How like my own list of best lenses, M 1.4 50mm M 2.0 85mm M 2.8 120mm K 2.5 135mm A* 4.0 300mm
Jens Bladt wrote: > 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
