The problem with small light autofocus lenses is once you put the
autofocus motor in the lens it's no longer small. They can be smallish,
but I would hate to see a 43mm limited with a built in AF motor. It
would have to be much bigger.
On 11/2/2019 9:51 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
Dear Mark,
Juan, welcome back! I have been in BA a few times in the last couple of years,
kept thinking I needed to track you down and ask for restaurant recommendations
down there…
And thanks for starting this discussion. Long story short, over the last 20
years I have bought and sold many lenses.
Have the DA16-50 and it was my 2nd favorite lens after the 43mm Ltd (or
maybe most favorite after being introduced to Scottish weather.) We were
away for a weekend to one of the western islands, decent weather.
Walking around all day, 16-50 was just fine. Back to the hotel for
lunch, back out
It’s optically the same as the FA43 Limited, but that lens is se up for the
screwdriver AF drive — the focusing is a bit too quick with a loose feel. Makes
it hard to be precise.
The Special is RF coupled and has a beautiful focusing feel and built in hood.
The only downside is that close
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Godfrey DiGiorgi
wrote:
> The Pentax lens I always wanted is the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special that
> they produced in Leica Thread Mount for a short run of about 2000 units.
> Most were sold in Japan and still command a price around $1500 or so as a
> complete set
I have an excellent barely used DA 16-50/2.8. Pentax sent me a new one about 5
years ago after failing to fix my original one. This was when I was working
with them a bit on promotions, so I believe they took care to make sure it was
a good one. Make me an offer.
Paul
> On Nov 2, 2019, at
Actually the lens I want, but can't justify, is the DA 16-50mm f2.8.
I already have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4.5 which covers the range, and suits
my needs most of the time.
Plus the Tamron 17-50mm is a wee bit better optically by all accounts
and much closer to my budget.
I wouldn't turn my
Ah, yes, a gentle Scottish mist, when the heavens open up and the fish
swim up out of the rivers and into the sky...
On 11/1/2019 8:01 PM, Pat Temmerman wrote:
Have the DA21... would love if it were fully WP (I live in Scotland.
Rain is real.)
On 01/11/2019 23:39, John Francis wrote:
On
I don't really need any more lens, I go from 16mm to 400mm (with a gap
between 210 and 400), but none of my current photography would justify the
expense of filling in the gap. If I could find one, the power zoom 28-105
was one of the best I have had, and wouldn't mind getting it for when my
Nicely captured image - good job.
-Original Message-
>From: Toine
>Subject: Re: Pentax lenses I want
>
>My last lens, HD DA 55-300, probably makes my wanted list complete. I
>do have the 60-250 which is somewhat better but a monster compared to
>the tiny HD 55-3
On 11/2/2019 17:51:10, Dale H. Cook wrote:
My wishlist for anything generally greatly exceeds the contents of my wallet.
For now I have to be content owning a Pentax-DA 18-270mm as my walking-around
lens, a Rokinon 650Z 650-1300mm as my long glass, and a Pentax-A 50mm f2. The
only lens
My last lens, HD DA 55-300, probably makes my wanted list complete. I
do have the 60-250 which is somewhat better but a monster compared to
the tiny HD 55-300. The old 55-300 was excellent, the HD version is
even better. The other lenses on my wanted list are or were the DA35
macro, DFA 100 macro
My wishlist for anything generally greatly exceeds the contents of my
wallet. For now I have to be content owning a Pentax-DA 18-270mm as my
walking-around lens, a Rokinon 650Z 650-1300mm as my long glass, and a
Pentax-A 50mm f2. The only lens currently on my wishlist is a suitable
late-model
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
>
> I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I
> need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about
> (which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway)
I’ve been very lucky that in the
> On Nov 2, 2019, at 6:51 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote:
>
> Dear Mark, you would have noticed that in the Film SLR days ALL Pentax
> Lenses were Full Frame. Even the SLR themselves were pretty small and
> petite looking.
> And these Lenses were as large or as small as the DA Lenses on the
> current
> On 02 November 2019 at 13:51 Bipin Gupta wrote:
>
> And these Lenses were as large or as small as the DA Lenses on the
> current crop of APSC DSLRs.
> So why NOT design all Lenses as Full Frame?
> This would have kept design and manufacturing efforts and costs down.
Who needs to search?
The Pentax lens I always wanted is the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special that they
produced in Leica Thread Mount for a short run of about 2000 units. Most were
sold in Japan and still command a price around $1500 or so as a complete set
with the matching optical viewfinder.
A year or so back after
> On Nov 2, 2019, at 12:44 PM, John Francis wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:23:20AM -0400, John wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I would think a full frame
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:23:20AM -0400, John wrote:
> On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> > > Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax
> > > > already offers
On 11/1/2019 19:39:33, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already
offers an excellent 24-70/2.8.
Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the
Have the DA21... would love if it were fully WP (I live in Scotland.
Rain is real.)
On 01/11/2019 23:39, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already
offers
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:58:45PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> >I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already
> >offers an excellent 24-70/2.8.
>
> Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105.
... and with a price tag
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:09 PM Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
>
> I'm about to sell a load of M and A primes because my old eyes aren't
> good at focussing anymore, including a M3.5/28 and a M4/20.
>
>
Make sure to post here when you do, who knows... :)
j
--
Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com
--
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already
>offers an excellent 24-70/2.8.
Yeah, it's excellent. But it's also huge compared to the 28-105.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
I would think a full frame 24-70/4 is very unlikely in that Pentax already
offers an excellent 24-70/2.8.
Paul
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Juan Buhler wrote:
>
>> I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I
>> need". I have too many as
Am 01.11.19 um 19:12 schrieb Juan Buhler:
M20/4: I don't know why I want this one, I just do. I really like the M
lenses.
A nice lens if you have a thing for primes. On the downside it's not
faster than most wide-angle zooms. Have one in my camera bag (aka The
Millstone) and haven't used it
Juan Buhler wrote:
>I figured I'd start a thread about lens lust. Note this is not "lenses I
>need". I have too many as it is, covering every focal length I care about
>(which doesn't go much further than 100 or 135mm anyway)
>
>DA15/4: I have the DA21mm, and it's an awesome lens. Seems like the
The shot of Bill and his glasses looks very crisp Bob.
Looks like the lens is a winner, just to damn expensive for us part timers.:-)
Dave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are some photos with the new DA60-250/4, the DA200/2.8, and the DA55/1.4.
Expensive for us retirees as well Dave...
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
The shot of Bill and his glasses looks very crisp Bob.
Looks like the lens is a winner, just to damn expensive for us part timers.:-)
Dave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM,
From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/02/20 Mon AM 12:41:45 GMT
To: 'pentax-discuss' pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests
from Chasseur d'Images)
This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago
On Feb 20, 2006, at 4:30 AM, mike wilson wrote:
By the way, I think that fair use is a concept specific to
United States
copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe?
--Mark
http://www.cla.co.uk/support/he/he-support-licence.html
3. Conditions, about half way down.
Patrice LACOUTURE a écrit :
Here is a synthesis for primes for those who can't/don't want to buy
the magazine issue.
Seems like I posted this twice (the first one was an incomplete draft).
Sorry for this.
Also note that when I write = f/16, this means f/16, f/22, and so
forth... which is
Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly
disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the
center, all but closed down at f/16!
Merci, Patrice.
It is curious that they managed to get results on the DA 16-45 so
different from everyone else's experience with
On Feb 20, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Merci, Patrice.
It is curious that they managed to get results on the DA 16-45 so
different from everyone else's experience with that lens.
Joe
Sample variation. They just got a lousy sample.
You'd think companies would check out
Joseph Tainter wrote on 20.02.06 17:54:
Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly
disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the
center, all but closed down at f/16!
That's funny, because their countrymen from pictchallenge rated DA 16-45/4
very high and said
Sylwester Pietrzyk a écrit :
Joseph Tainter wrote on 20.02.06 17:54:
Only the 16-45 f/4 ED AL stands out as being particularly
disappointing, because of very poor sharpness anywhere but at the
center, all but closed down at f/16!
That's funny, because their countrymen from
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either they got a faulty unit, or they messed up their testing protocol.
At any rate, they should have double-checked before publishing this
result. A serious magazine would have done this. Then again, they've
stopped being serious, years ago.
Strange as IMO Réponse Photo was, years ago, piece of s***.
Seems the exchanged roles ;)
2006/2/20, Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either they got a faulty unit, or they messed up their testing protocol.
At any rate, they should
Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strange as IMO Réponse Photo was, years ago, piece of s***.
Seems the exchanged roles ;)
They most definitely have.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo
True
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 20. februar 2006 00:06
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:57 PM, John Francis wrote:
I regard
Yes, please! (ou, oui s'il vous plait!)
Rick
--- Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interrested?
Got the latest one and there are quite a number of
lenses tested.
There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but
if you wish I
could scan the sheets?
Of course, comments are in
On 2006-02-19, at 22:45, Thibouille wrote:
So, will I scan?
Yes, please be so good for us :-)
--
Best regards
Sylwek
you will.
best,
mishka
On 2/19/06, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, will I scan?
--
Thibouille
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On 2006-02-19, at 22:45, Thibouille wrote:
So, will I scan?
Yes, please be so good for us :-)
Excuse me for being a bringdown and all.
But can anyone say copyright?
Bob
you mean fair use?
best,
mishka
On 2/19/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But can anyone say copyright?
Bob
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Mishka wrote:
you mean fair use?
best,
mishka
Fair use is quoting a small portion of an article for the purposes of
critique or review. The only fair use exemption for complete
articles is narrowly defined for bona fide educational institutions.
Copying
If it's legal to put them on the web it woluid be very nice :-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Thibouille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 19. februar 2006 22:46
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
23:34
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
you mean fair use?
best,
mishka
On 2/19/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But can anyone say copyright?
Bob
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version
It would be legal for Thibouille to retype just the
numeric ratings from the lens tests. But scanning the
pages, or retyping the opinions comments (except for
brief excerpts for the purpose of a critique) is not.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:50:44PM +0100, Jens Bladt wrote:
If it's legal to
word.
You might call it somethin cryptic - and let us know :_))
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 19. februar 2006 23:34
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Pentax lenses tests from Chasseur d'Images
I bough it last Friday (I can found it quite easily in
Barcelona).
I am glad that they liked 'my' A50/1.4, even more than
the FA also tested. They also liked 'my' FA35/2 and
18-55 kit lens.
By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean? (in the A50/1.4
text)
--- Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
If it's legal to put them on the web it woluid be very nice :-)
Regards
It's legal for Chasseur d'Image to put them up on their web site.
Anyone else would need their permission to do so. Do they normally
post their tests on their site?
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:56 PM, John Francis wrote:
It would be legal for Thibouille to retype just the
numeric ratings from the lens tests. But scanning the
pages, or retyping the opinions comments (except for
brief excerpts for the purpose of a critique) is not.
Correct.
But if you like
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:57 PM, John Francis wrote:
I regard that as even worse than just openly publishing them -
it's a tacit admission that you know you're doing something wrong.
Yep.
Bob
Good point Bob.
Problem is, I've never been able to find Chasseurs
d'Images in Philly; I've only ever found it in Europe.
Maybe he could email us the tables off-list?
Rick
--- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Sylwester Pietrzyk
wrote:
On 2006-02-19, at
On Feb 19, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Good point Bob.
Having been in the photo magazine biz for a long time I know the
frustrations of doing good lab tests. Back in the early 90s when we
were doing PhotoPRO magazine we did some real lens tests. Cost a
bundle, and got us
This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Klaus
Schroiff of the Photozone website (www.photozone.de) used to have a
wonderful compilation of lens tests. His tables included ratings from Color
Foto, Popular Photography, and Chasseur d'Image magazines and included
pretty
2006/2/19, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean?
Means to find but just a bit familiar (more like to suss out).
Just bought it yesterday. Quite interesting indeed...
The issue (like most back issues) can be mail-ordered directly at
them. Although I WON'T scan the tables themselves, I can scan and send
the order form for those interested.
Patrice
2006/2/20, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Feb 19, 2006,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:41:45PM -0800, Mark Erickson wrote:
By the way, I think that fair use is a concept specific to United States
copyright law and legal precedent. What are the rules in Europe?
No - the fair use provision is spelled out in the international Berne
Copyright agreement.
Can someone check to see if the tests appear on the magazine's website?
I clicked on a number of headings, but came accross no lens listings.
Jack
--- Patrice LACOUTURE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/2/19, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By the way, what does 'dénicher' mean?
Means to
2006/2/19, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Interrested?
Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested.
There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I
could scan the sheets?
Here is a synthesis for primes for those who can't/don't want to buy
the magazine
Thanks! Considerate of you to develop this post.
Jack
--- Patrice LACOUTURE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/2/19, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Interrested?
Got the latest one and there are quite a number of lenses tested.
There's discussion about this on dpreview forum but if you wish I
Well, I think Patrice just did the most part of the job and that
without any legal issue.
I didn't want to run into legal problems, just to be helpful.
The only suspicious test is the DA16-45. The already test it before
(2 years?) and it was then VERY good. So there's obviously a problem.
As
Til: 'pentax-discuss'
Emne: Fair use, intimidation, and copyright (was Re: Pentax lenses tests
from Chasseur d'Images)
This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. Klaus
Schroiff of the Photozone website (www.photozone.de) used to have a
wonderful compilation of lens tests
AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Lenses on Canon Cameras - The Truth
I find I prefer using screwmount lenses on the D to using K/M mount
lenses, Aperture priority becomes usable at apertures other than wide
open. My two most used lenses are my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (KAF2 mount
Better than having them coming out of other places.
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-)
thats gotta be uncomfortable. :)
Kevin
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in
I bought it from a BIN listing at EUR 66 (Approx US $78)
So US$50 obo?
Wendy
On 12/28/05, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the same subject,
Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me?
Im
Do i owe you $15.00 or are you arguing in your spare time.
LOL
Dave(sorry, just had to)Brooks
A list member recently contacted me off-list
asking whether it was
possible to use a certain Pentax DA lens on Canon cameras. I don't want
to reveal the list
On the same subject,
Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me?
I bought one, intending to try and use my limited lenses on the 1Dmk2
but I chickened out. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Went for the more expensive solution
Bought a DS instead
--
Wendy Beard
Ottawa
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Do i owe you $15.00 or are you arguing in your spare time.
20 bucks with a tip :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 28/12/05, wendy beard, discombobulated, unleashed:
On the same subject,
Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me?
How much would you like for it Wend?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
What you describe is pretty much exactly like mounting
screw mount lenses on the ist-D with a K/M42 adapter.
A bit more work, but not only possible, but fun.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:47 PM
To: pentax list
Stuck enroute with my Treo ... Email consumes time... :-)
correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not wide
open. Same as when I use them on an MX.
G
This one time, at band camp, wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the same subject,
Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me?
Im interested
How much?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed
On 29/12/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed:
On the same subject,
Anyone want to buy one of Mr Rolfo's PK-EOS adapters off me?
Im interested
How much?
Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not
wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX.
thinks about it
So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and only opens when
introduced to the body, literally
Cotty wrote:
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not
wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX.
thinks about it
So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and only opens when
introduced to
I think he's got it.
Cotty wrote:
On 28/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
correction: the DA lens would be stuck at *minimum* aperture, f/22, not
wide open. Same as when I use them on an MX.
thinks about it
So the lens has a default setting of closed up, and
I find I prefer using screwmount lenses on the D to using K/M mount
lenses, Aperture priority becomes usable at apertures other than wide
open. My two most used lenses are my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (KAF2 mount) and
the Super-Takumar 50/1.4
-Adam
Don Sanderson wrote:
What you describe is pretty
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Go for it Kevin, I have them coming out of my ears ;-)
thats gotta be uncomfortable. :)
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
These links don't work for me :(
Technically, underscores are not meant to be allowed in a URL. Some
software is more forgiving. I set mine up to allow them but my ISP's
proxy returns an error.
I got around it by temporarily disabling the proxy in my web browser.
On 26 Sep 2002 at 8:52, Cesar Matamoros II wrote:
http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flare.jpg and
http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/files/Pentax/flaret.jpg
Anyway I often push my Pentax lenses in this fashion. It makes me the
'loyal' Pentaxian that I am. I have a Nikon F3 with
These links don't work for me :(
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss (E-mail)
Subject: Pentax lenses.
I tried to send this last night, only to discover that I had been dropped
off
Mishka wrote:
anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a
completely different game with completely different rules, many not so
obvious.
I don't think so. I believe the run-of-the-mill pro is less concerned about
lens quality, as long as it is good enough, than the
Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always
seems to be at least one thread of having looked for
months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in
some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax
lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably over 90%
Bruce wrote:
Pal, do you even read things on this list? There always
seems to be at least one thread of having looked for
months for some particualr lens, that are easy to get in
some other brand. Yes, there were millions of Pentax
lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably
I wrote:
I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than Nikon lenses but that
doesn't make Pentax lenses rare.
Correction:
It is supposed to be: I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than
Pentax lenses...
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
Bruce wrote:
Yes, there were millions of Pentax
lenses made, but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably over 90% were 50mm. Pentax was a value camera
here, and few people invested in a lot of OEM lenes.
What does my post have to do with North America? I was refering to
production
Pål Audun Jensen commented:
June 18, 2002 7:05 AM
Why some Pentax lenses are rare in North America may be that Pentax
didn't
sell many there and/or that people simply don't offer them for sale. I'm
also sure that the Pentax lens population may look different from the Nikon
lens population
In a message dated 6/18/2002 3:59:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pentax lenses aren't rare.
I didn't say they were rare. I said that the finer versions are rather harder
to find than comparable lenses of other makes. What's more, you normally pay
more for a really
In a message dated 6/18/2002 6:01:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now look for a Nikon
AI 105/2.5. It doesn't matter how many Pentax 105's were
made, there aren't any for sale.
Bingo!!
-Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
In a message dated 6/18/2002 7:09:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm denying that pentax lenses in
general are rare.
Pal,
Deny it all you want. Nobody was saying as much. We're all agreed on this!
-Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
This is a constructed argument. Sure there are rare Pentax lenses but they
can be counted on one hand. But there are rare Nikon lenses too, I'll bet
that any Nikon lens available for two years only, like the K 105mm, are
hard to find as well. I'm sure many Nikon lenses are easier to find than
I don't know if I was a professional when I was shooting motorsports
for car magazines. But my most used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, and I
used to clean the bits or rubber and dust off it by wiping it with my
t-shirt. I made many many thousands of dollars with that old hunk of
metal and glass.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably over 90% were 50mm.
That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses available on
ebay demonstrates how ludicrous this remark is.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but of the K mount MF lenses sold in NA,
probably over 90% were 50mm.
That is obviously not true. A brief scan of Pentax lenses
available on
ebay demonstrates how
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:34:07 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
[...] when I was shooting motorsports for car magazines. But my most
used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, [...]
That's good to hear since I shoot motorsports and I just took delivery
of my first FA* lens today (FA* 200/2.8 from KEH). :-)
I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or
without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a
Nikon or Canon lens. Come on guys. Bokeh smokeh. Get real.
I don't know about Canon, but I used to have some AF Nikkors. The colour
reproduction from
-- go figure!)
but, feel free to disagree.
best,
mishka
From: William Robb
Subject: Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro
vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:09:41 -0700
Here is where it matters, and is something that would probably
not occur to non
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
