwise the only comment you can make
in the discussion of
On Jun 17, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
Photos like these two from my PAW: People Portaits 2005 series
are a little closer to the notion of street shooting as I see it:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/13.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/15.htm
Great
Look at me! It is a form of exhibitionism. A demand for attention.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Alan P. Hayes wrote:
At 7:32 AM -0400 6/17/05, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't know if he heard the mirror. But I stopped him
To each his own merely means that different people interpret different things
-- or art forms-- in their own way. Street shooting is a very fuzzy term. It
doesn't clearly define a genre. If you prefer, you don't have to refer to
tight, long lens street shots as street shots. I'm not concerned
http://tinyurl.com/de67s
A new lens from Pentax, and it's actually available!
WooHoo!
Don
Don Sanderson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/de67s
A new lens from Pentax, and it's actually available!
WooHoo!
Don
Excellent price, too!
Only problem:
The image circle in DA-series lenses is designed
to perfectly match the 23.5mm x 15.7mm size of
the CCD used in PENTAX
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, keithw wrote:
On the other hand, it's perfect for those of us who have put away out film
cameras and embraced the *istD's... g
I believe a FF (35mm) 50-200/4 is on the cards.
Kostas
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, keithw wrote:
On the other hand, it's perfect for those of us who have put away out
film cameras and embraced the *istD's... g
I believe a FF (35mm) 50-200/4 is on the cards.
Kostas
Oooo! That'll make the wallet thinner, won't it?
keith
I've been waiting for this lens for a while now.
It's s tiny!
Mine's ordered. ;-)
Don
-Original Message-
From: keithw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:07 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
Don
(BST)
Subject: Re: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, keithw wrote:
On the other hand, it's perfect for those of us who have put away out
film
cameras and embraced the *istD's... g
I believe a FF (35mm) 50-200/4 is on the cards.
Kostas
--- End
6:49 PM
Subject: RE: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
I've been waiting for this lens for a while now.
It's s tiny!
Mine's ordered. ;-)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I believe a FF (35mm) 50-200/4 is on the cards.
You sure? I think the pentax roadmap didn't mention its speed or exact
focal length (just that it would be a High-performance D FA Telephoto
zoom) - personally I'd expect it to be 50-210 f/2.8
Got any other sources?
]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: Look kids, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED is here!
I've been waiting for this lens for a while now.
It's s tiny!
Mine's ordered. ;-)
On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:28 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I ordered one from BH. It's a little slow at the long end, but if
it performs as well as the DA 16-45, I can live with the small ap.
Should be a lot of fun for street shooting since it's so compact
and inconspicuous. And teamed with the
44 matches
Mail list logo
