Hi,
from your list - despite everything - DA*16-50. QC problems? In this
case we shouldn't even mention Sigmas. Distortions? It's digital age -
shoot RAW, correct 'em with software. You got it all with your camera
(Photo Laboratory, I mean).
Besides, IMO the real problems with this lens are
Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Which if that's the way it goes means, buy it online from BH, give it a
quick test, if it's good save money, if it's bad, send it back
Boris Liberman escribió:
Brand new Tamron costs here order of $450, which considering that I
already have it shipped, taxes paid and also covered with at least 1
year warranty, I reckon is a good price.
Here it costs more or less the same, VAT included.
If I remember well, you were
Thanks, Carlos. Unfortunately, this review only supports the same
issues that had been stated on the list earlier. And it seems that the
sharpness fall off towards the borders of the frame is indicative of
certain degree of field curvature of this lens. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is
both cheaper, faster and
to buy a lightly used Sigma
10-20 EX? lol.
John
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 November 2008 04:11
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Well
I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount,
not what's available in 1st party form.
Note that most of the currently available FF primes in K mount are not
from Pentax, and most of the best of them aren't either (the Zeiss ZK
and Voigtlander SLII lines are both at least
We had a company fun day
contradiction in terms.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Boris Liberman
Sent: 16 November 2008 04:12
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Well, Christine
On Nov 16, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount,
not what's available in 1st party form.
I differ from that in that I don't trust the quality control of third
party lens manufacturers on the whole. Carl Zeiss lenses are a
to me.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JC OConnell
Sent: 16 November 2008 03:04
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
oh, and never foget, depending on the subject, image size
You can't get further away from a room interior or the passenger cabin
of a car. Sometimes an ultra-wide is a necessity. And if the budget
doesn't allow for several, a zoom is a great answer. What's more,
today's best zooms compare favorably to most primes.
Paul
On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:07 AM,
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a
quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele
reasonably fast zoom lens.
Probably the 16-45
David Savage wrote:
In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer
the DA* zooms aren't too bad.
The FA* 28-70 and 80-200 are friggin' amazing lenses as is the DA*16-50.
They're at a disadvantage compared to primes in size and weight
(thought they make up for this to an
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the
box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try
it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they
risk so many shekels
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the
box which they put on the counter. You ask to open
On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the
box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try
it before you commit your
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return
The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective,
would you have
gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you
discovered the defect fairly soon?
One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I
think this is
because of consumer protection
I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a
replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50
without question.
Paul
On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Bob W wrote:
The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective,
would you have
gotten an over the
William Robb wrote:
Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws?
Here's how it works in Canada:
I go into a store and ask for a lens.
They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass.
When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out
to the
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of
sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and
the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort
PN Stenquist wrote:
I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a
replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without
question.
Paul
That's the whole problem here. That guy I wrote about with D2X in
another message in this thread - he dealt with the
I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax
been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has
always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I
use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of
others but I
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list.
William Robb
--
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
Another option is the forthcoming DA 15 F4 Limited.
Joe
Nor is the very excellent DA 12-24/4
On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:59 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8
I'll be in a position to quite possibly give you a first hand account
of the U.S. process when I receive my DA* 16-50 this next week or so
from BH.
I have to determine if it's acceptably sharp across the field of view.
If not, then I return it to BH. Complicated by the fact that the lens
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax
been little reason to use Pentax bodies
didnt. I wouldnt
dismiss third parties
altogether
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I have the AT-X Pro series of Tokina ; 20-28, 28-70, and 80-200, all
ƒ2.8 except the 20-28, of course, it being a ƒ2.6-2.8.
I found all three to be great in 35mm film like the LX and PZ-1p. But
their mass makes them
Shouldn't be a problem BH deals honestly.
Paul
On Nov 16, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
I'll be in a position to quite possibly give you a first hand
account of the U.S. process when I receive my DA* 16-50 this next
week or so from BH.
I have to determine if it's acceptably
Olympus do 2:
ED 14-35mm 1:2.0 SWD
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0
These have the same fov as 135 format 28-70 and 70-200mm respectively.
Bob
In a zoom, f2.8 isn't moderately fast it's blazing. I don't
know of any faster off hand.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Based on their newsprint results I hope they got a bad copy. For the
premium you pay over the kit lens I'd expect sharper results at wider
apertures.
Carlos Royo wrote:
Boris Liberman escribió:
Brand new Tamron costs here order of $450, which considering that I
already have it
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount,
not what's available in 1st party form.
Note that most of the currently available FF primes in K mount are not
from Pentax, and most of the best of them aren't either (the Zeiss ZK
and
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the
box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually
From: PN Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a
replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50
without question.
Paul
It's taking care of the customer that MAKES them the better ones.
Some places see that as an
://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:38:01 -0600
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the
point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between
the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort
out any crap.
I
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax
been
Yep, two lenses, both released in the last year or two. Saying that an
f2.8 zoom is only moderately fast, when the average zoom is 3.5 or
slower, (most consumer zooms are f3.5 or f4.0 at the short end and f5.6
or smaller aperture, at the long end), is like saying my f1.4 50mm isn't
fast
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk
in a store and ask for something. They walk away
Hi!
So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the
considerations that may prevent me from buying them.
1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control
issues still there
2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17
Sigma 17-70. Excellent optics, very close focusing, fast (f2.8-4.5)
for a variable-aperture zoom. Yeah, it's a Sigma and not even an EX,
but I was VERY pleased with mine when I was using it on the K10D.
-Adam
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
So here
Having owned both, I have to say that the DA 16-45 shows considerably
more distortion at the wide end than the DA* 16-50, although both are
good in this regard. From what I've seen both are far better in terms
of wide end distortion than the DA 17-70, although they are a bit
wider. Also
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from
Nor is the very excellent DA 12-24/4
On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:59 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the
major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime
lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide
solutions on miniature formats are difficult.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
So here is
The irony, at least in Nikon's case is that there are exactly 2 Nikon
primes that old (the 50/1.4 and 24/2.8) and one (the 50) has a
replacement due to ship in the next couple of weeks. The 20/2.8 is a
early 80's design, the 50/1.8 a late 70's, the 28/2.8 a mid-90's, the
35/2 a late 80's, the
shorter registrations
relative to the sensor size.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:38 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses
Boris Liberman escribió:
5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain
people call Sigma really nasty names
There are two versions of that lens. I have the newest, Sigma DC EX
18-50 2.8 macro. This one has a 72 mm. filter ring, instead of 67 mm. in
the oldest
On Nov 15, 2008, at 11:37 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the
major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their
prime lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and
ultra wide solutions on miniature formats
, but haven't really looked for it either
and sharpen very conservatively.
Jack
--- On Sat, 11/15/08, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday
ignore. :-) Cheers,
Christine
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
#3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45;
Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there
is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for
modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has
Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
#3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving it, along with the
K20D, about a month ago. Quality images all, except a slight bit of f/4
softness although f/22
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd just like
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Christine Aguila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sat, Nov 15
I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd
party lenses.
I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of
the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never
regretted the decision.
My other advice is quit reading lens review sites.
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd
party lenses.
I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of
the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never
regretted
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your
head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice.
It's gotten to the point where not finding fault
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going
2008/11/16 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message - From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your
head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice.
It's gotten
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the
DA* zooms aren't too bad.
Cheers,
Dave
2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy
Pentax
.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:40 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
In general I agree
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Yeah, but you also hang out at Pentaxforum...
I don't think they like me very much.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
is even better than damn good in comparison.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:51 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
, November 15, 2008 10:01 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
The problem with those 16-55s or a 24-70 on FF
is too many elements, it affects contrast/flare.
With really good zoom lenses you can get lulled
into thinking they are just as good as primes
Well, Christine, I suppose I ought to clarify here.
Christine Aguila wrote:
Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your
post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious
drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more
serious than
Hi!
Dave, I agree. I generally look for sample photos, say on PBase or on
Pixel-Peeper. I have to read the reviews in order to have at least
minimal idea of ergonomics and other basic things. It won't hurt to look
at the thing before you buy it.
The thought of my intent to buy yet another
Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a
quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele
reasonably fast zoom lens.
Boris
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Hi!
Carlos Royo wrote:
5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain
people call Sigma really nasty names
There are two versions of that lens. I have the newest, Sigma DC EX
18-50 2.8 macro. This one has a 72 mm. filter ring, instead of 67 mm. in
the oldest version,
2008 7:46 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45;
Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there
is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for
modern Pentax DSLR. Each
Fair enough, Boris. I wish you the best in your new lens purchase. :-)
Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy
Pentax Zooms.
Go prime young man! :)
What he said. The 21mm Limited is so obviously the class of that
list, on top of which it's smaller and lighter and
73 matches
Mail list logo
