Just as well. Hubris is an ugly thing ;-)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> The universe is a weird place. Today I find another SMC K 28mm f3.5
> that was listed BIN for $18. A few moments later an SMC K 200mm f4,
> BIN $18. While I was gloating, I missed the SMC K 135mm BIN
The universe is a weird place. Today I find another SMC K 28mm f3.5
that was listed BIN for $18. A few moments later an SMC K 200mm f4,
BIN $18. While I was gloating, I missed the SMC K 135mm BIN for $18.
That'll teach me.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/lis
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> O, 3.5 smack talk. I have one too, so go right ahead ;-)
I need to credit this list for making me aware of this singular lens.
In particular:
J.C. O'Connell (who set the record straight that this was NOT just a
K-mount S-M-C Takumar
O, 3.5 smack talk. I have one too, so go right ahead ;-)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> Or at least should be achieved when it gets here by Friday.
> : )
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/5638296739/in/photostream
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@
On Jul 1, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal/a28_2/a28_2.html
Poor, downsampled scans of underexposed negatives: I find it
difficult to determine much from these. A couple of full resolution
digital captures with a D/DS body would be more illumina
http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal/a28_2/a28_2.html
I've the K28/3.5 ... quite nice ;-))
Godfrey wrote:
> Takinami posted a set of lens performance charts to DPReview.com
> wherein the M28/2 was one of the highest performing lenses on resolution.
> http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/le
On Jul 1, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Someone Wrote:
What I'm thinking is that the optics in the A28/2 are
supposed to be terrific, and that lens is nice and small.
I have one of those lenses. It is nice and small. The optics, IMO,
and in
the opinion of some others (there are
Someone wrote:
> What I'm thinking is that the optics in the A28/2 are
> supposed to be terrific, and that lens is nice and small.
I have one of those lenses. It is nice and small. The optics, IMO, and in
the opinion of some others (there are some sample photos that someone put
up on one of th
On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:34 PM, David Oswald wrote:
Actually, given the size and (to me) awkwardness of the DA16-45,
the FA28/2.8 would be an easy pick. I like having a small, light,
fast lens to work with. (I sold my DA16-45 for this reason.)
But between the FA28/2.8 and FA20-35/4, the size a
On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:35 PM, David Oswald wrote:
An FA28/2 would be so nice. sigh.
I've never even seen one.
How does it stack up against the 31?
Is it smaller (hopefully)?
The 31 is much better, because it actually exists. ;) Actually,
since the 28 is just a dream, maybe it's better aft
The 31 is much better, because it actually exists. ;) Actually, since
the 28 is just a dream, maybe it's better after all. lol
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: 28mm f2.8
An FA28/2 would be so nice. sigh.
I've
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: 28mm f2.8
An FA28/2 would be so nice. sigh.
I've never even seen one.
How does it stack up against the 31?
Is it smaller (hopefully)?
William Robb
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 4:48 PM, David Oswald wrote:
A 50mm is significantly longer than a 35, a 35 is much closer to a
28. My dilemma is that I have a fast 50 and would like a fast 28,
but f/2.8 is only one stop faster than the already excellent
20-35/4 and 28-10
On Jun 30, 2005, at 4:48 PM, David Oswald wrote:
A 50mm is significantly longer than a 35, a 35 is much closer to
a 28. My dilemma is that I have a fast 50 and would like a fast
28, but f/2.8 is only one stop faster than the already excellent
20-35/4 and 28-105/3.2-4.5 ...
An FA28/2 wo
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:08 PM, David Oswald wrote:
I've had my sights set on an SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 for awhile, and
now I see it is again available. But recently I've been having a
hard time deciding between it and a SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8.
I already have a 5
On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:08 PM, David Oswald wrote:
I've had my sights set on an SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 for awhile, and
now I see it is again available. But recently I've been having a
hard time deciding between it and a SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8.
I already have a 50mm f/1.4, and a DA16-45.
- Original Message -
From: "David Oswald"
Subject: Re: 28mm f2.8
So there's the dilema: Go a little wider at the cost of one f/stop? Or go
for that one f/stop faster, by getting a lens that is maybe not different
enough from what I've already got (the 50mm f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just got a Pentax 28mm f2.8 pentax f af prime. Nice tiny lens, seems very
sharp on my Ist Ds
http://www.sonc.com/gauss__f28.htm
I've had my sights set on an SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 for awhile, and now
I see it is again available. But recently I've been having
> >Daniel Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on getting an istds
> >>and a 28mm prime, and I like to do low-light work. Which lens would
> >>you pick, the sigma 28mm 1.8 or the FA pentax 28mm 2.8?
Mark Roberts wrote:
Daniel Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on getting an istds
and a 28mm prime, and I like to do low-light work. Which lens would
you pick, the sigma 28mm 1.8 or the FA pentax 28mm 2.8? I'm used to
shooting at a very crappy-lo
Daniel Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on getting an istds
>and a 28mm prime, and I like to do low-light work. Which lens would
>you pick, the sigma 28mm 1.8 or the FA pentax 28mm 2.8? I'm used to
>shooting at a very crappy-looking iso400 on a canon
Daniel,
I've been able to use an M28/3.5 (the only wide prime I own) for
indoor shooting without a flash. Since I've been down rating Tri-X to
320 or 200, this often means maximum aperture at 1/15. If you plan on
setting your light sensitivity to between 400 and 1600, just use a
lens you like an
ISO 800 and 1600 are perfectly usable with the *ist DS so you can use
an f/2.8 lens very successfully.
I have no experience of that particular Sigma lens, but I'd much
prefer the Pentax FA28/2.8 all around. I'm just not happy with Sigma
quality control.
Godfrey
On Jun 25, 2005, at 1:33 A
Ahh, you're right! *smacks forehead* I do a lot of street photography
at night because I don't have time during the day, so it's basically
street lights. Slowest I can hand-hold with an slr is i'm guessing 1/30
(it's been awhile since i used a film slr). On my old setup 1/15 and
f/2.5 at iso400
Daniel Liu wrote:
Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on getting an istds
and a 28mm prime, and I like to do low-light work. Which lens would
you pick, the sigma 28mm 1.8 or the FA pentax 28mm 2.8? I'm used to
shooting at a very crappy-looking iso400 on a canon g3 at f/2, but I
figu
Hello Daniel,
Depending on your shooting style, KEH has two Pentax M series 28/2.0
lenses. This will give you the speed and good ISO performance - best
of both worlds.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, June 24, 2005, 9:04:06 PM, you wrote:
DL> Hi, just want to get some opinions. I'm planning on
Daniel,
You have to define low-light work to me. I customarily shoot in
'concert-like' settings; dark surroundings with spotlights on performers...
I do not have either of the lenses you mention. I do use the FA* 24/2
simply because it has the largest aperture. This way I can adjust the
I
I have a second version
28/2.8M(http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/wide-angle/M28f2.8-ii.html
) that is much sharper at 4 than at 8. I checked is several times to be sure
I didn't mix up the slides. Maybe these are really 1.4 lenses dumbed down to
2.8 at the aperture?
Bill Lawlor
graywolf wrote:
I think the point I am trying to make is you don't actually
need the most latest expensive piece of equipment to do the
job.
With the possible exception of sports and action photography, I heartily
agree. On the other hand, with the possible exception of serious
perspective con
Why does this thread still have this subject?
Regards,
Bob...
A Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner.
A Republic is three hundred wolves and two hundred sheep
voting for three wolves and two sheep to prepare
Actually, part of it was the transition to color photos for publication. Having
to have on camera loaded with Kodachrome, and one loaded with Tri-X made
carrying two cameras a neccessity for many media photographers. I is no doubt
easier to carry two 35mm than 2 larger cameras, though for awhile
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1906210
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I saw the current crop of digital SLRs at a trade show on the
weekend. Both the
Well he certainly would not be able to send his pix in via satellite photo
(grin). More inline...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, read the article.
Then tell us how the guy with the speed graphic would cope with the case
mentioned in the comparison, where the podium was 200' away.
The same way
It's funny that photographers ditched their Speed-Graphics for a Nikon F
or M3 with maybe three or four lenses because it was so much lighter.
Now they are still using 35mm sized cameras but take everything except
the kitchen sink. Maybe the could take a lead from Ansel Adams and
invest in a good p
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Then tell us how the guy with the speed graphic would cope with the
case
mentioned in the comparison, where the podium was 200' away.
Swapped to a 360mm and then cropped from the centre
> Or what he would do in the ca
weigthed 17lbs. The
> digital kit is 59lbs.
>
> Ah, found the link.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/020726.htm
>
> --
>
> William Robb wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Fred"
> > Subject:
See once again we are dealing with internet wisdom, rather than real world
experience. At one time, I had that Schneider 90mm Angulon along with a 4x5
Super Technika. There were no movements on the ST that were out of range of the
Angulon at f16 and smaller. Right now I have a Crown Graphic with
Oh, I don't think we have a mine is better than yours war going here. We have
more of a "how I would spend my money" commentary going. If one could get a
shift lens for a couple of hundred bucks that would be a good deal, but when it
costs more than a whole viewcamera kit, wait a minute.
As to
Oppenheimer
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 28mm shift price?
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:15:47 -0500
I have to laugh at some of the ideas that folks have about what they never
have used.
I had an interesting link to an arti
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/020726.htm
--
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Fred"
Subject: Re: 28mm shift price?
As for the argument that any LF camera can easily accomplish what
only a refined 35mm body with a top-notch lens can
Ok, so I asked the original price question and I guess the topic's morphed
into a large-format vs 35mm debate. First off, here are my disclaimers: I
mess around all three formats. I'm probably most productive these days (and
that's not very) with my hand-held 35mm gear.
Beyond the obvious diffe
When the only tool that you've got is a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like
a nail.
Bruce
Saturday, March 6, 2004, 4:33:07 PM, you wrote:
WR> - Original Message -
WR> From: "graywolf"
WR> Subject: Re: 28mm shift price?
>> You got to love these dedicated 35
- Original Message -
From: "Fred"
Subject: Re: 28mm shift price?
>
> As for the argument that any LF camera can easily accomplish what
> only a refined 35mm body with a top-notch lens can accomplish,
well,
> please give me a finely tuned 35mm rig any day, a
It's about what I last saw one go for on e-bay, if your quoting USD that is.
Mark Erickson wrote:
All,
I just saw a very clean 28mm F3.5 shift lens in a camera store. They wanted
$500 for it. What do you think of the price?
--Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Fred"
Subject: Re: 28mm shift price?
> >> You got to love these dedicated 35mm'ers. Me, I would buy a view
> >> camera with that money.
>
> > Yup.
>
> Yeah, lugging around a view camera is everyone'
>> You got to love these dedicated 35mm'ers. Me, I would buy a view
>> camera with that money.
> Yup.
Yeah, lugging around a view camera is everyone's cup of tea...
Fred
There was a new one on ebay a few weeks ago (along with a
new A-200/2.8, A-300/2.8, A-400/?) Opening bid on the 28mm
shift was $550 IIRC, I do not believe it sold. $500 is
probably about the right price.
Stan
Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:
Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
I just sa
Hi Mark
... it's 1239 USD in B&H camera!
Jens
I paid about 700 USD for mine 5 years ago. 500 USD is fine if it's OK.
It's a very fine lens, but I guess the price has gone down a little, since
everybody does the perspective correction in Photoshop these days.
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL
Hi Mark
I paid about 700 USD for mine 5 years ago. 500 USD is fine if it's OK.
It's a very fine lens, but I guess the price has gone down a little, since
everybody does the perspective correction in Photoshop these days.
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
If I don't want to see such perspective distortion in a photo, I
would have to shoot with, say, a 50mm (or longer) lens.
Fred
..
I think it is difficult to tell if the camera was level for the photo of
the pool. I used to pack around a Texas Leica-Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens
(about eq
Brian,
That's a common attribute of wide lenses, your lens is typical. Most
available light situations should mask the problem, the more picture
elements there are the smaller the problem will be. Just beware of shooting
landscapes with clear blue skies at wide apertures. Of course copy-work
i
Mark Roberts wrote:
> If you need shift lens capability, use a standard lens, scan your film and
> correct the perspective with Photoshop. If you can't live the limitations of
> that approach get a view camera.
The problem I've seen with this is that it can badly distort other
elements of the ima
On 14 Jun 2002 at 8:39, Cameron Hood wrote:
> Not if you have Photoshop. All of the camera movement corrections can be
> done in an instant with the photoshop layer commands such as distort,
> perspective, etc. IMHO, shift lenses are a thing of the past, unless you
> really have to use the straig
Hi, Bob,
You know, they make eyeglasses these days that help with astigmatism.
-frank
Bob Blakely wrote:
> Yes. I find that with many outdoor subjects, perfect mathematical
> "correction", looks... strange too my eye. Though much better than
> uncorrected, they look much more natural if a sl
You may be right, but still that's not my opinion. There will still be
requirements for rather large prints, and the loss of resolution experienced
for serious correction of an 11x14 or larger from 35mm negative using even
the best scanners is not acceptable to me. Better to have evenly spaced
ran
Not if you have Photoshop. All of the camera movement corrections can be
done in an instant with the photoshop layer commands such as distort,
perspective, etc. IMHO, shift lenses are a thing of the past, unless you
really have to use the straight chromes (i.e. projecting).
C.
-
This message is f
Yes. I find that with many outdoor subjects, perfect mathematical
"correction", looks... strange too my eye. Though much better than
uncorrected, they look much more natural if a slight bit of "tilt" is left
in. Strangely, this is usually not true indoors, especially in cathedrals
(too my eye).
R
You can get better results in PS than you did. Using
Transform/Distort, you can work all 4 corners
independently. It helps to us use guide lines for
setting the verticals. When I correct perspective
distortion I not only pull the top corners up and out, I
usually have to work one corner in an
the way human eyes work: from a given
>viewpoint one expects a definite amount of distortion, and when it'snot
>there, it starts looking... well, weird.
>
>For minor corrections, it does work wonders though.
>
>Mishka
>
> > From: John Coyle
> > Sub
I have a 28mm Shift lens and I love it! Most of my photography is travel
photography and I usually take slides, which I later project. Going via
digital -correcting the tilt- and then making a slide from the corrected
digital image would be much too cumbersome for me. In addition there would
b
; From: John Coyle
> Subject: RE: 28mm/3.5 shift lens: worth getting?
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:59:24 -0700
>
>
> Interesting - looking at both Fred and Mishka's corrected images on
> my screen, they seem over-corrected! Does anyone else get this
effect?
>
Hi Mishka,
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Mishka wrote:
>this is what i was talking about (comments are welcome)
>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/ignatievmatterccbrandeisedu/vwp?.dir=/Boston+2002&.src=bc&.dnm=22.jpg
>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/ignatievmatterccbrandeisedu/vwp?.dir=/
Interesting - looking at both Fred and Mishka's corrected images on my
screen, they seem over-corrected! Does anyone else get this effect?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
On Friday, June 14, 2002 12:32 PM, Fred [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Eric, I have some photos at:
>
> http://www.cetuss
One thing you should keep in mind is that the distortion caused by
viewing things at an angle through a regular lens can be fixed easily
through digital manipulation. For an example using very cheap software,
see my page at http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/perspective.htm
--
- Original Message -
From: E. Kragtwijk
Subject: 28mm/3.5 shift lens: worth getting?
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have the possibility to get a mint K 28/3.5 shift lens for
app. US$ 550.
> Is the lens worth spending that amount of money? Can anyone
please share
> their personal experience in
David.I sent you a mail,did you get it.Id be interested.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "David Chang-Sang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 8:27 PM
Subject: FS: 28mm Super Takumar f3.5 M42 / Screw Mount
> Well..
>
> Before I drop this puppy up on
Thanks for the abundance of offers, everyone, but I have a 28mm now. I
appreciate your generosity...
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komk
i have the 19-35 3.5-4.5 , 28-70 2.8, 28-105 3.5-4.5 and an old
75-300 4.5 - 5.6 tokina , all auto focus, and use them on two differant
pzip bodies and every thing works as it is suppose to.
I've found the FA 28 - 70 to be acceptable at 28mm.
The two complaints I have are distortion and
I've found the FA 28 - 70 to be acceptable at 28mm.
The two complaints I have are distortion and light falloff, which is
pretty noticeable.
I picked up a Ricoh XR Rikenon 28 f2.8 last winter - very impressive
performance with the only flaw being some flare problems when the sun is
in the frame.
SMC A 28 2.8 is excellent too. Own it and love it.
Regards
Albano
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
At first, I have the Sigma AF 28/1.8 II. But now the Pentax K 28/3.5 has replaced
Sigma unless the AF and large aperture are the priority.
I got the K 28/3.5 at half price of the Sigma 28/1.8.
> Yep, they are getting scarce, however, since everyone goes for the "speed", not
> recognizing the b
Pawel Czarnul escribió:
> Does anybody have experience with the Tokina 28/2.8 (SL) MF lens?
> I am a happy user of Pentax ZX-5N w/ FA 50/1.4. I read some posts that
> the FA 28-70/4 lens was not very good at 28mm? Any advice
> on wide-angle lenses for Pentax (24, 28 mm)? Are there any incompatib
72 matches
Mail list logo
