Originally posted by thePiRaTE!! .....
Frankly, I don't get MOST lenses. I wouldn't waste any of the effort I spend working
to afford a lens that I didn't research to be at the top of its class at _something_
otherwise, really, whats the point? Its just going to pass light as generically as the
last thing. My phone can take pictures like that these days. But, we research.
We learn. Knowledge is power, and the kingdom is ours. What we make of it is
another thing
Kelly, I don't know if you've summarized the above elsewhere before, but this is
what I've gleaned about you already, from the summation of your lens reviews
and musings - You have LBA, it's just very focused, and slow-burning.
You are the Clovis-point hunter who has sighted the huge elk, and tracks it across
new fields, through new landscapes, down river banks and across mountain
ranges, across the Bering straight to new worlds....
I'm the more the guy who says "hey, has anyone ever actually
tried these
shellfish? They're excellent! And I think those Reindeer will be coming back soon...
I think I'll stick around Kamchatka for a while longer..."
Originally posted by troyz 1980's Bayonet Takumars.
(Not to say these are necessarily bad lenses. . . I just don't understand
why Pentax ever produced them. . .)
Ryan S's image juxtaposition above says it all.
Originally posted by Ben_Edict Here I can chime in. Why buy lenses with inferior
coating, when one can have the smc versions?
In some cases, Super Takumars (vs S-M-C or SMC) actually
do have nice
coatings, but just were not marketed as such. I still think I get better images
from the Super Takumar 135 3.5 vs. S-M-C Tak 135 3.5.
Quote: But I have a long list of lenses, I won't buy - or won't use, even if I had
bought one:
...
- FA 20-35/4 - the same as the 28-135 for me, never liked it and sold
it a couple of months ago
....
Ben
I actually tried one of these in a store last week - it was pretty great, except
for 1) bit soft at 35mm. and 2) bad shooting-into-the-sun flare compared to
the 12-24.
But it was excellent otherwise.
Originally posted by Nesster Personally, I just don't get the 135mm focal length.
I mean, intellectually, yea, but using one, I've never become comfortable. I
suppose that's why I have 3 of them now, to try to learn.
It's the same FOV as about 200mm that film was - so the FL does have it's
uses. personally, I love the FL - it's perfect for shooting people out in the back
yard, or shooting the little guy's swimming class from the pool edge. Lotsa
other uses like that.
Originally posted by mk07138 For me, I was completely underwhelmed by the
DA 35mm limited. I still "get" the lens and the results I got were good, but it
just doesn't fit me as well as I thought it would. After a little while it was
replaced by my A 28mm f2.8 as my standard walk around prime and will be
sold relatively soon to finance my purchase of a used FA 100mm f2.8 macro.
...
Lotta people feel that way. I think its one of those lenses that fits in the
middle just perfectly. That, and the colors just blow up in your brain. To me,
it's a paradigm of modern lens design, and is a good example for the
"they're making them better now" argument.
.