Thanks for all the feedback and especially the 'visual
proof'
Now the decision is the hard partcontendents
(putting price aside for a moment) are:
Pentax FA 20 - 35
Pentax 17-35
Tokina 20-35 f2.8
Sigma 20-40 f2.8
but it would be nice if it were Pentax..
thanks again
Michele
Try FREE
MPozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback and especially the 'visual
proof'
Now the decision is the hard partcontendents
(putting price aside for a moment) are:
Pentax FA 20 - 35
Pentax 17-35
Tokina 20-35 f2.8
Sigma 20-40 f2.8
Have you considered the Sigma EX 17-35
MPozzi wrote:
No have not really considered the Sigma EX 17-35
f2.8-4
because I had seen some tests done with it and they
did not really shine compered to the ones mentioned
below. They were the users feedback from the photozone
site, and MTF tests done on one of the magazines.
Ah, glad to hear
this lens gets great reviews...
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 March 2002 14:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
MPozzi wrote:
No have not really considered the Sigma EX 17-35
f2.8-4
because I had seen some
I am not sure it isn't very good, however it is not as
good as the others I feel...
however, when price sets in, I believe Out goes the
Sigma 20-40
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
On 6 Mar 2002 at 15:03, Rob Brigham wrote:
I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my
experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the
pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down.
I find this hard to believe. The Pentax FA 20-35/4 is on
Fair enough comment about the Sigma, as I said, I have
no experience with this (or any lenses) just go by
what I read on mage and this list and saw (eg tom's
pics) which seemed very shap indeed, across tha whole
frame, at least good enough for me.
Michele
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's
]
Subject: RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
On 6 Mar 2002 at 15:03, Rob Brigham wrote:
I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my
experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the
pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down.
I find
On 6 Mar 2002 at 16:05, Rob Brigham wrote:
I didnt say the Pantax wasnt good - but so is the Sigma.
You said, The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the
pentax, although the edges
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net
At 03:03 PM 3/6/02 +, you wrote:
I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my
experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax,
although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. The only reason I
see for choosing the Pentax over this is flare
Michele wonders
Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting
to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3
meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was
wondring how these 2 lenses fared.
If you get in close enough for a short focus distance and
use
Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on
these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF
increases with increased angles
Of course the level of blur or 'bokeh'(i believe)is
subjective, I just wanted to knoe whether it is
somewhat achieveabke, say equivalent to an f4 on a
50mm, or
Michele,
You stand a better chance of doing what you want with a f/2.8 constant
aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8 lenses at those focal
lengths are pretty expensive. Not that the FA 20-35 f/4 is exactly cheap,
either. If cost is a major consideration, you could go with a Zenitar
Fisheye is fine, but for the work I do, The wide angle
zoom would be better.
--- Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michele,
You stand a better chance of doing what you want
with a f/2.8 constant
aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8
lenses at those focal
lengths are
On 5 Mar 2002 at 8:00, MPozzi wrote:
Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on
these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF
increases with increased angles
It depends on how close to your subject you are and how far away the background is
Here's a few examples, though I don't
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Fisheye is fine, but for the work I do, The wide angle
zoom would be better.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax
Michele wrote ...
Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on
these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF
increases with increased angles
My FishEye is an f4 and the 20mm is the infamous f4.5
Both will do this, although focus distance is, like,
a foot
17 matches
Mail list logo
