[eddie1960]

LOL. basically, the equation that they are using nowadays is following the market real estate demand and supply or somehow connected to it. they may not admit it, but that is what is happening. I could own a mansion in Saskatchewan and pay dirt cheap property tax, or live in a 6x2 space in Vancouver and pay more.

Average prices were published in the star on the weekend. Holy Crap Vancouver has gone insane, over a million buck for any house average and half a million for a condo
i know growth is limited by being surrounded by water and mountains but this is nuts
and yep you could own a mansion in Saskatchewan easily for less than condos. but then you'd be in Saskatchewan (no slight intended for Lowell who lives there i believe)
for what it's worth you could probably live on a small nearby island and boat in for less

[Pentaxor]

ANy economist will tell you that market value is completely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of the population. Cities like Toronto have gone away from a "cost of deliver of service " model, because like most industries.. they want the cost of service divorced from the cost of supply, and related to figures they can manipulate. Cable of companies sell you channels you can't watch, you can only watch one at a time, so you actually pay them to not watch a pile of shows when you give them more money. That has become the new standard for profitability. The more you can sell people that they don't use, like phone plans with minutes you lose at the end of every month. Cities want to tax not on what it costs to provide your services, but on how much your house is worth. Once you divorce cost of supply from the cost of providing service, there is no end to the amount you can rip people off for.

that is exactly the tricky part. as I mentioned, you and your neighbour may live in the same neighbourhood, with the same square footage of land, receive similar services but have pay with different property tax, one could be paying double. I still can't understand how they bracket one property over the other. having said that, atleast one might have a case and could be reimbursed in the future. but if one fails to see this, I'm sure the city would be more than willing to accept your donations. :ugh:

[Pentaxor]

Average prices were published in the star on the weekend. Holy Crap Vancouver has gone insane, over a million buck for any house average and half a million for a condo
i know growth is limited by being surrounded by water and mountains but this is nuts
and yep you could own a mansion in Saskatchewan easily for less than condos. but then you'd be in Saskatchewan (no slight intended for Lowell who lives there i believe)
for what it's worth you could probably live on a small nearby island and boat in for less

could be. right now, the only properties that atleast makes a little bit of sense are near the border (white rock), Delta and Maple Ridge. North Vancouver has just become almost as expensive as the Lower Mainland. although you could get a good deal on some of the properties, they are however extremely rare and more often than not, gets sold right off the bat.

probably in the future, We'd be seeing ourselves in Kamloops where it is still cheap and the weather isn't that bad and almost Vancouver-like, maybe slightly better. but that would depend on how the province is going to develop that area within the next 5-10 years. otherwise, I might see myself do some farming.

[Sagitta]

Probably my 500mm Quantaray f/8.

I suspect its less the lens (but it WAS a cheap-o) than it is me, but the thing just fails for me.

That said, it came with a 2x teleconverter, and on a lark I hooked THAT to another 2x teleconverter and, well... an effective focal length of 3000mm is kind of hard to just set aside or get rid of, even if the quality is garbage.

[theunartist]

K-mount Quantaray 24mm - got for free cause the guy said it doesn't take very good pictures and I was buying a few others from him, "it doesn't take very good pictures" was an understatement... don't have it anymore, took it apart to play around with...

[Digitalis]

am not sure why two people have chosen the A 50/1.7. It's just as good as any other Pentax 50mm, whether 1.4 or 1.7 -- which is to say, pretty darned good

The A series 50mm f/1.7 - and I had several to choose from- all sucked when compared to the SMCP-K/A 50mm f/1.2 @ f/4* the A series 50mm f/1.7 lenses were consistently softer in the corners** compared to the f/1.2 lens. And the A 50mm f/1.7 isn't really 50mm I would say it's around 53~54mm - it is slightly longer than the 51.8mm the SMCP-K/A 50mm f/1.2 is.The only thing going for the A 50mm f/1.7 lenses are the fact that they are smaller than their f/1.2/~f/1.4 counterparts - and the filters they use aren't as costly.

*At f/8 the differences are even harder to spot, but I can do it.

**The difference in the corners is about 1.5 blur units at the last 1/3rd at the edge of the frame.

[RioRico]

The A series 50mm f/1.7 - and I had several to choose from- all sucked when compared to the SMCP-K/A 50mm f/1.2 @ f/4...

Is this softness due to field curvature? Is it noticeable when shooting non-flat subjects on a crop-sensor camera? I haven't an A50 to check, just the K50/1.2 and M50/1.7 (and FA and ST 50/1.4's). Should the A50/1.7 be lumped with the M50/2 as lenses to avoid?

[Ikarus]

Should the A50/1.7 be lumped with the M50/2 as lenses to avoid?

Based on my copy, I'm still wondering about how the M50/2 earned that status.

[Digitalis]

Is this softness due to field curvature? Is it noticeable when shooting non-flat subjects on a crop-sensor camera? I haven't an A50 to check, just the K50/1.2 and M50/1.7 (and FA and ST 50/1.4's). Should the A50/1.7 be lumped with the M50/2 as lenses to avoid?

Yes this corner softness is noticable on APS-C cameras although I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that people avoid those lenses - they do have their uses, I would just let people know there are lenses that offer superior performance. In my testing with the Pentax A series 50mm f/1.7 I was testing the resolution at infinity* - since most manufacturers test their lenses at infinity focus to plot MTF charts** it has been used as a benchmark of mine to determine whether the lens I am testing is living up to it's standards.


*With standard fixed focal length lenses field curvature has a rather minimal effect at infinity focus, but when shorter focus distances are used I always view any testing conclusions to be subjective and therefore inaccurate - unless of course the lens being tested is a macro lens design.

**some manufacturers who will not be named use computer simulations in order to plot their MTF charts which is, in my opinion: cheating the end user especially when the lens doesn't perform as well as the computer simulation predicts.

[paperbag846]

Should the A50/1.7 be lumped with the M50/2 as lenses to avoid?

No way! My A 50 1.7 was a wonderful lens, very sharp across the frame.

It lost to the 50 1.4 in 2 ways for me - distracting bokeh (which some might prefer!) and lack of autofocus.

It beats the 50 1.4 in these ways - sharper wide open / below f2.4 (great for low light), sharper corner to corner in general (1.4 has more field curvature).

If I was the type to own redundant lenses, I would have kept it. Sometimes I wish I did... but the K55 scratches a very similar itch.

[rfortson]

I have a Takumar 135 f/2.5. It's pretty crappy. I bought it mainly to use with my Pen but still, it's just not that good. I had an SMC-A 135 f/2.8 that I really liked, but I gave it to my sister. I wrongly assumed the Takumar would be about the same.

[dadipentak]

Probably the DA 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 AL WR which came in the used K-7 kit I bought. I keep it because it's my only WR lens and I might need that someday.

[ferals_m38]

i recon the Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 that came with my K100d, soft.. and feels just plain cheap!

[Sagitta]

Based on my copy, I'm still wondering about how the M50/2 earned that status.

I think its less the quality of the lens as it is the quality of the lens as people receive it after its been knocking around on an old film camera for umpteen years.

Since the M50/2 was THE kit lens for an ungodly amount of what was the most common camera at the time on the planet, you'll have a LOT kicking around that were misused, abused, and then discarded cheap at a pawn shop/on eBay/at a yard sale.

Its like buying what was once a sturdy, dependable car with 250,000 miles on it that has been used to drive across deserts and through winter blizzards. The car was nice, once. By the time you get around to owning it, its going to pretty much be shot.

[Ikarus]

Since the M50/2 was THE kit lens for an ungodly amount of what was the most common camera at the time on the planet, you'll have a LOT kicking around that were misused, abused, and then discarded cheap at a pawn shop/on eBay/at a yard sale.

I don't think that explains it. The same is true for other lenses, such as the Helios 44 58mm f/2, of which even the most ancient variants have a great reputation, despite being susceptible to flare like no other.