Two words here are professional standards. You wouldn't want to shoot
a wedding without a 2.8 lens, in a church. With a fast lens you do not
have to use flash (or can use it just to spicy up the photographs, not
as a sole means of illumination). Of course many slower lenses are as
good optically, s
...the Tak K 135/2.5 was so inexpensive, I figured "Why not?"
keith
You saved the price of a few films but all your films will bear the
mark of the cheaper lens.
If you take a lot of photographs, used medium aperture lenses are
cheap, film is expensive...
Andre
Hi Keith. I'll expand a bit my commentary...
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
I forgot who said that, but... what is meant by "bad construction?"
This started out as a Pentax lens. I assume a Pentax design. Did they goof?
I guess we'll never know, but it seems t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith,
I don't know about all the Takumar K-mount lenses, but I have used the Takumar K
135/2.5. In comparison to the M 135/3.5, I could see the difference on my 3x5 inch
prints. The Takumar was fuzzier in a non-flare situation. This is why I avoid
Takumar K-mount le
Keith,
I don't know about all the Takumar K-mount lenses, but I have used the Takumar K
135/2.5. In comparison to the M 135/3.5, I could see the difference on my 3x5 inch
prints. The Takumar was fuzzier in a non-flare situation. This is why I avoid
Takumar K-mount lenses.
Regards, Bob S.
Ke
Peter J. Alling wrote:
You seemed to me that you were, I just wished to correct what appeared
to me to be a misapprehension. No other criticism implied.
Okay. I did learn something from the conversation, however. I had
confirmation that it was merely rebadged.
Don't ask me why, but I need to kn
I have been following this thread with some interest waiting for the time to
put my 2 cents in. I learned that my FA lenses are no good. It's been
suggested that unless a lens is an f2.8, it does not measure up to professional
standards.
Puuuease!
This is an elitist attitude based on hav
Alan Chan wrote:
It's very cheap. How can you go wrong?
Was it "very cheap" when it was sold under the Pentax-A label?
Just wondering, as I usually think of a Pentax labeled lens as having
some minimum level of quality...
And, for that matter, a Takumar lens was once an indicator of a superior
Alan Chan wrote:
It's very cheap. How can you go wrong?
Since it was given to me, I can't!
keith
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Okay, that's one opinion...
Any others?
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Pentax didn't stop making it, they just started selling it under their
Takumar brand.
I gathered as much. Sorry for the implication that it was otherwise.
I'll be more careful around you in the future.
Prior to K mount all Asahi lenses were Takumars.
Yes, I'm aware of t
It's very cheap. How can you go wrong?
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Okay, that's one opinion...
Any others?
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protect
Pentax didn't stop making it, they just started selling it under their
Takumar brand. Prior to K mount all Asahi lenses were Takumars.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Gonz wrote:
Keith Whaley wrote:
Fred wrote:
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good
performer overall for me
D]>
To: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
> I did try it on a DSLR, and found a peculiar thing, which exhibited
> itself again with ATX 20-35 f/2.8 - in contrasty areas with blown-out
> small highlights, the h
> I didn't know there was a "A 70-200/4". There is only the FA
> 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site.
Look for it under the non-SMC lenses page.
Fred
Keith Whaley wrote:
Fred wrote:
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good
performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because
this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for
just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness impr
Okay, that's one opinion...
Any others?
keith
Andre Langevin wrote:
Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares?
Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know?
keith whaley
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
Andre
Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares?
Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know?
keith whaley
Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses.
Andre
Fred wrote:
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good
performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because
this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for
just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement.
I'm quite h
> I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good
> performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because
> this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for
> just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement.
I'm quite happy
> For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus
> lenses.
...and if you're a lover of nice manual focus lenses, that's kinda
sad...
That's probably a pretty good analogy, though.
Fred
I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good
performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because
this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for
just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement.
rg
Alan Chan wrote:
I
> While an "overall impression" can be delivered in a single number,
> you'd need commentary to determine how that overall impression was
> reached.
...and every user would want to determine his/her own method of
"averaging" or "combining" ratings to come up with that number...
Fred
ly form some kind of user
organisation to provide the necessary tests.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. juni 2004 08:44
Til: Nenad Djurdjevic
Emne: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?
Hello
whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the
better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also
the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is
narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual
focussing
ND> I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood
ND> opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By
ND> comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that
Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. T
F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new.
They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality
of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with
early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear
to be opti
The F* 300mm f/4.5 is pretty highly regarded, by me at least. Its so sharp
you could cut yourself just looking at the slides.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do well with A2X-S. :-(
A lot of people choose this lens over the FA* version as it has a tripod
mount. Optically the two lenses are identical
On Jun 24, 2004, at 5:13 AM, That Guy wrote:
I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list.
(snip)
The F* 300mm f/4.5 is pretty highly regarded, by me at least. Its so
sharp you could cut yourself just looking at the slides.
A lot of people choose this lens over the FA* version as it has
I think I saw one on ebay earlier today ...
A.
On 23 Jun 2004, at 22:33, Alan Chan wrote:
I guess it's because most "good" F lenses are rare and hard to find
now. I have been looking for a mint F50/1.4 for years but seen none so
far.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I don't see much ment
I guess it's because most "good" F lenses are rare and hard to find now. I
have been looking for a mint F50/1.4 for years but seen none so far.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of A, M,
and FA talk of course. I've recently
Nah, looks are important. Performance is for nerds.
A.
On 23 Jun 2004, at 21:39, Kenneth Waller wrote:
"Yes but ... F series lenses look silly"
Yeah but their performance is what is important!
Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they de
"Yes but ... F series lenses look silly"
Yeah but their performance is what is important!
Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the army
or somethin?
PeoplePC Online
A
-
From: Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:48:23 +0200
Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
> Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the
> army or somethin?
>
> Antonio
>
> . Designed by som
Yes but ... F series lenses look silly. Were they designed for the army
or somethin?
Antonio
. Designed by someone who was heavily influenced by
On 23 Jun 2004, at 19:13, That Guy wrote:
I don't see much mention of these lenses on this list. I see lots of
A, M,
and FA talk of course. I've rec
34 matches
Mail list logo
