----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #670
> ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 670 > > Today's Topics: > Re: The Last Two Days [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne) [ "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > M 75-150 and social theory [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: M 75-150 and social theory [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open le [ "keller.schaefer" <keller.schaefer@ ] > Re: OT - test [ Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:22:46 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: The Last Two Days > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="Windows-1252" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "frank theriault" > Subject: Re: The Last Two Days > > > > Peter, > > > > I was having a fine day until Cesar and Jostein decided to gang up > on me, > > and be real mean and all that stuff... > > > > :-( > > > > Watch it, next thing you know, Frank will inflict a drive by shouting > on you. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:27:59 +0800 > From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > alex wetmore wrote: > > > > I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than > > the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the > > length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, > > and I think that is feasable. > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:55:43 +0100 > From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Anders Hultman wrote: > > > Bus terminals, ferry terminals and even train terminals have > > already been mentioned. May I remind you that the telecom > > industry calls the cell phones we carry around "terminals" as > > well. The socket where you connect the speaker cables to your > > ampifier are called terminals, and some of us computer users > > sit in front of terminals, too. > > The key word is crash. If your computer crashes, it's a damn nuisance. If > your plane/ferry etc crashes, it could ruin your *whole* day or be, er, > terminal. > > Malcolm > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:55:54 -0500 > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Its a piece of junk. (F35-135/3.5-4.5) Sorry, just my opinion. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > alex wetmore wrote: > > > >>I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than > >>the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the > >>length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, > >>and I think that is feasable. > > > > > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:03:16 +0800 > From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Gonz wrote: > > Its a piece of junk. (F35-135/3.5-4.5) Sorry, just my opinion. > > What's wrong with it? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:46:30 -0500 (CDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. > > >They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality > > >of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with > > >early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear > > >to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be > > >valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. > > > > I believe their regular F primes were built well, certainly better than FA > > lenses. They may have plastic shells, but metal inside. > > Actually, the build wasn't bad, especially compared to some of today's el > cheepo zooms and some third party efforts I've seen, but they FELT loose > and plastic compared to most manual-focus lenses from the previous era. > Given the AF performance of the SF series, the bad manual focus handling > was a real issue, too. > > > >Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the > > >135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we > > >understandably don't hear much about. > > > > You missed the macros, and the F*250-600/5.6 too. > > Alan Chan > > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > Yep. I'd put the 250-600 in the same category as the 600/4--too expensive > for mere mortals. IIRC the F macros have very good reputations. > This just supports my contention that while the new F primes (all 5 or 6 > of them, assuming the macros are new designs) were good optics the F > series had a number of mediocre zooms and lacked a number of the better A > (or K or M) designs. By contrast the A series had a number of new, > top-of-the-line designs and many improved versions of familiar primes. > It seems to me that the A line was the fullest and bestest, which leaves > the F line looking inferior. > > DJE > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:27:07 -0500 > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Very soft. Its hard to manually focus, the focus ring is very narrow > and is at the front of the lens. In my copy, the zoom mechanism make > ball bearing noises that sound like they used a cheap bearing. The zoom > feel on mine is also somewhat stiff, but probably because of its age. > > rg > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Gonz wrote: > > > >>Its a piece of junk. (F35-135/3.5-4.5) Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > What's wrong with it? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:03:33 -0500 (CDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:48:12 -0400 > > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="Windows-1252" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness > > except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at > > Assuming your other lenses are Pentax, this does not necessarily support > the argument that the 80-200/2.8 is better than similar lenses made by > other manufacturers. If the 80-200 is in fact sharper than your FA 50 > I'll be very surprised--I've not seen ANYTHING as sharp as a good 50, at > least at comparable apertures. > > > all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. > > From what I've heard of that lens, and what I've seen of other 24s > (especially f/2 versions) that is not saying much. Most ultrawides stink, > especially at wide apertures and towards the edges. > > I'll admit that my 70-200 appears to be as sharp as a lot of the primes > in its focal length range, which is an impressive achievement. It is made > possible by expensive glass and four or five generations of evolution, > plus the absolute need to have a good 70-200 in today's pro market. It's > still bigger, heavier, MUCH more expensive, and in general slower than > the primes in its focal length range. > > I also note that Nikon, at least, has not made a new 105, 135, or 200 > recently with superduper glass and such because nobody is buying such > lenses. The technology in the zooms is newer and the companies are > putting most of their R&D into zooms, plus price no longer seems to be an > issue for pro zooms. All this adds up to the distinct possibility that > zooms on the market are better than primes on the market now. > > I'm still going to take a lot of convincing that the FA* 80-200, good as > it apparently is, is better than the current offerings from Nikon, Canon, > Leica, and Contax. > > DJE > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:31:48 -0700 > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > * or not, the FA*24/2 is not that great optically. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness > >except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at > >all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:35:17 -0700 > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built > quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some > Sigma lenses do. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times > >more > >money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference > >between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference > >between setting the ISO from 200 to 400 on the *istD) and the difference > >optically is apparently minimal (3.3 and 3.5 according to www.photodo.com) > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:18:20 -0500 (CDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: M 75-150 and social theory > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > I decided that I was going to get an M 75-150, as it looks like a useful > lens and the going price is below my "toy" threshold. For something like > $50, I can take the risk that it is mediocre. > > I decided to check with stan halpin's site to make sure it wasn't > unanimously rated a dog. 5 out of 6 comments there suggest that it has > good sharpness and contrast and is an excellent lens. And then there's > Shel, who is not at all positive about it, claiming it is "soft" and "big > and bulky". > > From what I can see of Shel's tastes, I can discount the "big and bulky" > for my uses--he seems to like SMALL. I can't believe any lens with > a 49mm filter is big and bulky, compared to the Nikkor behemoths I lug > around on the job. OTOH I have found myself normally in > agreement with Shel's assessment of the optical performance of lenses. > So, what's going on here? Did Shel get a bad sample? Do the other five > guys just have very low standards? Is the lens worse than most primes > (which Shel seems to like) but better than most zooms? I wouldn't expect > it to be equal to the M 150/3.5, for example, but given that Pentax made > an 85, 100, 135, and 150 in the M series you'd think there was SOME reason > for the zoom. > > Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of > some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations? > As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th > dentist does not recommend sugarless gum... > > DJE > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:48:02 -0700 > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > I had the "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" which I think is a great "zoom" lens. I > did some outdoor test near infinity against the 3rd generation AF Nikkor > 80-200/2.8 few years ago. To my surprised, their sharpness were so close I > thought I did something wrong (Nikkor was sharper, but not by much). I even > used one of those Pentax vibrators like "Super A" for trhe test, and Nikon > F90X. I also owned the Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D and did some tests against > the Pentax too between 2-3 metres with flash. The Nikkor was way softer and > inferior than the Pentax at all focal lengths and apertures (though the > Nikkor had more pleasing colour). It was like the Nikkor required 3 stops > difference to achieve the same level of sharpness as the Pentax did. Since > there are non-SMC variants which are similar to the "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4", > I suspect photdo mixed them up and thought it was "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4". > Afterall, there is no "SMC PENTAX-A 70-200/4" as they suggested. If the dog > lens like Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D could achieve 2.8, no way the Pentax got > 2.2 only. They must make some mistake along the way. Simply as that. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood > >opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By > >comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that > >the A70-210/4 was good for its time but has been eclipsed by better > >technology? > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:52:07 -0700 > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Indeed, when they introduced the F lenses, they must thought the zooms would > replace most primes. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >It seems to me that the A line was the fullest and bestest, which leaves > >the F line looking inferior. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:39:53 +0200 > From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > AC> even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give > AC> that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). > > Well, they didn't mine. Photodo is, by now, old, they do not explain > enough how they test the lenses, and where did they get the lenses (some of > them are discontinued). The worst is they claim to be scientific, by > using MTF testing, but that's cr*p still untill you know precisely > how they tested it. Lens testing is a bunch of cr*p, unless you do a > real world test with your lenses, and still it doesn't tell so much > about other sample of the lens, with some new lenses having quite > loose tolerances. And some of the long discontinued lenses - how many > samples did they test, anyway? Just one? etc. > > That to say, that was a comment made on photodo and lens testing, not > at you :-) From all the past, I respect you quite a lot. > > Best regards, > Frantisek Vlcek > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:43:51 +0200 > From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Nenad Djurdjevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ND> I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood > ND> opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By > ND> comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that > > Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were > big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from > the archives probably. > > Best regards, > Frantisek Vlcek > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:56:04 +0200 > From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hello > > whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the > better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also > the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is > narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual > focussing feel is at least as good as with the FA lenses. For me, the F > series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. Yes, there are > holes in the F series primes line-up. However, that does not reduce the > value of the F primes that exist. I own the F28/f2.8, F50/f1.4, > F50/f1.7, F50/f2.8, F100/f2.8, F135/f2.8, F*300/f4.5, and I am happy > with all of them. The only one that was updatet optically by an FA lens > was the 28. > > Also, I do not agree with the statement "Personally, my gripe with F > lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the > good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA > rather than F." > > Which "cheesy" zooms do you mean? > > The F24-50 is optically identical to the A24-50 > The F28-80 is optically identical to the A28-80 and way better than the > FA28-80s. > OK, the A28-135/f4 was not replaced by an F lens, however, the FA28-200 > was not a replacemet, either. > The F35-70 is optically identical to the A35-70/f3.5-4.5 > The F35-105/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A35-105/f3.5, however, it > is not a bad zoom at all > The F35-135 is optically identical to the A35-135 > The F70-210/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A70-210/f4, however, it is > of the same quality. > The F*250-600/f5.6 was an improvement over the K135-600/f6.7. > > Speeking of "cheesy zooms", the ones that come to my mind are the > FA28-80/f3.5-4.5, FA70-200/F4-5.6, and the FA28-200. > > Arnold > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > > >I haven't run anything like a proper test, but so far I'd agree with you on the F* 300/4.5. I suspect it will test better than the other slow 300s I have to put against it. IMHO no 300/4.5 is going to work well on a 2x converter (too dark), and from what I've heard most 2x converters cause a loss of quality that most professionals find intolerable. > > > >F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be > >valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. > > > >Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Given the lens focal lengths and apertures that I would like to carry, there are almost no F versions (no wides wider than 28, no 28/2.0, no 35, only a soft-focus 85, no 200, > >only the 600/4 for big glass). There are A versions, and often FA versions. > > > >Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about. > > > >DJE > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:15:18 +0200 > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: M 75-150 and social theory > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > This is a very nice portrait focal length. > I own a Tamron 3.5 in this interval. It's a really ideal interval for > portraits. This M lens have been discussed here earlier. AFAIR it's rated > quite good. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 25. juni 2004 07:18 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: M 75-150 and social theory > > > > I decided that I was going to get an M 75-150, as it looks like a useful > lens and the going price is below my "toy" threshold. For something like > $50, I can take the risk that it is mediocre. > > I decided to check with stan halpin's site to make sure it wasn't > unanimously rated a dog. 5 out of 6 comments there suggest that it has > good sharpness and contrast and is an excellent lens. And then there's > Shel, who is not at all positive about it, claiming it is "soft" and "big > and bulky". > > From what I can see of Shel's tastes, I can discount the "big and bulky" > for my uses--he seems to like SMALL. I can't believe any lens with > a 49mm filter is big and bulky, compared to the Nikkor behemoths I lug > around on the job. OTOH I have found myself normally in > agreement with Shel's assessment of the optical performance of lenses. > So, what's going on here? Did Shel get a bad sample? Do the other five > guys just have very low standards? Is the lens worse than most primes > (which Shel seems to like) but better than most zooms? I wouldn't expect > it to be equal to the M 150/3.5, for example, but given that Pentax made > an 85, 100, 135, and 150 in the M series you'd think there was SOME reason > for the zoom. > > Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of > some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations? > As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th > dentist does not recommend sugarless gum... > > DJE > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:15:13 +0200 > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Pentax F-series lenses?? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > There will always be discussions about lens tests. > However, measuring resolution in lp/mm is a good starting point - after all, > we all want to know to which degree detail can be recorded on film. If you > don't trust tests, I guess it's a good idea to test it your self. Or have > someone photograph a test target or a newspaper page a various > apertures/focal lengths at a given distance in daylight - then judge for > your self. You are the final judge. If you think it's good enough, then it > is. > > I know photodo gave - for instance the FA 70-200mm - bad grades. I have > owned this lens - and it really WAS bad. The F 4-5.6/70-210 was rated quite > high in German Fotomagazin as well as by photodo. And it really is quite > good, although a little slow for some of my needs (concert shots etc.). > > I wish there was some kind of standard independent testing organisation, who > could test all new (and some old) lenses. > In the old days, Fotomagazine did a good job. After the death of the guy who > invented the test, I don't know. I guess the problem is that photographic > magazines are NOT independent, because their main source of income is the > photographic manufacturers. We should actually form some kind of user > organisation to provide the necessary tests. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 25. juni 2004 08:44 > Til: Nenad Djurdjevic > Emne: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? > > > ND> I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood > ND> opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. > By > ND> comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be > that > > Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were > big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from > the archives probably. > > Best regards, > Frantisek Vlcek > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:28:42 +0200 > From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I fear manufacturers development departments are not good at thinking 'outside > of the box' and the short product cycles have cut down available time to let > foreigners test prototypes - to make the developers aware of things they just > did not 'see'. > > If we leave behind the 'film based' thinking, then ISO, aperture and shutter > speed have a comparable influence on the final image and all three values > should be equally easy to adjust and be equally displayed. What was a > combination of two values now is a ISO-speed-aperture triangle (well, it always > was...). > > If it gets darker I can adjust ISO to get the best noise/shutter speed/aperture > compromise, if I need shallow DOF I decrease ISO so that I can shoot wide open, > if I need a very high shutter speed I can increase ISO until I get 1/6000 and > so on. I don't think it is an adequate solution having to turn two dials to > adjust ISO and then afterwards not even being able to see what was set (without > hitting another button). > > Sven > > > Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > Neither my Nikon D100 nor my Nikon D1H display ISO in any of the > > normal displays. It'd be real tempting to say "manufacturers didn't > > anticipate the desire to see the freely-changeable ISO number in > > the normal displays of a digital camera", except that my Nikon F5 > > DOES show ISO in the rear display. > > Still, perhaps the "amateurs use DX coding" mentality is to blame. > > Does the *istD have an "auto ISO" feature? Some of the other low and/or > > mid-level DSLRs do, presumably because film speed confuse tyros. > > > > OTOH, I rarely shoot more than a couple of frames at an inappropriate ISO > > before my brain tells me that the settings are fishy and I check to > > see where the camera is set. I'd expect most of you have good enough > > eye-meters that you aren't going to shoot at 1600 ISO by accident for > > long. > > > > DJE > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:40:56 +0200 > From: Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT - test > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 1 rule for the "in" crow eh, another for the rest .... > > Antonio > > > > > On 25 Jun 2004, at 01:20, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > > > Get a grip antonio, they aren't hurting anyone's feelings with THEIR > > posts, > > > > and besides, I've been laughing along with them with every post. > > > > tan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, 25 June 2004 9:05 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OT - test > > > > > > Sheesh, and you guys have a go at me for being OT? Why dont you email > > each other with your private chit chat? > > > > A. > > > > > > On 25 Jun 2004, at 00:55, Cotty wrote: > > > >> On 24/6/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: > >> > >>> Kripes, Cotty, > >>> > >>> For that kind of money, just pay to fly me over the pond: > >>> > >>> I'll whisper my posts into your ear... > >> > >> LOL. > >> > >> Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy > >> and > >> crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European > >> football > >> championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful > >> territory > >> with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 > >> hours > >> (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin > >> and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful! > >> > >> Anyway, off to bed. > >> > >> Cheerio mate. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Cotty > >> > >> > >> ___/\__ > >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > >> ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > >> _____________________________ > >> > >> > > > > > > -------------------------------- > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #670 > *********************************************
