John wrote:
> The third version, the f/2.8-4.0, is the one I have and it is quite good
> lens. It seems to be very under-rated too from what I've read on Bob
> Monahagn's website (http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/cult.html#steve).
> I suppose that is because of the variable aperture perhaps
It's the 62mm version supposedly built by Tokina.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Gittings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: Self enabled
> Is it the 62mm or 67
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Glover
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Self enabled
The third version, the f/2.8-4.0, is the one I have and it is quite good
lens. It seems to be very under-rated too from what I've read o
> Subject: RE: Self enabled
>
>
> Is it the 62mm or 67mm filter size version?
> Kent Gittings
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL P
Is it the 62mm or 67mm filter size version?
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Self enabled
While browsing one of our local camera shops today I
any event, there is a good discussion of the Vivitar
Series 1's lens and this web site gives a nice history of them.Anyone know where I
SR1 200/3.0? :)
John
- Original Message -
From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, Decemb
is you don't think you'll need the speed of the
>24mm or 20mm.
>
>Why recommend the 24 over the 20? My leaning has been to make the 20 my
first choice. Is there something I'm not thinking about here?
>
>Attachment Converted: "e:\eudora\attach\RE Self enabled
>4) FA* 80-200/2.8 - This is one I really want but rarely turns up used.
(probably because it is a good lens to have) I haven't checked third party
options on this one but may to save a few .
That's an expensive lens, but very good. You could get a slower lens and
save some money for other
o attach a filter to.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Thornsberry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:31 PM
>To:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: Self enabled a F 100 2.8 Macro
>
>OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welc
ssage-
From: Kevin Thornsberry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:31 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Self enabled a F 100 2.8 Macro
OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welcome all feedback and recommendations.
1) FA 24/2.0 or FA 20/2.
OK Todd et. al., here it is. I welcome all feedback and recommendations.
1) FA 24/2.0 or FA 20/2.8 or FA 20-35/4 - Autofocus not mandatory but desired
2) FA 50/1.7 - Already have this one.
3) F or FA Macro 100/2.8 - F model to arrive in a couple of days.
4) FA* 80-200/2.8 - This is one I
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 at 08:04:30 -0600, Kevin Thornsberry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I just
> made my first used lens purchase, a Pentax F 100 2.8 Macro from KEH.
> I can't wait for it to arrive. I've been doing most of my
> photography with a Pentax FA 28-200 zoom so I'm expecting a nota
Kevin Thornsberry writes:
> I just made my first used lens purchase, a
> Pentax F 100 2.8 Macro from KEH. I can't wait for it to arrive. I've been
> doing most of my photography with a Pentax FA 28-200 zoom so I'm
> expecting a notable difference in sharpness.
I have the FA version of this le
13 matches
Mail list logo
