Either one stumped the spell checker, so I was at a loss. The actual
name of the lens is "VMC Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm 1:2.8 Auto Variable
Focusing" so I suppose I should have known how to spell it, but I'm lazy.
On 10/29/2016 4:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Hi P.J.
Let me just link my previous response to a very similar question
earlier this year:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg731281.html
You may want to read my yet earlier response linked within that message.
I hope this helps.
Igor
P.S. It is "varifocal", not "Varafocal". ;-)
In the era of film cameras, I was happy to get Tokina ATX-Pro
28-70/2.6-2.8, as besides being fast it was parfocal. With zoom, that
allows zooming in to focus more precisely. Also, changing zoom after
you've focused is easier: you don't need to think about refocusing.
P.J. Alling Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:08:41 -0700 wrote:
So I've been getting along using a combination of a Manual focus
Varafocal, (Vivitar 35-85mm f2.8), and a FA 20-35mm which satisfies
most of my needs, but they can be damnably inconvenient, the varafocal
makes me think that sometimes I need extra fingers and more inertial
processing for my brain to keep track of stop down metering,
re-framing and refocusing, which leads to a lot more missed shots than
I'm happy with. Swapping to the 20-35 and back, is sometimes necessary
at very inconvenient times which also leads to missed shots.
It doesn't look like a Full Frame camera is in my budget for quite
some time, and let's face it, I've come to terms with APS-C. The K-5II
is more than sufficient for most of what I do, in fact is better than
most needs. A more identical backup body is what I'm more likely to
get than an actual full frame camera, maybe a K-7 another K-5[II(s)],
or K3 thought the latter would have some of the same problems as using
the K20D as backup, though the K5II hasn't failed me yet.
So I'm looking at APS-C lenses.
I've kind of narrowed it down to five lenses, at this point, based on
reviews.
Pentax FA* 16-55 f2.8 available new.
Sigma 17-50 f2.8, comes in couple versions, latest version still
available new.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 also comes in a couple of versions latest version
still available new.
Pentax FA 17-70, seems to be discontinued, but still available new.
Sigma 17-70, three versions, latest one still available new.
All of them have pluses and minuses, the Pentax FA* is the most
expensive, the first version of the Tamron is least expensive, of
course it's only really available used. I like the idea of the 17-70
as it would cut down on the necessity of changing lenses when things
are moving fast.
I know there are people on the list who've used later Sigma 17-70, and
the two Pentax lenses, but what about the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50
has anybody got any experience with them? Optically good? Mechanically
crap? Vice Versa?
It comes down to the fact that I don't trust most reviewers. I'll pick
up something that's gotten bad reviews play with it a while and think,
this isn't nearly as bad as I expected, hell this even seems to be
pretty good, and things that have gotten good reviews and think, what
the f*#k was that guy talking about this is pretty horrible. You guys
have real world experience, what is it.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
