Stanley Halpin wrote:
> If you aren’t going to use it, maybe you should send it back? Where are
> your priorities?!?
Exactly where my wife left them!
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visi
> On Oct 31, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
>
> David Mann wrote:
>
>> But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
>
> *Sigh!* If only
>
> Anyway, many thanks for your replies. I can report a rather nice parcel has
> arrived with a 16-85mm WR lens. As is the way of things,
Bipin Gupta wrote:
> Congratulations Malcom, You now have an excellent lens in the 16-85 WR,
> that Ricoh-Pentax could have labelled "STAR".
>
> I am glad that I had pointed you out to this lens as your first choice.
> Suggest you check it out thoroughly as some manufacturing defects have
> been
David Mann wrote:
> But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
*Sigh!* If only
Anyway, many thanks for your replies. I can report a rather nice parcel has
arrived with a 16-85mm WR lens. As is the way of things, I'm now in and out
of the house doing family jobs until tomorrow night,
On 10/31/2015 12:06 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
David Mann wrote:
On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith
wrote:
The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment
But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
It has worked for me for years.
Don't sell yourself sh
David Mann wrote:
On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment
But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
It has worked for me for years.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min
On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment
But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIB
I think Limited has more to do with build quality than optical
excellence. Don't get me wrong, I love the 43mm limited, and I love
it's optical characteristics, but honestly the FA 20-35mm is easily as
sharp at f4.0 it's maximum aperture, and has just as pleasing a
rendition under most circums
Boris Liberman wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> Sorry to join late...
>
> If you *absolutely* have to have WR lens, then I think that 16-85 is
> preferable. The difference between 18 and 16 mm on wide end is
> significant. It will give you more interesting compositional
> opportunities. The difference betw
Igor wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> I haven't used any of these lenses, but I was thinking about a similar
> question.
> Just in case you haven't seen this review, - it might give you some
> impression of this lens, and answer some technical questions, including
> some comparisons between different lenses
Boris Liberman wrote:
Igor, personally I translate "limited" designation into "unusual and
therefore costly". And the "*" designation to "professional and hence
expensive".
While wikipedia is not a definitive source, it can still be valuable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_(lens)
FA le
Igor, personally I translate "limited" designation into "unusual and
therefore costly". And the "*" designation to "professional and hence
expensive".
Boris
On 10/29/2015 22:57, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Alan,
I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thoug
Malcolm,
Sorry to join late...
If you *absolutely* have to have WR lens, then I think that 16-85 is
preferable. The difference between 18 and 16 mm on wide end is
significant. It will give you more interesting compositional
opportunities. The difference between 85 and 135 mm on the long end i
pdml.net
Subject: Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question
Alan,
I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have
constant
Alan,
I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have
constant aperture and be parfocal (as opposed to varifocal).
(Of course, those criteria w
Malcolm,
I haven't used any of these lenses, but I was thinking about a similar
question.
Just in case you haven't seen this review, - it might give you some
impression of this lens, and answer some technical questions, including
some comparisons between different lenses in this range:
http:
While it is not weather sealed, the Tamron 18-250 is a surprisingly sharp lens.
It's the lens equivalent of what motorcyclists call a UJM. It's not swimmingly
good at any one thing, but does almost everything well enough.
On October 29, 2015 10:01:37 AM PDT, Malcolm Smith
wrote:
>Darren Addy w
Darren Addy wrote:
> Clearly you need to purchase both.
> :)
Aaah!! You mustn't make comments like that! Horrifying thought :-)
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly ab
Clearly you need to purchase both.
:)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> Brian Walters wrote:
>
>> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens. My 16-45 has got
>> very little use since I got the 18-135. Maybe my IQ standards are not
>> as stringent as those of other
Bipin Gupta wrote:
> Hello Malcom, choice of lenses have always been the most difficult
> decision for most of us. So how do we finally decide.
> Ask simple rational question like:
> a) Genre of photography
> b) Predominantly wide or tele user.
> c) Bright or Low Light photography
> d) Percentage
Brian Walters wrote:
> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens. My 16-45 has got
> very little use since I got the 18-135. Maybe my IQ standards are not
> as stringent as those of other people but I have absolutely no problem
> with the lens.
>
> Having said that, reviews suggest the
Darren Addy wrote:
> Rereading your original post...
> I like to look at my lens line-up as a "team" that I am constantly
> working to upgrade, sometimes in incremental ways.
> What you are describing gives you the opportunity to upgrade yours:
> The 18-55mm you have is essentially just a kit lens
how it
missed "limited" or "*" status.
Alan C
-Original Message-
From: Darren Addy
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:32 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question
Rereading your original post...
I like to look at my
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens.
the same is true for me. It is very versatile and convenient, and
produces good results.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Rereading your original post...
I like to look at my lens line-up as a "team" that I am constantly
working to upgrade, sometimes in incremental ways.
What you are describing gives you the opportunity to upgrade yours:
The 18-55mm you have is essentially just a kit lens with WR. The
16-85mm is a sup
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 08:29 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
> lens to my collection at a discount.
>
> In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already
> have
> the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am st
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
As my little part of the world is now getting regular rain again - and
torrential it was this morning, with the end of my garden still flooded - a
I envy you. We are now getting sporadic rain, which is a definite
improvement, with a bit of sprinklin
Darren Addy wrote:
> I'm not sure where the "discount" is coming from, or how much of a
> discount it is, but if it is sizeable enough that you could turn around
> and sell the lens and make a profit - it would be worth doing just for
> the "free money" aspect of it. In that case, I would look at
P.J. Alling wrote:
> From what I understand the 18-85 WR is a superior lens of it's type in
> every way, except manual focusing, in that respect it takes after the
> FA 17-70, which gives all the tactile feedback of a, I was going to say
> dead fish, but that actually give tactile feedback, the
I'm not sure where the "discount" is coming from, or how much of a
discount it is, but if it is sizeable enough that you could turn
around and sell the lens and make a profit - it would be worth doing
just for the "free money" aspect of it. In that case, I would look at
what NEW ones are selling fo
From what I understand the 18-85 WR is a superior lens of it's type in
every way, except manual focusing, in that respect it takes after the FA
17-70, which gives all the tactile feedback of a, I was going to say
dead fish, but that actually give tactile feedback, the 17-70 reportedly
gives non
Larry Colen wrote:
> I'm quite interested in hearing about the relative merits and drawbacks
> of all of the weather sealed lenses, as my 16-50 is my only lens in
> that category.
I don't generally worry too much about taking equipment out in poor
conditions, WR or not, but on one occasion I got
Malcolm Smith wrote:
I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.
In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR& 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain
33 matches
Mail list logo