On Apr 6, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Thanks for the mention. In truth, I was a drag racing photographer.
You just conjured up some very strange images in my mind.
Please tell me you're talking about cars :)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7) focusses at
0.45cm, I think, which is ballpark.
I really doubt that. I think you mean 45 cm (about 15 inches).
You are right. And to think imperial is new to
-Original Message-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are right. And to think imperial is new to me... :-)
Not to worry, didn't NASA crash their Mars Rover thing
due to a similar error ;-)
--
Peter Williams
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:26 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top three lenses in
terms of the amount of use it gets. I've found it to be very good.
I have one that I picked up in mint condition for a great price a few
years ago. About NZ$100 if I remember
That's Mr Stenquist, the master of the hand-held long tele! He was
probably a sniper in the Rifle Brigade in a former life.
John
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can follow moving subjects with a
manual focus lens :)
Cheers,
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
Thanks for the mention. In truth, I was a drag racing photographer.
Paul
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:48 AM, John Forbes wrote:
That's Mr Stenquist, the master of the hand-held long tele! He was
probably a sniper in the Rifle Brigade in a former life.
John
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can
Lots! It a very nice lens. Very sharp even wide open. One4 of the sharpes
portrait lenses Iøve ever had. I sold my first and regreted it. Goit me
another one not so long ago.
Se: http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p13516210.html
It's a little long (focal length) for portraits and a little slow to
Don,
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough. It's never been
much of an issue for me, although once or twice the use of the narrowest
extension tube (9mm or 12mm) came in quite handy.
Shel
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
Anyone have any experience with
It's a little long (focal length) for portraits
[and]
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough
I know that a somewhat shorter (than 135mm) lens is the official length
for a portrait lens, but that's for formal portraits. I often use a
longer lens for candid portraits, and the
On Apr 6, 2005 8:57 AM, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a little long (focal length) for portraits
[and]
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough
I know that a somewhat shorter (than 135mm) lens is the official length
for a portrait lens, but that's for formal
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough.
I believe the rule of thumb is the focal length in cm for the
closest focus distance. The modern zoom lenses do really well to focus
as close as they do. The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:27 AM, David Mann wrote:
Here's one of my 135/2.5 favorites. (Warning: It's from the
wakeboarding series, and has been seen here before.)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2686475size=lg
Great pic. I don't know how you guys can follow moving subjects with
a
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. april 2005 16:35
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Some people feel the K135/2.5 doesn't focus close enough.
I believe the rule of thumb is the focal length in cm for the
closest focus distance
Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The newest prime I have (FA50/1.7) focusses at
0.45cm, I think, which is ballpark.
I really doubt that. I think you mean 45 cm (about 15 inches).
0.45 cm is 4.5 mm, less than 1/4 of an inch in the ye olde measurements.
Yes, that's exactly what it is... fast and sharp.
Also much smaller and lighter than the A135/1.8.
I took a series of 135's out some time ago for a test.
(While my kids were at Sunday school...)
I had the Takumar 135 K mount, the M135/3.5, the K135/2.5, and the A135/1.8.
In a simple series of
Thanks Bob!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:09 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
Yes, that's exactly what it is... fast and sharp.
Also much smaller and lighter than the A135
I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top three lenses in
terms of the amount of use it gets. I've found it to be very good.
Here's one of my 135/2.5 favorites. (Warning: It's from the
wakeboarding series, and has been seen here before.)
On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
Anyone have any experience with it?
I have one.
I like it a lot.
Can't compare it to the 1.8, though, as I've never used the latter lens.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a
Thanks Paul!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:26 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
I use it quite frequently. It's probably in my top three lenses in
terms of the amount
Thanks Frank!
Don
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:31 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this lens
Don.
I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few
times. The K135/2.5 is a great lens by comparison, especially for the
money. The size is quite a bit more handy as well. IMO, especially when
shooting hand held, the K135 is comparable to the A*135/1.8 unless you must
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
I'm one of those guys that calls it that frequently (and, as a very lucky -
and nowadays quite poor - user of an A* 135/1.8, I can make that claim from
experience - g).
I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few
Thanks Fred!
Don
-Original message-
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:19:53 -0500
To: Shel Belinkoff pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
I'm one of those guys that calls
Great lens, my favorite 135 (then again, I don't own the 1.8).
Norm
Don Sanderson wrote:
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
Anyone have any experience with it?
TIA
Don
Thanks Shel!
Don
BTW: The Super Program lived! ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 8:26 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
Don.
I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used
Thanks Norm!
Don
-Original Message-
From: Norman Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:23 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
Great lens, my favorite 135 (then again, I don't own the 1.8).
Norm
Don Sanderson wrote
Good news on the Super Program. Were you able to improve the cosmetics, or
was that just a non-issue?
As for the 135mm glass, it seems you've gotten a consensus on it. Now go
find one and use it with pleasure.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Don Sanderson
Thanks Shel!
Don
BTW: The
]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:04 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: SMCP 135/2.5 comments?
Good news on the Super Program. Were you able to improve the
cosmetics, or
was that just a non-issue?
As for the 135mm glass, it seems you've gotten a consensus on it. Now go
find one
fantastic lens. sharp and heavy and uses 58mm filters. love it.
mishka
On Apr 5, 2005 7:57 AM, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this lens called the Poor Mans 135/1.8.
Anyone have any experience with it?
TIA
Don
29 matches
Mail list logo
