://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, John Poirier peartr...@shaw.ca wrote:
From: John Poirier peartr...@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 11:40 PM
Hi, Nick. I can see why you're interested in the three
lenses you list
work.
Cheers
From: Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: short tele primes
Thanks for the suggestion. But I'm just not interested in zooms at this
time. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's
Hi-
I have a Jupiter 9, 85mm f2 screw mount lens that I like. It's
Russian, not Pentax, and it was pretty cheap at a camera show.
It has minimal to no coating, so you need to be careful about flare.
I found a Pentax 85mm lens hood at the same show that
lives on the lens, and haven't been
On the other hand, I have a Kaligar Auto Telephoto 135mm 2.8 screw
mount lens that is too soft to be good, but too sharp to be interesting.
By the way, the picture of the Coke truck was taken with a digital
Canon, so the effective focal length was closer to 119mm
Cheers, again
Mike
On Feb
the m85/2 has bad bokeh, the k85/1.8 has nice bokeh.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I had the M85/2. Got it very cheap as everyone seemed to feel it
wasn't sharp, had poor bokeh, etc etc. I found it to be actually a
rather nice lens. When I sold it, the average price I was seeing had
more than doubled.
Godfrey
On Feb 6, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
I'm
On 2/7/09, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
the m85/2 has bad bokeh, the k85/1.8 has nice bokeh.
Define bad and nice. I didn't think the bokeh here was all that
bad. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3813278 But what the
hell do I know?
--
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since
On 2/7/09, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
I had the M85/2. Got it very cheap as everyone seemed to feel it wasn't
sharp, had poor bokeh, etc etc. I found it to be actually a rather nice
lens. When I sold it, the average price I was seeing had more than doubled.
The price on those
l...@red4est.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 9:49 PM
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:44:46PM -0800, Nick Wright wrote:
#
# I'm in Kansas, you? How much would you want for it?
I'm in Santa Cruz California.
I forget
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless
Subject: Re: short tele primes
On 2/7/09, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
the m85/2 has bad bokeh, the k85/1.8 has nice bokeh.
Define bad and nice. I didn't think the bokeh here was all that
bad. http://photo.net/photodb/photo
quite well, and still
fulfills it's new purpose more than adequately.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com
Sent: Feb 7, 2009 10:12 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: short tele primes
On 2/7/09, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
I
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: short tele primes
On 2/7/09, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
I had the M85/2. Got it very cheap as everyone seemed to feel it wasn't
sharp, had poor bokeh, etc etc. I found it to be actually a rather nice
lens. When I sold it, the average price I was seeing had more than
mentioned this.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
Sent: Feb 6, 2009 10:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: short tele primes
That's very interesting. I'm not sure why I hadn't given more thought to the
135 lenses before. My first tele
Ah yes, the lens would be used on a film body.
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Peter Alling webste...@mindspring.com wrote:
From: Peter Alling webste...@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: short tele primes
Hi, that's a great shot. Do you have any idea what aperture you shot that at?
It's good to be back. I quit my last newspaper job several months back and
have been taking something of a sabbatical concerning photography.
I think
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: short tele primes
I'm looking at getting a fast tele prime. I'm considering the M85/2, the
M100/2.8, and the M120/2.8.
What are your thoughts about these lenses? Does anyone have some samples
(specifically portraits) that I could take a look at?
Thanks.
~Nick David
/~happydogsoftware/PESO%20--%20roselovessweetie.html
and a portrait as well...
-Original Message-
From: Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
Sent: Feb 6, 2009 9:04 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: short tele primes
I'm looking at getting a fast tele prime. I'm considering the M85/2, the
M100/2.8
On 2/6/09, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, that's a great shot. Do you have any idea what aperture you shot that at?
Thanks, and no, I don't. I'd have to dig out the negs, but I think it
was probably Tri-X or maybe HP5+. I remember chasing the kids around
the yard, and I'd
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless
Subject: Re: short tele primes
On 2/6/09, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, that's a great shot. Do you have any idea what aperture you shot
that at?
Thanks, and no, I don't. I'd have to dig out the negs, but I think
On 2/7/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote:
- Original Message - From: Scott Loveless
Subject: Re: short tele primes
On 2/6/09, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, that's a great shot. Do you have any idea what aperture you shot
that at?
Thanks
What Bob said !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
Peter,
Not sure which is cuter, the girl or the dog.
Nice portrait!
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Peter
...@mindspring.com wrote:
From: Peter Alling webste...@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 12:47 PM
Ah, I should have read the whole thread before I posted. I
actually have all of the lenses in question
Speaking of short tele primes, there's an ad in craigslist today for a
28, 50 and an 85 manual focus lenses. I talked to him on the phone and
he said that the 85 is indeed f/1.4. I neglected to ask whether it's
K or m42 mount.
What's the manual focus 85/1.4 worth? KEH has the f2 for $265
On 7/2/09, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
What's the manual focus 85/1.4 worth?
You sir are nearly responsible for an emergency tracheotomy.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
What's the manual focus 85/1.4 worth?
One of your testicles.
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 and follow
the directions.
If it's the A*, $1300+. If its merely the Zeiss ZK, $800 or so.
-Adam
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
Speaking of short tele primes, there's an ad in craigslist today for a
28, 50 and an 85 manual focus lenses. I talked to him on the phone and
he said
:
# Speaking of short tele primes, there's an ad in craigslist today for a
# 28, 50 and an 85 manual focus lenses. I talked to him on the phone and
# he said that the 85 is indeed f/1.4. I neglected to ask whether it's
# K or m42 mount.
#
# What's the manual focus 85/1.4 worth? KEH has the f2
.
# -Adam
#
# On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
# Speaking of short tele primes, there's an ad in craigslist today for a
# 28, 50 and an 85 manual focus lenses. I talked to him on the phone and
# he said that the 85 is indeed f/1.4. I neglected to ask whether
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:00:47 -0500
Beaker mbea...@mac.com wrote:
I have a Jupiter 9, 85mm f2 screw mount lens that I like. It's
Russian, not Pentax, and it was pretty cheap at a camera show.
It has minimal to no coating, so you need to be careful about flare.
I found a Pentax 85mm lens
the choice depends in part on how you define inexpensive.
Cheers
John Poirier
Original Message -
From: Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: short tele primes
Exactly the reason I won't be buying one
they are pricy...
-Original Message-
From: Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
Sent: Feb 7, 2009 3:59 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: short tele primes
I keep seeing people say the 120/2.8 is pricey. But KEH has three copies in
stock right now between $133 and $235. I
I'm looking at getting a fast tele prime. I'm considering the M85/2, the
M100/2.8, and the M120/2.8.
What are your thoughts about these lenses? Does anyone have some samples
(specifically portraits) that I could take a look at?
Thanks.
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
the K85/1.8, K105/2.8 and K120/2.8 are better lenses...
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Nick Wright
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:05 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: short tele primes
I'm
Maybe. But I'm not going to purchase any of them. Thanks though.
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net
Subject: RE: short tele primes
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
On 2/6/09, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm looking at getting a fast tele prime. I'm considering the M85/2, the
M100/2.8, and the M120/2.8.
What are your thoughts about these lenses? Does anyone have some samples
(specifically portraits) that I could take a look at?
Hi,
JC OConnell wrote:
the K85/1.8, K105/2.8 and K120/2.8 are better lenses...
JC O'Connell
True!
I have an SMC Pentax 85/1.8 I'd part with, but it will cost you.
I bought it for $450 US, 6 years ago and will part with it for the same.
Beautiful lens!
Body 99% perfect, glass 100%.
keith
://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 2:32 AM
On 2/6/09, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com
wrote
Exactly the reason I won't be buying one. ;D
I'm specifically looking for inexpensive lenses.
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
From: keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Nick Wright pedalingpr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, that's a great shot. Do you have any idea what aperture you shot that at?
It's good to be back. I quit my last newspaper job several months back and
have been taking something of a sabbatical concerning
They're a little bit longer than the range you mentioned, but I really
like my M135s.
I started out with the 3.5
http://flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157606933007213/
and liked shooting with it so much I got a 2.5:
http://flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157612665849907/
Those
be right up my alley. ;D
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 3:15 AM
...@red4est.com wrote:
#
# From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
# Subject: Re: short tele primes
# To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
# Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 3:15 AM
# They're a little bit longer than the range you
# mentioned, but I really
# like my M135s.
#
# I
I'm in Kansas, you? How much would you want for it?
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
Subject: Re: short tele primes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday
.
#
# ~Nick David Wright
# http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
#
#
# --- On Sat, 2/7/09, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
#
# From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
# Subject: Re: short tele primes
# To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
# Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 3:43 AM
# On Fri, Feb
I used the m100/2.8 for a while, sharp, small and lightweight lens (not
so sharp wide open, but so not bad either). Can't locate a sample photo
right now, sorry...
My lens developed a heavy fog into a double element, and I gave up
repair after the second attempt. I'd go for the m85 myself, as
Nick,
No photos online, but I've used all 3 on film.
The advantage to the M85/2 is f2.0 focusing.
The extra light is a real plus.
The M100/2.8 is small and only a little slower.
It may be sharper than the M85/2, or it may be
that you are not tempted to push it as much as the f2.0.
The M120/2.8 and
- Original Message -
From: Nick Wright
Subject: short tele primes
I'm looking at getting a fast tele prime. I'm considering the M85/2, the
M100/2.8, and the M120/2.8.
What are your thoughts about these lenses? Does anyone have some samples
(specifically portraits) that I could
47 matches
Mail list logo
