Scott Loveless wrote:
Thanks, Mark. I did a little poking around. That 55/3.5 looks like it
has 100mm threads on it. Ouch! If I get a 67 my wife is gonna murder
me when I start buying things like polarizers.
Yeah - that's the problem with that lens. But when I was researching
55mm
On 8/29/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooh. That's pretty. How do you like the 105?
No complaints. But I've only shot 1 roll so far.
Not enough experience with it yet to make a real judgement.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I have a 6x7 with MLU, but no metering. I've had no problem getting it
serviced - one of the old camera repair outfits in the area has a good
supply of 6x7 parts on hand and the guy there loves to work on them.
WRT lenses - I've been very happy with the 67 55mm f4, Takumar 105 f 2.8
and 150
You can distinguish the two 55/4s by the placement of the lens designation
type. On the later, prefered version, the type appears on a chamfer on the end
of the focus ring. Just like an A series lens f or Pentax 35mm. I have this
lens as well and love it.
Paul
-- Original message
If you're gonna use a flash, go with the 165/4 LS...(lovely lens BTW).
Also, make sure the body is thoroughly brassed, improves performance.
Norm
Scott Loveless wrote:
Thanks, Bill. Intended use is general photography (how vague is that?)
and the occasional portrait. More often than not I
Norm Baugher wrote:
If you're gonna use a flash, go with the 165/4 LS...(lovely lens BTW).
Also, make sure the body is thoroughly brassed, improves performance.
Norm
Thanks, Norm. I'm assuming, because I haven't read up on it, that the
LS lenses for the 67 are much like the LS lenses for
Yep, just like the 645 and yes it's a great lens when using it normally
without the LS.
Good to hear about the brassing.
Norm
Scott Loveless wrote:
Norm Baugher wrote:
If you're gonna use a flash, go with the 165/4 LS...(lovely lens BTW).
Also, make sure the body is thoroughly brassed,
Hello Scott,
Yes, basically that is it. I used to have both the 165 LS and the 90
LS.
Yes, they did make a 90mm leaf shutter lens. It is older and slightly
more dangerous to use. The reason I say that is you can't really tell
from the viewfinder that the leaf shutter is cocked.
On the 165,
Mark Cassino wrote:
I have a 6x7 with MLU, but no metering. I've had no problem getting it
serviced - one of the old camera repair outfits in the area has a good
supply of 6x7 parts on hand and the guy there loves to work on them.
WRT lenses - I've been very happy with the 67 55mm f4,
I had/have electrical tape on the switch so it would saty in the right
place(the 90 ls) but sometimes the tape fell off and the switch moved.
Dave
On 8/29/07, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Scott,
Yes, basically that is it. I used to have both the 165 LS and the 90
LS.
Yes,
Ahh, it looks as NEW...?
Nice toy :)
Gasha
David Savage wrote:
At 09:58 AM 28/08/2007, Scott Loveless wrote:
But I got this one:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5720.jpg
...with MLU, metered prism and the SMC Takumar 105mm f2.4 last year
I wish I had gotten the
HI Scott.
I have the 6x7 with mirror lock up, so i quess thats the more recent
one of that set.
Its heavy, but as proven by WW and Aaron Reynolds, can be handheld at
slow speeds with good results.
I have the 90 f2.8 leaf lens and the Tak 200 F 4( i tyhink it is.)
That 200 is the best lens i
I'm waiting for my 6x7 that i got in eBay :)
non-MLU version is not serviceable, i think so.
But all other versions are.
See this page:
http://www.photoethnography.com/equipment.html
If you would like to do long exposures, better get 6x7 version.
Gasha
Scott Loveless wrote:
Since I'm
On 8/28/07, Gasha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahh, it looks as NEW...?
Pretty much. not a scratch or touch of brassing anywhere on it.
1 previous owner, who was more of a collector than a shooter.
Nice toy :)
I think so :-)
I just need to get it out use it more often.
(no selective quoting
Scott,
I'd go for a 67. 6x7 with mirror lock-up is a minimum. I like the
165/2.8 lens, but I think the 105/2.4 is the better in your normal
range.
You know there are a full complement of lenses, finders, and gadgets
for these cameras. You are embarking on major league enablement.
Regards, Bob
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless
Subject: Help filling out the Brotherhood application
Since I'm toying with the possibility of selling the K10, I'm also
considering where I'm going to sink the money. One of my options is a
67 with one (count 'em, 1) lens. I got a couple
On 8/28/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Robb wrote:
I can't speak to the 67 body, I've held one, but not used one. I have used
the 6x7 for about 20 years though, and can speak to it.
You will want an MLU body, non MLU bodies were only available for the first
couple
William Robb wrote:
I can't speak to the 67 body, I've held one, but not used one. I have used
the 6x7 for about 20 years though, and can speak to it.
You will want an MLU body, non MLU bodies were only available for the first
couple of years of production, the MLU bodies had some internal
On 8/28/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All eight of the lenses I own for the 6x7 are superb. If you saw Cesar
shooting 6x7 at GFM, odds are, you saw one or more of my lenses.
I borrowed Cesar's 6x7 for an afternoon at GFM. I agree, that 45mm is
a wonderful lens. The 55 is very nice
I know he liked my 200.:-)
Dave
On 8/28/07, Mat Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/28/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All eight of the lenses I own for the 6x7 are superb. If you saw Cesar
shooting 6x7 at GFM, odds are, you saw one or more of my lenses.
I borrowed Cesar's 6x7
Mat Maessen wrote:
On 8/28/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All eight of the lenses I own for the 6x7 are superb. If you saw Cesar
shooting 6x7 at GFM, odds are, you saw one or more of my lenses.
I borrowed Cesar's 6x7 for an afternoon at GFM. I agree, that 45mm is
a
David J Brooks wrote:
HI Scott.
I have the 6x7 with mirror lock up, so i quess thats the more recent
one of that set.
Its heavy, but as proven by WW and Aaron Reynolds, can be handheld at
slow speeds with good results.
I have the 90 f2.8 leaf lens and the Tak 200 F 4( i tyhink it is.)
Mat Maessen wrote:
I still have camera-lust for a 6x7 or a 67. I'd be happy with one of
the ones with mirror lockup, and a metered prism.
-Mat
You don't need no stinking mirror lockup.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
David Savage wrote:
The more experienced of the brethren will be better able to answer your
questions (I'm only a novice Brother :-)
But I got this one:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5720.jpg
...with MLU, metered prism and the SMC Takumar 105mm f2.4 last year
I wish I
At 09:58 AM 28/08/2007, Scott Loveless wrote:
Since I'm toying with the possibility of selling the K10, I'm also
considering where I'm going to sink the money. One of my options is a
67 with one (count 'em, 1) lens. I got a couple questions. I recall
reading somewhere (probably this very list)
On 8/27/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
someone mind confirming that for me? Also, I'm looking at a normal lens
to go with it. SMC Takumar 105/2.4, SMC 105/2.4 or SMC 90/2.8? Any
opinions? Thanks!
My opinion is that you should get a set of dumbbells to work up that
arm
26 matches
Mail list logo
