Rob, a good fair email. No attacks or insults. You disagreed a lot. Well that's all fine with me, I don't expect everyone to say 'Ya, you're right'. If someone can post in a friendly adversarial manner (that make sense?) I like that. It's only the emails that some send that tell you how bad you are and how good they are and toss in little insults or similar, those are bad.
I wish I had the time to address your email more on a point by point basis. Maybe later tonight, little busy now. I have been told that the Ltds. are more expensive, not because they are so superior in build and optics (but not saying they aren't) but that they are for a select few, like some here, and thus command a far higher price, as they are a 'different' lens, so to speak. Just this quickly: > No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total > so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. I meant the reasons why they are what they are, you'd point to this and that with build, and this and that with optics. That's the 'couple dozen' things. Hope that clears that up. > > If I get a chance to try > > a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but > > don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens > > performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are > > silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm > > Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found > > in the bottom of a box). > > Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its > cover? This part I'm lost on. I have not a clue as to whether that camera is good or bad in it's day or now, just that the limited lens looks very similar to the lens on it. Does this help? If not, explain further please! Regards, Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Can I get into this without any trouble? <non cut and paste > > area> Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it > > from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a > > hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal > > length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. > > No trouble from me (hopefully). Don't worry about my toes, but I have > to say, the difference between the 24-90 and the 77 ltd as I said is > clearly visible under even small enlargements. Heck I can see it on > 6*4s! You can see every eyelash and hair on someone's face. Its not > being extreme critical, it hits you like a truck its so obvious. > Likewise with the 24, when you can see rocks in the sea below some > cliffs with that, but with another lens its just a blur on the sealine > its pretty obvious. The first time you see it REALLY awakens you, and > you re-evaluate all your kit. > > I dont care about what terminology you wish to use, and pride doesn't > come into it. I have always loved zooms and to this day they are still > my most used lenses. Since the 24-90 first came out in the UK it has > been my number 1 lens and takes between half and 2/3rds of my photos. > Until may(ish) of this year the only prime I had was an old Centon 500mm > mirror which hardly holds any pride for me. When I got the 77ltd I was > absolutely gobsmacked. That's not to say I now look down on my zooms, > and I still use the 24-90 and my Sigma 17-35 for much of my shooting as > it means I don't have to keep changing lenses. However when I get the > chance and can cope with the discipline, I will use the 24 and 77 as > much as possible as they REALLY are in another league. Now this may be > partly due to the fact that the primes I have chosen are top of the > league and I have no doubt that many of the standard primes wouldn't > hold as much appeal for me. > > > Have I used all of > > these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at > > comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My > > eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. > > Know what I mean? > > If/when you use the 77 you will change your view - guaranteed. As I > said above its not a question of being critical - when you see the > difference you will be hit by it. > > > So there is that point and then the > > Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly > > representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love > > with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two > > quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses > > of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I > > have never owned one or tried one. > > For myself, it not blind love or ego love or status love. I don't have > and am not interested in the 31 or 43 as I don't shoot much at those > lengths. They are not wide enough for most of my landscapes and not > long enough for my portraits. When I used a zoom, I found I wanted my > portaits around 70-90, so I don't care about the 'odd' lengths, as long > as its about right. I am truly not caught in some marketing gimmick, > and this is more than just an ugly fixed lens - mine is black anyway > btw. > > No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total > so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. > > > If I get a chance to try > > a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but > > don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens > > performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are > > silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm > > Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found > > in the bottom of a box). > > Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its > cover? > > > I can see there are times where you > > want to go 'back-to-basics' and pull out the old mechanical > > camera and it's old lenses or your Ltds. I can't do that > > myself, but I like the appeal as a time to time thing. > > Believe me, that's not me. I think you got me all wrong. I am not into > old mechanical anything. I am not an LX lover. I like my AF, and get > far more good shots using it than I used to without. I am not > interested in nostalgia or back to basics or optical theory when it > comes to equipment choice - just results and ease of use. > > > But > > anyone stupid enough to break a cheap build lens is wealthy > > enough to buy another one no problems. It's the optics that > > count anyhow right? > > That's why I love the 24-90. Some say its overpriced, but that's > because the ratio of your money used for optics tversus build is totally > out of the norm. The optics are worth every penny and more. > > > I think a fair email. If you look where I'm coming from. > > Yes, fair for someone who hasn't seen the light! I was coming from the > same place (although perhaps a little more open-mindedly acknowledging > where everyone else was coming from too) until a few months ago. > > > I > > don't tow the party line here, I know. > > Me either, just don't mention the pope! > > > Well, I hope I'm not opening up for an attack against me > > personally. Just my view, my take. Perhaps looking that > > others that aren't so demanding but dare not speak out like I > > do. Maybe they don't want to blow up the shots? > > Hopefully I havent atacked you personally, although I admit I seem to > have attacked most of your points here... > > I don't know how to educate people that think like this. It is not a > question of being demanding, but of seeing the proof of the pudding. > Unfortunately Pentax marketing precludes this experience from many. >
