To add to this, I would bet you'll be seeing some very good DA primes down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for 35mm movie cameras, so it's not brain surgery. And Pentax hasn't forgotten how to make glass. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> On an APS-C digital camera, I'd bet my DA 12-24 will outperform any > of those lenses. I think you're looking at things through the fog of > your discontent. > Paul > On Aug 23, 2006, at 8:58 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > >> On 24/08/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. The *istD was probably the >>> second most expensive Pentax SLR of all time. All of the bodies cost >>> more or as much as recent Pentax film cameras. And they're all >>> rather well made. As far as using the lenses as intended is >>> concerned, they work exactly as intended. They merely crop >>> differently. So my FA 35/2 is now a nice normal, my FA 50/1.4 gives >>> me the performance of an $800 77/1.9 Limited at a fraction of the >>> cost. I think that's what God had in mind when he created those >>> lenses:-)). >> >> Yes, but I was hardly impressed with the WA view that my A16/2.8, >> A15/23.5 and A20/2.8 provided on my *ist D. Yes I could replace them >> with DA glass but from my limited experience I don't think I'd be >> overly impressed by the results. My DA16-45 is just about to hit the >> market. >> >> -- >> Rob Studdert >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
