The M50/2 was the conceptual replacement for the 55/2. Unlike the 55 lenses
there are actual optical differences between the f2 and f1.7 lenses.
At 08:59 AM 10/9/03 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
george de fockert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to find a M-lens
And yes, there some A* lenses that are extraordinary including
the A*85/1.4 and A*135/1.8 - real gems without any plastic. And
lenses they never made in the M series like the A200/2.8 or
A100/2.8 Macro or A20/2.8... Or the A35-105/3.5 zoom, a Pentax
quality zoom. Or the A200/4 Macro.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
george de fockert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to find a M-lens which (optical) outperforms the K lens it
replaced.
Try the M300/4.0 and M50/1.7
The M50/1.7 didn't exactly replace any particular K lens, did it?
Perhaps it could count as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
george de fockert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to find a M-lens which (optical) outperforms the K lens it
replaced.
Try the M300/4.0 and M50/1.7
The M50/1.7 didn't exactly replace any particular K lens, did it?
I've heard of the F80-210/3.5-4.5 Zoom
Are you sure such a lens ever existed? K85-210mm/3.5 did, though.
Andre
--
Mark Roberts a écrit:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The M50/2.0 was their replacement for the K 55/2.0. That the K55/1.8 and
K55/2.0 were essentially the same lens internally doesn't affect their
pricing or place in the product line.
And the K55's aren replacement for Super-Takumar 1.8/55 and
Sorry,
Should have been the F70-210/4-5.6
Bob S.
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've heard of the F80-210/3.5-4.5 Zoom
Are you sure such a lens ever existed? K85-210mm/3.5 did, though.
Andre
--
_
High-speed Internet access
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've heard of the F80-210/3.5-4.5 Zoom
Are you sure such a lens ever existed? K85-210mm/3.5 did, though.
Ekh-um... Not really :-) There was a K 80-200/4.5 though.
regards,
ukasz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Bob S wrote:
Philosophically, Pentax went with small/light primes as an alternative to
zooms. I can still carry 2-3 primes for every zoom I might use, and get
better performance - Faster maximum apertures and sharper results.
Todays pro zooms are sharper than most
Hi!
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:03:50 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your point that the M lenses have to be seen in historical context is
also valid. Putting M lenses against modern pro zooms or FA
asphericals
is not quite fair. Compared to the primes and zooms of their day and
the
pro
- Original Message -
From: Bob S [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: M lenses (long)
These lenses perform nearly identically to the K lenses they replaced.
Sorry, but I have a different opinion.
And this was discussed before
george de fockert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to find a M-lens which (optical) outperforms the K lens it
replaced.
Try the M300/4.0 and M50/1.7
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
M lenses are what got me collecting Pentax stuff, so I am a bit biased...
Philosophically, Pentax went with small/light primes as an alternative to
zooms. I can still carry 2-3 primes for every zoom I might use, and get
better performance - Faster maximum apertures and sharper results.
The K
13 matches
Mail list logo