[jsherman999]

Speaking of Jay... you might have noticed someone is selling theirs on Craigslist in Minneapolis. I however do not get this lens either.

Exactly!

<1> Pentax FA* 24mm f2 like new in box. ($500 firm)
Top Pentax star lens
Lens hood, caps, 67mm UV filter, lens pouch, manual, warranty card, in LIKE NEW condition!!!

Why don't you buy that so I don't have to think about it?

(By the way, that ME super ad has an SMC-M 50 1.7 on it - very good deal for $25.)


.

[MrApollinax]

I noticed the 1.7 on there but I recently picked up the two Sigma Lenses in my sig. ($100 for BOTH!) along with an 18-250. I have satiated (for now) my need for lenses

[Wheatfield]

Where it used to be? If you are looking at the body currently it sits at 7 o'clock. Where did it use to be?
Sorry to ask, it's just curiosity...

The release used to be directly in line with the locking pin, closer to the 8:00 position.
The lens dit lined up perfectly with the release lever, so if you were mounting a lens in the dark, you put one thumb on the lens dit, one thumb on the release lever and "put your thumbs together".
This enabled very easy lens mounting without have to look.
Sorry for the poorly focused example, it was a pretty quick and dirty picture, but it illustrates the relationship of the dit and the lever when the lens is mounted but not twisted to the home position.

[jsherman999]

I noticed the 1.7 on there but I recently picked up the two Sigma Lenses in my sig. ($100 for BOTH!) along with an 18-250. I have satiated (for now) my need for lenses

You know, I called that guy about those Sigmas! He said they were gone pretty quickly. Good job!


.

[Gooshin]

Speaking of Jay... you might have noticed someone is selling theirs on Craigslist in Minneapolis. I however do not get this lens either.

put it on a film camera and you will realize why so many digital users are enjoying their DA14 F2.8 and want the upcoming DA15

[MrApollinax]

Just a quick question about the FA* 24. I was told once that Optically 28mm lenses were pretty simple to make. I am assuming then that the wider you go from 28mm the more difficult the lenses become to make? Am I also right to assume that this FA* 24mm was targeted more at Landscape photogs and the like?

You know, I called that guy about those Sigmas! He said they were gone pretty quickly. Good job!

.

Consider it payback from that last 50mm you got from the guy selling the FA*300 before I got to it

[Gooshin]

Just a quick question about the FA* 24. I was told once that Optically 28mm lenses were pretty simple to make. I am assuming then that the wider you go from 28mm the more difficult the lenses become to make? Am I also right to assume that this FA* 24mm was targeted more at Landscape photogs and the like?



Consider it payback from that last 50mm you got from the guy selling the FA*300 before I got to it

wide angle lenses are difficult to produce yes

wide angle fast lenses are even more difficult to produce

wide angle fast lenses that exhibit almost no barrel distortion are really difficult to produce

[MrApollinax]

Thanks for that. I'm guessing the FA*24 has the "*" in it because of the last two.

[jsherman999]

Consider it payback from that last 50mm you got from the guy selling the FA*300 before I got to it

Heh, I forgot you were involved in that! That was the FA 50 2.8 macro, and that was a sweet lens for the price. Of course, the guy who really made out was the one who bought his F* 300 for $600. I saw the lens, it was perfect - seller originally was asking $450, but came to his senses a bit.

Anyway, what intrigues me about the FA* 24 is that it has very, very good center sharpness wide open, and extremely good contrast, but not so hot on the corners (wide open) - which means it can take very 3D-ish shots that look very sharp even wide open.

It is worth to mention that the lens seems to produce a very high degree of contrast even at f/2. "Sharpness" is a combination of resolution and contrast so subjectively the image results may appear better than suggested by the graphs - probably one of the reasons for the varying user impressions out there.

Photozone's take.

That pretty much sounds perfect as an indoor shooter, and then of course stopped down, the corners sharpen up and it's probably an exceptional landscape/outdoor lens.

So I just might get this lens. (Get it, not buy it...)

.

[rparmar]

10-17 fisheye. I know people love fisheyes, but I just don't get them. At all.

They are good for exactly one thing: photos of hip young bands that want to look exactly the same as all previous hip young bands.

Since I've discovered the Cosina 55 1.2, I get the 1.2 aperture more now - but the Cosina cost me $200, and that was about all I was willing to spend to get what I consider a specialty lens.

I don't get the Cosina either. Wide open it's like smearing vaseline all over the image. Totally useless. I will sell mine eventually, but keep trying to find some purpose for it.

Same goes for all those wacky bokeh Russian lenses. All they produce is a crap effect I could do in Photoshop... except I can do it much nicer!

On APS-C I pick 50 up only for portraits, and only if my 40ltd can't cope with low light, but other than that I don't see reason of having FA50/1.4.

I see no point to 50mm and can barely find a use for the much superior FA43.

And I don't get why people recommend an 85mm as a good portrait lens. That's a 127mm equivalent when used on a crop sensor - too long, I think.

I agree and find the FA77 perfect on the longer end. I am sure the DA*55 will be perfect on the shorter end.

Anyone not get the FA* 24mm f/2?

I have not got it, but that may not be what you are asking.

Actually, just lend me a copy so I can see if it's better than the 24mm f/2 I do own.

[Gooshin]

I don't get the Cosina either. Wide open it's like smearing vaseline all over the image. Totally useless. I will sell mine eventually, but keep trying to find some purpose for it.

Same goes for all those wacky bokeh Russian lenses. All they produce is a crap effect I could do in Photoshop... except I can do it much nicer!

yeah okay

i'd like to see you try

[Torphoto]

For me it's any pancake lens. But to show my open-mindedness I just bought a DA40, looking forward to my forthcoming epiphany, I guess.


And I don't get why people recommend an 85mm as a good portrait lens. That's a 127mm equivalent when used on a crop sensor - too long, I think. It means moving the camera further from the subject, thus flattening the perspective. The recommended FL was usually in the 85 to 105mm range on film.

.

First I love the pancake lenses, they make perfect sense to me, a small sharp fast AF lens it just wonderful to use. Add their even sharpness across the frame and good cost/performance ratio they are actually bargains.

As for FL for portraits, I love longer FL, I would and have shot portraits with a 300mm already, nothing makes the background disappear better.

[Gooshin]

As for FL for portraits, I love longer FL, I would and have shot portraits with a 300mm already, nothing makes the background disappear better.

moving the background away from the subject makes it disappear better..

[jsherman999]

First I love the pancake lenses, they make perfect sense to me, a small sharp fast AF lens it just wonderful to use. Add their even sharpness across the frame and good cost/performance ratio they are actually bargains.

As for FL for portraits, I love longer FL, I would and have shot portraits with a 300mm already, nothing makes the background disappear better.

I know Ben was also saying (I think) that he likes portraits at really long FL's.

This is at 200mm, I know the image get's 'flattened' at that length, but I still
like it for portrait

[zntgrg]

Pentax 50/1.4. I really love fifties (owning a 58/2, a 50/2 a 50/2.8 and a broken 50/1.8) but i've never seen a fabuolous pic taken with it. And the 50/2 is a Pentax too, and i like it