Zos, my reply interspersed. I also took the liberty and used * symbols
to outline some things that kind of jumped to my eyes.
On 12/27/2013 8:00 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the
DA*16-50 its:
Smaller Lighter Slower Less Range
Both have WR.
On 12/27/2013 5:59 AM, Bill wrote:
I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong,
it's a gorgeous lens, and *the short zoom range makes it like an extended
range standard lens*, it's sharp and has nice bokeh..
The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light,
On 26/12/13, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what
are the advantages of it over the 16-50?
You have to use your legs a little bit more. #health
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web
It's only WR if it says so on the bezel.
Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250 have
no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses.
On Dec 26, 2013, at 17:49 , Paul Stenquist wrote:
The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain.
All DA star zooms are weather resistant as far as I know.
Paul via phone
On Dec 28, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
It's only WR if it says so on the bezel.
Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250
have no more water
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
It's only WR if it says so on the bezel.
Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250
have no more water resistance than our FA and F lenses.
The February 2007 press release says: The smc
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
It's only WR if it says so on the bezel.
Those who, like me, purchased 2008 versions of the 16-50, 50-135 60-250
have no more water resistance
I may be wrong. My three 4 DA* lenses have a rubbery seal at the lens mount
that is black, and doesn't seem to stick out as far as the red seals do on the
later lenses labeled WR. Perhaps Pentax was waiting to see how many defective
lenses were returned before making a big deal about it with
On Dec 28, 2013, at 18:35 , Bruce Walker wrote:
Joe, looks like you've been missing out on a very useful feature of
your lenses. :-)
I actually do use my bodies and lenses in the Pacific Northwest Drizzleshine,
but have stayed away from pouring rain, freezing cold, blowing dust sand, and
My DA*50-135 has worked a very rainy wedding or two. It has played in
other inclement conditions.
During a photography workshop, that same 50-135 took a shower in a
sink after it and the K20D to which it was attached received a bath of
fizzy, sticky root beer. I rushed into the ladies room to
on 2013-12-28 20:10 Joseph McAllister wrote
That WR designation first showed up on the D-FA 100mm macro I
believe. It's a much more recent marketing finesse anyway.
My D-FA 100mm ƒ2.8 Macro has a hard plastic mating surface to the camera, and
no mention of WR on the body or box.
Ser. #5826425
Paul via phone
On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its:
Smaller
Lighter
Slower
Less Range
Both have WR.
Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it
Bill wrote:
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then
K20D, and now K-3.
My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers
rarely, if
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Bill wrote:
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a
workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then
K20D, and now K-3.
My understanding is that SDM lenses
Miserere wrote:
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Bill wrote:
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a
workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then
K20D, and now K-3.
My understanding
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Miserere wrote:
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Bill wrote:
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a
workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013, Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither
. The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close
range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for
it in place of my macro.
The reason I went
On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013, Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither
. The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close
range. For moderately small subjects like flowers
Miserere wrote:
I did not appreciate Pentax's reluctance to admit the problem, which did
little to
improve my image of them. But that's an ailment that afflicts all Japanese
camera companies
I think you could remove Japanese and camera from that sentence
without reducing its accuracy much...
Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
Miserere wrote:
I did not appreciate Pentax's reluctance to admit the problem, which
did little to
improve my image of them. But that's an ailment that afflicts all
Japanese camera companies
I think you could remove Japanese and camera from that
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what
are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size,
how much smaller than the 16-50 is it?
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what
are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size,
how much smaller than the 16-50 is it?
How much smaller than the 18-50mm is the 31 Ltd? So it's about that difference.
The SDM on my 16-50 never failed. Exposure count is probably well over10k.
Paul via phone
On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what
are the advantages of it over
No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses.
On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought and
sold many lenses; one of the few that I really regret selling is the FA20-35.
The 20-40 allows me to have a renewed acquaintance with an updated
WR??
Paul via phone
On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:
No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses.
On Larry's question - why the 20-40? For me, it is two things. I've bought
and sold many lenses; one of the few that I
Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant.
stan
On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
WR??
Paul via phone
On Dec 26, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:
No problems here with SDM either, not for 16-50 or other DA* lenses.
On Larry's question - why the
The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain.
Paul via phone
On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:
Sorry. WR = Weather Resistant.
stan
On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
WR??
Paul via phone
On Dec 26,
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then
K20D, and now K-3.
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I'm curious, what is the appeal of
Weather Resistant, I presume.
The 20-35 was brilliant and a ver practical lens. I hope the 20-40 takes that
role.
Godfrey
On Dec 26, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
WR??
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Right. All DA* lenses are weather resistant. I know that. Momentary brain cramp.
stan
On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The 16-50 is weather resistant. I've shot with it in pouring rain.
Paul via phone
On Dec 26, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
On 26/12/2013 8:00 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Nothing has ever failed on my 16-50. I've been using it as a workhorse
since August 2008. It's shot 10648 frames, first on a K100D, then
K20D, and now K-3.
My understanding is that SDM lenses that are used as daily drivers
rarely, if ever, have
On 26/12/2013 5:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what
are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size,
how much smaller than the 16-50 is it?
I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong,
it's a
Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its:
Smaller
Lighter
Slower
Less Range
Both have WR.
Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it
rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. Out of focus areas
and the roll off are rather
on 2013-12-26 23:00 Zos Xavius wrote
I don't know what
minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I
fwiw, maximum magnification of the two lenses is about the same
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
34 matches
Mail list logo
