From: Pancho Hasselbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/03 Sun PM 09:09:49 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not?
USM?)
That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover
Adam, Paul,
There is evidence that flies right in the face of your statements.
Take 600mm f/5.6, for example (links below). This is a convenient
comparison because it exists in both 645 and K mount A-series. The
only dimension being smaller for the 645 is length. I haven't done the
maths, but it
] wrote:
Huh???
There are three of them scheduled for release early next year.
Pål
- Original Message -
From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re
I tend to think that Pentax will produce only DA lenses. But I also
still feel that the size difference between FDA and DA at longer focal
lengths could be minimal.
Paul
On Sep 3, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
Adam, Paul,
There is evidence that flies right in the face of your
On 03/09/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is evidence that flies right in the face of your statements.
Take 600mm f/5.6, for example (links below). This is a convenient
comparison because it exists in both 645 and K mount A-series. The
only dimension being smaller for the 645
In a message dated 9/3/2006 4:29:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tend to think that Pentax will produce only DA lenses. But I also
still feel that the size difference between FDA and DA at longer focal
lengths could be minimal.
Paul
===
You know, I am not sure of
Staying simple:
FAJ are FA without aperture ring.
DA are FAJ but cover only APS-C sensors (As far as we know) and
optimized for digital
DFA are FA optimized for Digital
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
In a message dated 9/3/2006 9:37:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Staying simple:
FAJ are FA without aperture ring.
DA are FAJ but cover only APS-C sensors (As far as we know) and
optimized for digital
DFA are FA optimized for Digital
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
DFA are usable on ALL pentax film bodies.
FAJ are usable but only with body from A generation and beyond and
several with limited functionality since their are always in 'A' mode.
An FAJ (or a DA BTW) will work on a SuperA/MZ5/MZS/SF but only in TV and P mode.
Of course the DA won't cover 35mm
That's one piece of anectdotal evidence. But unless you can
show that the optical design of the two lenses is the same
it doesn't really offer much to support your position. After
all, Pentax managed to come up with (proportionally) larger
differences in size and weight between K and M lenses.
That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover
35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for
some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D).
I'm still waiting for information on the true coverage of the different
DA lenses, which may be
On 9/03/06 5:09 PM, Pancho Hasselbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover
35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for
some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D).
I'm still waiting for information
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would also by a 400 with USM if it's
offered, and I can afford it.
I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can
be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps
My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in
the last 2-3 years, such as the FA80-200mm f2.8 FA200mm f4 macro,
are going through a re-design to take advantage of the new (to Pentax)
USM technology.
I'll be very disappointed, if we don't see DFA versions appear in the
next
On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can
be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps
an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a killer outfit!
400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see
Out of 13 lenses projected until 2006, 11 are DA lenses, even the
upcoming f/2.8 zooms. Right now I find it hard to believe we will see
any more DFA lenses at all.
Jostein
On 9/2/06, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in
the
David Savage wrote:
My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in
the last 2-3 years, such as the FA80-200mm f2.8 FA200mm f4 macro,
are going through a re-design to take advantage of the new (to Pentax)
USM technology.
The DA*50-135/2.8 is probably the DSLR replacement
Jostein Øksne wrote:
On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can
be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps
an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a killer outfit!
400/4 with SSM
On 02/09/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can
be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps
an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a
Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006
400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason to make it
DFA, though. DA will make it smaller, cheaper and just as good.
Jostein
Actually, the size constraints on a 400 are all in the glass diameter
(for a given
On 9/02/06 10:19 AM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. After certain size (say 200mm or so), there is no reason to make it
a DA.
Still some hope for FF wishers :-).
Actually, I am curious about the size of the coming DFAs.
DA's image circle is a bit larger than that required for
On 03/09/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I am curious about the size of the coming DFAs.
DA's image circle is a bit larger than that required for APS-H in order to
cover the sensor movement (SR).
If DFAs ever take into account the future FF, they have to cover larger
image
At 09:38 PM 2/09/2006, Jostein wrote:
On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens
that can
be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and
perhaps
an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a killer
Then tell me, guys,
Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding
focal lengths and max apertures?
Jostein
On 9/2/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006
400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason
On 03/09/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then tell me, guys,
Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding
focal lengths and max apertures?
The long lenses aren't, I had a 400/4 for my 67, it didn't taper much
as the back end used the external bayonet but the
Point about front element taken, but the front element is not THE
single factor in deciding the weight of a lens.
I have five lenses for the 645 system, and all of them are heavier,
and bulkier, than their K counterparts.
Jostein
On 9/2/06, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
The telephotos are not. Only when you get into focal lengths that will
not cover 6x7 (or whatever), do the lenses get smaller for a smaller
formats.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
On 9/2/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then tell me, guys,
Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding
focal lengths and max apertures?
Because it looks more professional to have a big lens mounted on a big camera.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
David Savage wrote:
On 9/2/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then tell me, guys,
Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding
focal lengths and max apertures?
Because it looks more professional to have a big lens mounted on a big camera.
Har!
(Beat me to it...)
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 10:19:57AM -0400, K.Takeshita wrote:
Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006
400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason to make it
DFA, though. DA will make it smaller, cheaper and just as good.
Jostein
Actually, the
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Mark Roberts wrote:
The 60-250/4.0, the 200/2.8 and 300/4.0 are going to be DFA lenses.
No USM then? Otherwise why bother optimise them for FF?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
The F and Fa lenses already report that set aperture to the camera body,
if it wishes to read it. They could be used entirely electronically as
is the new Panasonic/Leica 4/3 duo. No real complication at all, the
extra control costs pennies to implement, and Pentax keeps is promise
about
The significance of DFA lens is that they cover the 35mm frame. Not
all the DA's do without vignetting.
Dave.
On 9/3/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought a significant difference between DA and DFA was the presence
of an aperture ring. Sure, longer focal lengths are going to
We'll just have to disagree. You think just the larger image circle
is enough to make a lens a DFA lens. I don't share that viewpoint.
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 02:45:38AM +0800, David Savage wrote:
The significance of DFA lens is that they cover the 35mm frame. Not
all the DA's do without
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you John.
I got over the lack of aperture ring very quickly. As a matter of
fact, it was never an issue for me as I own only one lens that doesn't
have an A setting, and it lives on my LX. But I can appreciate how
others feel about it being
No, you may also say that the D-FA lenses differ from DA lanses in
that they have aperture rings. If USM lenses do not give AF on older
cameras I do not think they will have aperture rings, even if they
cover FF.
DagT
Den 2. sep. 2006 kl. 20.45 skrev David Savage:
The significance of
John already said that, I was pointing out the other significant difference.
I should have worded it different.
Dave
On 9/3/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, you may also say that the D-FA lenses differ from DA lanses in
that they have aperture rings. If USM lenses do not give AF on
Shorter optics are bulkier in MF, longer optics are not, and the
deciding point is usually around 200-300mm. The size exception is where
they neck down to meet the mount (as 35mm mounts are notably smaller).
In fact the 35mm version should be slightly longer in most cases (to
cover the
No, the aperture ring on F and FA lenses is mechanical, not electronic
as on the PanaLeica 4/3rds lens(es).
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
The F and Fa lenses already report that set aperture to the camera body,
if it wishes to read it. They could be used entirely electronically as
is the new
DA won't make it smaller or cheaper
- Original Message -
From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or
not?USM?)
On 9/2/06, Pål
Only the wider lenses are a lot larger. My 300/4 for the 6x7 appears
to be abut the same size as the 35mm version. I think the 600s are
even closer.
Paul
On Sep 2, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
Then tell me, guys,
Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding
Huh???
There are three of them scheduled for release early next year.
Pål
- Original Message -
From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens
Read the specification. It's available on Boz's K mount page,
(http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/). The only cameras that use the F ring
use it's mechanical properties, but it reports the set f-stop
electronically to the camera body for display purposes. Try an F/FA
lens off the A position on say
Perhaps the same way as the Nikon's do with an AF lens and the aperture
not at minimum? Relative aperture based on the aperture simulator and a
little math from the max aperture info given by the lens to the camera.
I'm seriously doubting that there is an electronic encoder added to the
Like I said read the page. It tells all and you'll be closer to the
truth, and not nearly so annoying.
We're talking about a mechanical system here. You're assuming that the
lever in the camera and the mechanical linkage to the aperture mechanism
in the lens is more accurate than the marked
I read the page in question. It's extremely vague about how information
is communicated, just that it is, the obvious answer of a combination of
mechanical and electronic communication (Which is known to be
implemented on another extremely similar mount) is the one which shaves
with Occam's
On 03/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also in-body aperture control is distinctly more fine-grained than the
aperture control on the lens, from a general use standpoint, given the
standard 1/3 stop control from the body and the normal 1 stop control
from the lens (Yes, you can set
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 03/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also in-body aperture control is distinctly more fine-grained than the
aperture control on the lens, from a general use standpoint, given the
standard 1/3 stop control from the body and the normal 1 stop control
from
48 matches
Mail list logo
