Some of my best lenses are non-A lenses. M 1.7 50mm K 2.8 105mm K 2.5 135mm M* 4 300mm
I'd gladly pay 50 $ more for my next body, ig it had an anperture simulator But I know this is not going to happen. Regards. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are "old" obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses like the K85, etc. I say if these "old" lenses were no good, that would be one thing, but thats not the case, and if full K/M support could be implemented cheaply ( And I believe it can ), I would definately pay for that. This isnt a rehash, its just further proof to support my position. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: " John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ..." How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? ============================ JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
