2010/9/10 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
Don't listen to him, it's a terrible piece of glass. I'll take it off your
hands for $50.
you'll feel bad if you take that much for it - I'll have it for 20 and
promise no hard feelings
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Such generous offers! I think I'll pass, though... No hard feelings?
:)
-c
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/10 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
Don't listen to him, it's a terrible piece of glass. I'll take it off your
hands for $50.
you'll feel
Just wanted to let you know I think you made the right decision in
allowing me to take it off your hands for $10. And, as promised, I
won't let anyone else on the list know about the agreement. Mum's the
word. Won't tell a soul. My lips are sealed. May lightning strike me,
on my
Walter, your discretion is greatly appreciated. I'm happy just
knowing you'll put it to good use. With this lens, you can easily
justify charging $300 a pop for Little League portraits.
-c
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote:
Just wanted to let you know
On 9/8/2010 10:34 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Today, I enabled myself with the Pentax smc FA 100mm 2.8 macro lens.
Funny thing is, it happened kind of by accident... I thought I was
purchasing the DFA 100mm 2.8 macro (the non-WR version), but it turns
out I overlooked the missing D when I
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 9/8/2010 10:34 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Today, I enabled myself with the Pentax smc FA 100mm 2.8 macro lens.
Funny thing is, it happened kind of by accident... I thought I was
purchasing the DFA 100mm 2.8 macro (the non-WR version),
Greetings, all---
Today, I enabled myself with the Pentax smc FA 100mm 2.8 macro lens.
Funny thing is, it happened kind of by accident... I thought I was
purchasing the DFA 100mm 2.8 macro (the non-WR version), but it turns
out I overlooked the missing D when I placed my order. Whoops.
Anyway,
Christine Nielsen wrote:
Greetings, all---
Today, I enabled myself with the Pentax smc FA 100mm 2.8 macro lens.
Funny thing is, it happened kind of by accident... I thought I was
purchasing the DFA 100mm 2.8 macro (the non-WR version), but it turns
out I overlooked the missing D when I placed
The D means it's optimized for digital.
1. It has special coatings and a revised /special/ optical design to
minimize the faults that digital is err to. (I think this is mostly
marketing hype, a good lens is a good lens and makes good photos, a bad
lens can still be fun).
2. It used to
Toralf Lund wrote:
Christine Nielsen wrote:
Greetings, all---
Today, I enabled myself with the Pentax smc FA 100mm 2.8 macro lens.
Funny thing is, it happened kind of by accident... I thought I was
purchasing the DFA 100mm 2.8 macro (the non-WR version), but it turns
out I overlooked the
Christine,
The DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro has a 49mm front filter size vs 58mm on the
older versions.
This might make a difference if you're planning on using a ringflash
as 49mm is easier to find.
I've shot a lot with the A100mm f2.8 Macro (no autofocus) and quite like it.
It's not suprising to hear
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Christine Nielsen ch...@inielsen.net wrote:
On the other hand, the FA probably feels a lot more like a real lens, and
you can drop it on the pavement from a fair height without breaking
anything, or at least that's true for the similar F-version, which I have
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:40 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com
wrote:
The D means it's optimized for digital.
1. It has special coatings and a revised /special/ optical design to
minimize the faults that digital is err to. (I think this is mostly
marketing hype, a good lens is
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Christine,
The DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro has a 49mm front filter size vs 58mm on the
older versions.
This might make a difference if you're planning on using a ringflash
as 49mm is easier to find.
Oooh... ringflash! Now
The biggest difference in coatings is that the rear surface of the
rear lens element is coated to minimize internal reflections between
the rear element and the sensor.
Film lenses didn't have (or need) this coating, since the film
emulsion is not smoothly reflective like the glass filter
If you want to play with one, I've got one you can borrow. I don't
use it much. Let me know before a club meeting and I'll bring it in
for you.
I've got the Sunpak 8R, and it has 49, 55, and 58mm adapters (along
with the native 52mm on the ring).
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Christine
Thanks, David! I just might take you up on that offer at some point...
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:33 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to play with one, I've got one you can borrow. I don't
use it much. Let me know before a club meeting and I'll bring it in
for you.
17 matches
Mail list logo
