On 2010-04-15 19:15, John Sessoms wrote:
And just to go completely out in left field, anyone ever actually see or
handle or even touch one of the 800f/4 lenses Pentax made for the 6x7?
No, but I saw reviews and ads about it. Was that the one that you could
get a K-mount adapter for? Or was
- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
And just to go completely out in left field, anyone ever actually see or
handle or even touch one of the 800f/4 lenses Pentax made for the 6x7?
Yes, both. At a camera store in
From: Doug Franklin
On 2010-04-14 20:09, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious
Oops, typo. It's actually f/5.6, not f/4.5.
They've got a 500 that's f/4.5, but I don't think it has Macro capability.
Comes in Pentax mount and it's "D
On 2010-04-14 20:09, Doug Franklin wrote:
Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious
Oops, typo. It's actually f/5.6, not f/4.5.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRI
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Graydon"
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
>I find th
On 2010-04-15 5:06, David Mann wrote:
I don't think Pentax made a 400/2.8 with AF.
You're probably right, Dave. The Pentax long glass has been out of my
price range for so long that I've forgotten most of what they have. :-)
I wouldn't mind an 80-200 f/2.8 myself.
Me, too. That darned
On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:06 AM, David Mann wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>> I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was
>> discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices.
>> Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5
David Mann wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> > I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was
> > discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices.
> > Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, t
On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> I was lucky enough to get the Sigma 400 for US$500 right after it was
> discontinued maybe five years ago. I haven't researched their used prices.
> Though I'd love to have the FA 400/5.6 or, better yet, the FA* 400/2.8 (or
> F*?), I can't
My FA 135 is an interesting lens with a DX sensor. Too short for
nature but nice for the MC races at VIR.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Doug Franklin
wrote:
> On 2010-04-14 19:29, Graydon wrote:
>
>> Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both
>> 500 and 800 mm mi
On 2010-04-14 19:29, Graydon wrote:
Pentax no longer sells anything longer than 300, and while I have both
500 and 800 mm mirror lenses, it's going to be quite awhile until I can
contemplate hunting down an A* 400/2.8.
Look for the Sigma APO 400mm f/4.5 Macro, for a much more cost conscious
o
True, but I do hate cutting them open.
>
> The FA100 is still remarkably good for inside birds.
>
> -- Graydon
>
> --
> 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 above and follow
> t
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
> On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
> >I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
> >lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
>
> Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes.
From: Doug Franklin
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to
be nearly as many "long glass
- Original Message -
From: "paul stenquist"
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
I believe Ken Waller uses his 600/4 quite a bit for wildlife shooting.
I take my *600/5.6 out from time to time.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdm
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
I find th
I have both of these lenses. I would not part with the 77ltd! The 100 macro, on
the other hand, is another lens. A good lens, one I use fairly often, but
without the esthetic appeal. By analogy, the 77mm is like a Rolex or Omega
"self-winding" wristwatch, while the 100 macro is like a competent
Not a Pentax lens, but shot with an el-cheapo Kalimar Mirror Telephoto
500mm on the K20D.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/500mm-lens-test-3.jpg
On 4/13/2010 9:56 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-r
On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:50 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
>> On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
>>
>>> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
>>> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:56:53PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
>
>> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
>> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
>
> Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. Th
On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
>
>> I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
>> lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
>
> Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't
On 2010-04-13 20:25, Graydon wrote:
I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the room, etc.
Geez, I feel so out of place around here sometimes. There don't seem to
be nearly as many "long glass" shooters on the PDML a
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:06:28PM -0400, paul stenquist scripsit:
> Uh, a small, light 100mm f1..8 is a physical impossibility. It has
> nothing to do with Pentax's expertise or lack of the same.
If you use glass, yeah. It's going to have a certain mass to it.
If you could use diamond diffract
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:03:31PM +1000, Tanya Love scripsit:
> fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
The FA 100 hurts a lot when you drop it on your foot. The 77 much less.
I find the FA100 is an excellent general purpose things-out-of-reach
lens; inside at the zoo, flowers, stuff across the
Tanya, are you back? We've missed you.
The DA 100 macro just got a good review in Popular Photography. And I believe
it is an update of the older FA 100 F2.8 macro, which I have, and which is a
very good macro lens.
Don't leave us again, please. You're so much fun.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discu
.. enabled!
>
> TL> Tan. :)
>
> TL> -----Original Message-
> TL> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> TL> Bruce Dayton
> TL> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM
> TL> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> TL> Subject
2010/4/12 John Sessoms :
>
> There's no improper English in the construction.
John,
Very much appreciate your encouragement. Quantitatively "more
unobtrusive" appears to be less with 44.500 Google results for "more
unobtrusive" and 126.000 for "less obtrusive". However, I find "more
unobtrusive" i
2010/4/13 David Mann :
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:01 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your
>> gas tank is more empty than empty?
>
> It goes to -11.
Strange. Mine only goes to -E/2
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/l
On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:01 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your
> gas tank is more empty than empty?
It goes to -11.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Tanya Love wrote:
> and I really have been needing a decent macro lens for ages.
I think you just answered your own question...
> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just
> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light!
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Beacom wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote:
>
>> Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp
>> 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh...
>>
>> ...but, we *are* talking Pentax h
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Beacom"
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form?
Sort of a kinder, gentler way of nailing them to a perch?
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdm
On 4/12/2010 10:46 PM, Michael Beacom wrote:
On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote:
Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra
sharp
100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh...
...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are
On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote:
Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra
sharp
100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh...
...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things
that they
bring out that are "i
On 4/12/2010 7:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote:
fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a
faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro?
I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using
my
L> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
TL> Bruce Dayton
TL> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM
TL> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
TL> Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
TL> One thing to consider is how much different the 77 wo
From: "J.C. O'Connell"
wouldn't more unobtrusive be sorta like stating your
gas tank is more empty than empty?
No.
--
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 above and follow
the di
2010/4/12 Tanya Love :
>
> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just
> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol.
I know that if there was such a thing it would really cost you bad,
coming from Pentax. Or anyone for that matter.
> Perry Pelle
On 4/12/2010 11:56 AM, Perry Pellechia wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Just to confuse matters, I've been having a wonderful time using Sasha's
tamron 90/2.8. I haven't used the pentax 100/2.8 but I like the images from
the tamron better than with my Pentax DFA 50/
iginal Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John
Sessoms
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:44 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8 ltd
From: eckinator
> 2010/4/12 John Sessoms :
>> > From: eckinator
>>
From: eckinator
2010/4/12 John Sessoms :
> From: eckinator
>>>
>>> more unobtrusive
>>
>> or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/
>
> What's improper about "more unobtrusive"?
In my understanding un- means not, i.e. zero. Thus, more unobtrusive
means less than zero obtrusive. I do
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Just to confuse matters, I've been having a wonderful time using Sasha's
> tamron 90/2.8. I haven't used the pentax 100/2.8 but I like the images from
> the tamron better than with my Pentax DFA 50/2.8.
>
> I've been running up against the
On 4/12/2010 11:44 AM, Tanya Love wrote:
Weell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp
100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh...
...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they
bring out that are "ideal" (as muc
Decision made - the 100mm it is!
Consider myself enabled!
Tan. :)
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Bruce Dayton
Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 2:02 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: fa 100mm f2.8 macro or da 77m f1.8
On 12/4/10, Bruce Walker, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Mark!
Damn.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/p
On 12/4/10, Derby Chang, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I would not want to live in a world where I could only have one prime.
That's a T-shirt it ever I saw one.
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
One thing to consider is how much different the 77 would be compared
to the 50. While slightly different, I think you would end up having
to decide all the time between the two. Since you really like the 50
now, I think it would be better to get something more different (the
macro) rather than so
On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Tanya Love wrote:
fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
I haven't had a chance to play with the 100/2.8, but ...
My FA77 is my favorite lens. It seems that every time I look through
the viewfinder, with it on the camera, it brings a smile to my face.
The
2010/4/12 John Sessoms :
> From: eckinator
>>>
>>> more unobtrusive
>>
>> or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/
>
> What's improper about "more unobtrusive"?
In my understanding un- means not, i.e. zero. Thus, more unobtrusive
means less than zero obtrusive. I doubt there is such a thi
From: eckinator
more unobtrusive
or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/
What's improper about "more unobtrusive"?
--
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 above and fo
Tanya.
I have both, but don't use either as much as i should.
I like my 77 ltd, and my 100 f2.8 is hit and miss for me. Not sure if
sending it in with my K10D to have them adjust to the 100 would help
or not. My images are not as sharp as others i have seen.
I do have the DA F 50 f2.8 macro whic
Tanya, as such, FA 77 is not suitable for close up work. Its MDF is
limiting (no pun intended). However, if instead of going after FA
100/2.8 macro you manage to put your hands on this
(http://www.techtheman.com/2008/06/cosinapentaxphoenixpromaster-11-matched.html),
it might as well make your da
2010/4/12 eckinator :
> more unobtrusive
or less obtrusive if you prefer proper english =/
--
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 above and follow
the directions.
2010/4/12 Tanya Love :
>
> fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
>
> trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a
> faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro?
>
> I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using
> my fa 50
Derby Chang wrote:
Only, I would not want to live in a world where I could only have one
prime.
Mark!
--
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 above and follow
the directions.
Tanya Love wrote:
fa 100mm f2.8 macro or fa 77m f1.8 ltd
trying to decide between the two as I can’t afford both – do I want a
faster, smaller limited lens or a slower, larger lens with macro?
I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using
my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “lea
On 12/04/2010, Tanya Love wrote:
> I don’t have a macro lens that I am happy with, BUT I really am loving using
> my fa 50mm f1.7 as a “leave on the body all the time” lens right now, and am
> thinking that the FA77mm would be awesome for this purpose with just a bit
> more reach for portraits.
57 matches
Mail list logo
