Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-12 Thread Peter Alling
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-12 Thread Fred
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.

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread edwin
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread Mark Roberts
[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?

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread Andre Langevin
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 --

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread Michel Carrère-Gée
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread Bob S
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-09 Thread ukasz Kacperczyk
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] ===

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-08 Thread edwin
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-08 Thread Boris Liberman
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-08 Thread george de fockert
- 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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-08 Thread Mark Roberts
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

Re: M lenses (long)

2003-10-07 Thread Bob S
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