recorded song is
still a mystery...)
-frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S
You say you want some resolution, well, you know, . . .
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/04 04:28PM >>>
http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/50's/resolutn.htm
Yes, I know that resolution is not everything...
Fred
Boris Liberman wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is
> optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I
> wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one
> line on Alex's site I couldn't find anything in
Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William Johnson"
> Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
>
>
> > Well, I have to go along with this too, if you can afford it. I
have 4
> >
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
Thanks everyone who responded. I am definitely buying this lens. It is
definitely going to get a workout.
OTOH, I think that now Stan has a little more material for his web
site.
You have that right! Thanks for getting the discussion going.
Stan
You're wonderful bunch o
Hi!
Thanks everyone who responded. I am definitely buying this lens. It is
definitely going to get a workout.
OTOH, I think that now Stan has a little more material for his web
site.
You're wonderful bunch of people, but you already know that.
Boris
Or as one of the guys over on the graflex.org forum keeps saying, "Ask the
lens". Which of course means that only by trying it out can you know how it
does. That is exponentially true for 20, 30, or 40 year old used lenses that no
one knows how they have been treated since they left the factory.
- Original Message -
From: "William Johnson"
Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
> Well, I have to go along with this too, if you can afford it. I have 4
> 50/1.4's and use any of them more than my 50/2's and 1.7's combined. The
> M50/1.
A lot of professional photogs in days gone by (and perhaps to this day)
would, when buying a lens, get a half dozen or so samples to test and
then choose the one that suited them best. This is a highly recommended
procedure, but, since so many people are buying mail order and over the
internet in
ap lens, can it?
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
> pessimist
> fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-
Great info, Fred. Based on this chart, if my old eyes are working
correctly, that M50/2.0 is one of the sharpest 50mm Pentax lenses around
once you get off of wide open a bit. Now all those nay sayers and chart
huggers are gonna regret having parted with theirs ... but I've
still got mine.
Fred
nk
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
Date: Tue, 13 Jan
Y'know, Frank brings up a good point. Talking about the quality of a lens is like
describing sex. Everyone's experience is their own -
there are so many variables in what makes the final print or slide or web shot or
Photoshop manipulation. And then there's the language
... what is sharp to on
Boris
That was the lens that prompted me back to primes. Maybe not quite as good
as the 1.4 or 1.7 but a very decent lens. I haven't compared mine against my
1.4 or 1.7 though.
Butch
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
Hermann Hesse (Demian)
price, you
can't go wrong. Can't hurt to have a good performing cheap lens, can it?
cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
The M50 2.0 came with my MX when I bought it in 1980, and I used it without
any complaints for many years. If you can get it for a good price, why not
buy it? I don't think you'll be tying up hundreds of dollars.
As Shel said,
Don't get caught up in minutia and data about optics. Make pictures
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> > If they made it today, and advertised it for one of the top dog
> > performers, you'd have to pay $500 and up for it.
> Why, is it that different to the $230-150 FA50/1.7?
Gee, I don't know, Kostas.
Is the FA offe
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Keith Whaley wrote:
> If they made it today, and advertised it for one of the top dog
> performers, you'd have to pay $500 and up for it.
Why, is it that different to the $230-150 FA50/1.7?
Kostas
I have an example of the M version of the1.7 lens, and in my searches, I
find the performance exceptional!
Test reports give it a resolution of 98 line pairs per mm at f/8.0, and
87 line pairs at plus or minus 2 stops either side of f/8.0!
That's sharp! -- I'm keeping mine!
If they made it today,
cost a bit less.
William in Utah.
- Original Message -
From: "Familie Scheffler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
> My first Pentax was a MX with the
ssage
From: Boris Liberman
a.. Subject: Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
b.. Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:27:02 -0800
Hi!
Kostas (and others), a bit of clarification. I have FA 50/1.7 lens that I
bought new alon
Hi!
Kostas (and others), a bit of clarification. I have FA 50/1.7 lens
that I bought new along with ZX-L and Sigma zoom. However I want to
have more than one normal lens. I think that mostly I will keep FA 50
attached *all the time* to ZX-L and M 50/2.0 will be used on ME Super
along with othe
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Boris Liberman wrote:
> I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is
> optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I
> wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one
> line on Alex's site I couldn't find an
Hi Boris,
> It is optically identical to A 50/2.0
I'm not sure if this means you'd also be interested in hearing about the A
50/2.0, but just in case it does, here's one non-pro's experience:
I started with the A 50/2.0, then went to an A 50/1.7. I did a roll of
(informal, non-chart) test shots
: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:45 PM
To: PDML
Subject: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
Hi!
I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is
optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I
wonder how come Stan&#
Hi!
I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is
optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I
wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one
line on Alex's site I couldn't find anything in regular PDML annals
...
Especial
26 matches
Mail list logo
