All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on Any FA 28-70 F4 owners? at 02/03/2011 - 02:26
I use the 28-70 f4 and am quite happy with it.
it is a very good performer for it's price, and I use it for studio work along side the 16-45 f4... when I need zooms...
it is a very good performer for it's price, and I use it for studio work along side the 16-45 f4... when I need zooms...
Comment by Don posted on Any FA 28-70 F4 owners? at 01/03/2011 - 19:47
shashinka wrote:
Thanks for the responses so far, I should have said I never sell anything. I live with the fear of what if I need it in the future. I still have 2 gripped Chinon CE4’s and assorted Chinon lenses “Over 30 years old” A Pentax Z70 and a Pentax MZ5
Also hand on heart I should get shot of the lot, I have absolutely no patients. So my thinking is to put one lens on the K20D and use only that for 6 months. Does that make any sense?
Many thanks to the people who took the time to respond, it is much appreciated
Doesn't have to make sense...but try the 35 2.4...Thanks for the responses so far, I should have said I never sell anything. I live with the fear of what if I need it in the future. I still have 2 gripped Chinon CE4’s and assorted Chinon lenses “Over 30 years old” A Pentax Z70 and a Pentax MZ5
Also hand on heart I should get shot of the lot, I have absolutely no patients. So my thinking is to put one lens on the K20D and use only that for 6 months. Does that make any sense?
Many thanks to the people who took the time to respond, it is much appreciated
Comment by Don posted on What lenses to keep and what to get rid of and what new lens should I buy? at 28/02/2011 - 21:11
acmdccxlvi wrote:
First - the reason I posted twice was I didn't know where the most appropriate place to post was - so I tried two. Second, I'm not advocating vandalism - I'm merely re-stating a difference of two opinions I've come across. Third, the reason I haven't responded before is that I don't have 'net facilities at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can.
On the other hand, it could be argued that even passive urbexing is illegal trespass and doing "light, unstructural" damage (smashing windows, etc.) is not hurting anyone and is actually part of the natural decay of a building, as it tends, almost inevitably, to occur in places which are left unguarded.
When discussing the issue with those two, I'd recommend mentioning that damaging other peoples property is not a whole lot different than damaging thier persons... Do I have the right to smak them upside the head, just because thier head appears vacant?First - the reason I posted twice was I didn't know where the most appropriate place to post was - so I tried two. Second, I'm not advocating vandalism - I'm merely re-stating a difference of two opinions I've come across. Third, the reason I haven't responded before is that I don't have 'net facilities at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can.
On the other hand, it could be argued that even passive urbexing is illegal trespass and doing "light, unstructural" damage (smashing windows, etc.) is not hurting anyone and is actually part of the natural decay of a building, as it tends, almost inevitably, to occur in places which are left unguarded.
seriously, if you don't own it, leave it as you found it. If you got a problem with vacant properties, call your municipality and ask them to get it torn down, and maybe something out of there gets recycled. Trespassing is also wrong... if there is a sign, obey it. It should not have to be guarded if people out there had parents teaching them right from wrong.
In fact if one of my kids asked me that, I'd tell them this:
"the reason you asked is because you know it isn't right, but you're looking for somebody to tell you it is ok, so you can deny responsibility for your actions later."
link
Sometimes I read things between the lines that others do not. sometimes I'm wrong.
If I was unduly harsh in my frist response, I was also quick to apologise.
whelmed wrote:
I never got around to reposting my DA* after getting a brand new lens hood and lens cap. So now the lens is in mint condition with no scratches / marks that I can see. Comes with the lovely DA* lens cover, original box and papers. Just a FYI the box is a bit damaged, but it's still in one piece. I put her up on a well know auction site, but will cancel it for a forum'er. I was asking £600 on ebay shipped, but will do it for £535 for someone on the forum.
Let me know if anyone is interested / wants pics with the lens or of the lens. She is a real bute but I've got my 70-200mm siggy now so the DA* won't find much use.
you did not mention the lens had an sdm failure, had been repaired and you were still having concerns with it... in your description when you put it up for sale... or am I just confused?I never got around to reposting my DA* after getting a brand new lens hood and lens cap. So now the lens is in mint condition with no scratches / marks that I can see. Comes with the lovely DA* lens cover, original box and papers. Just a FYI the box is a bit damaged, but it's still in one piece. I put her up on a well know auction site, but will cancel it for a forum'er. I was asking £600 on ebay shipped, but will do it for £535 for someone on the forum.
Let me know if anyone is interested / wants pics with the lens or of the lens. She is a real bute but I've got my 70-200mm siggy now so the DA* won't find much use.
Sometimes I read things between the lines that others do not. sometimes I'm wrong.
If I was unduly harsh in my frist response, I was also quick to apologise.
Comment by Don posted on Getting upset with Pentax at 28/02/2011 - 15:15
Quote:
Getting upset with Pentax
Getting upset with Pentax
whelmed wrote:
So, I've just had my 2nd SDM lens failure. My first was on my DA* 50-135mm, which was a lens I just loved. (1)I had that repaired and then sold the lens on eBay as I just couldn't deal with the thought that it was going to happen again. I kept thinking I felt it slowing down when I was using it. I replaced it with a siggy 70-200mm f2.8 instead and love that lens.
So (2) hearing that if you get a good DA* 16-50mm that you're set as the problem was a lens de-glue that occurs. Well, now after 5 months my SDM has just died. Thankfully I've still got 30 days of waranty on this lens.
(3) I've lost faith in Pentax lenses now and am very seriously considering fire selling all my lenses and swapping systems. (4) If can-ikon had in body IS and WR I would go in a heartbeat. I'm completely limited to using 3rd party lenses due to this lack of faith which is just a horrible thing. Sorry for the grumble, I'm just quite annoyed.
You start off angry....So, I've just had my 2nd SDM lens failure. My first was on my DA* 50-135mm, which was a lens I just loved. (1)I had that repaired and then sold the lens on eBay as I just couldn't deal with the thought that it was going to happen again. I kept thinking I felt it slowing down when I was using it. I replaced it with a siggy 70-200mm f2.8 instead and love that lens.
So (2) hearing that if you get a good DA* 16-50mm that you're set as the problem was a lens de-glue that occurs. Well, now after 5 months my SDM has just died. Thankfully I've still got 30 days of waranty on this lens.
(3) I've lost faith in Pentax lenses now and am very seriously considering fire selling all my lenses and swapping systems. (4) If can-ikon had in body IS and WR I would go in a heartbeat. I'm completely limited to using 3rd party lenses due to this lack of faith which is just a horrible thing. Sorry for the grumble, I'm just quite annoyed.
(1) Pass the trash... If it was repaired, most people would be happy, if it was repaired and still not functioning, I wonder how happy the buyer would be who got stuck with a lemon..
(2) You've come up with a not heard of before issue on a lens that bears resemblance to a real issue with an older, completely different lens... so you're not checking your facts on the de-glue issue... (as for sdm, some people are actually repairing it themselves at no cost.) .. check out RiceHigh's blog... you'll like him.
(3) we get enough trolls the come and bash the brand, if you wanted advice, you might try not blending in so well with the trolls.
Sadly your first post in this thread, you came across like a temperamental, trollish, petty person looking for an argument. I responded that to you the way I do to the trolls.
A response like :
Quote:
Uhh, wtf? Who took a shit in your cornflakes this morning? I'm quite happy with the image quality I get out of any system thank you very much.
to an apology like:Uhh, wtf? Who took a shit in your cornflakes this morning? I'm quite happy with the image quality I get out of any system thank you very much.
Quote:
wasn't quite done typing before you responded... yes I was a little over the top... but really the 16-50 and 50 -135 are the first of their kind for Pentax... early adopters of "New" technology should expect to be the first to find out if there are design and or production problems..... which is what I was implying when I said:
I think you'll find with every brand and every product out there, new models, new technology or new production facilities always equal problems... from cars to toasters to cameras.... I'm positive other camera makers are facing similar challenges.
but you're right, sorry for being so abrupt and flippant in my remarks.
Demonstrates that you completely overlook anything nice and fixate on and over react to any perceived wrong... doesn't help your case for ranting about swapping brands.wasn't quite done typing before you responded... yes I was a little over the top... but really the 16-50 and 50 -135 are the first of their kind for Pentax... early adopters of "New" technology should expect to be the first to find out if there are design and or production problems..... which is what I was implying when I said:
I think you'll find with every brand and every product out there, new models, new technology or new production facilities always equal problems... from cars to toasters to cameras.... I'm positive other camera makers are facing similar challenges.
but you're right, sorry for being so abrupt and flippant in my remarks.
I'm not going to argue any further.
suggest you check out Richhighs blog.
If I did anything REALLY wrong it was not looking at your post count and realizing you've been here a while.
So again I'll say it, sorry.
Comment by Don posted on Getting upset with Pentax at 28/02/2011 - 14:29
lidy wrote:
Very well put, Don. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head for me.
for portraits, I always apply touch ups to a new layer... then when finished pull back the opacity to allow some of the original flaws to show through...... that to me always looks the most realistic.Very well put, Don. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head for me.
Comment by Don posted on Shy model! at 27/02/2011 - 19:10
Mike-P wrote:
I'm still holding off until wedding season is in full swing.... (april) before buying anything new..Don wrote:
Being the first one to catch the first wave is always fun... unless you're also the first one to find a shark in the water...
Tell me about it .. (7 week wait for a replacement unstained K-5)Being the first one to catch the first wave is always fun... unless you're also the first one to find a shark in the water...
but really, if Pentax was to offer up a decent evil or video cam that uses my k lenses, I'd have to risk jumping in first... but definately will buy from a reputable seller with good service reputation... the only thing worse than finding a flaw, is finding out you can't return or exchange it or get it fixed...
Comment by Don posted on Getting upset with Pentax at 27/02/2011 - 19:04
Does an image straight out of the camera with no touch ups actually reflect reality?
in my experience... no.
there are perspective and distortion issues depending on the lens..
there is the fact that the lens picks up details, colors and contrast that the eye and brain may see differently..
then there is movement, or rather the lack of it which give the viewer more time to study the "Flaws" that we get to ignore in our daily lives.
Simply put, a photo can exaggerate the complexion and imperfections that we normally miss in real life.
I'm sure seeing the cameras sharp resolution of fine lines, hairs and pimples combined with the cameras higher contrast which shows subtle reds and darkens shadows that our eyes don't normally see can be quite misleading to a subject.
from start to finish the photo is just an interpretation of the scene... you can stick with the cameras limits and interpretations or you can apply your own.
I say the final image should either be pleasing to the subject or at least not insulting, if it is to be successful.
in my experience... no.
there are perspective and distortion issues depending on the lens..
there is the fact that the lens picks up details, colors and contrast that the eye and brain may see differently..
then there is movement, or rather the lack of it which give the viewer more time to study the "Flaws" that we get to ignore in our daily lives.
Simply put, a photo can exaggerate the complexion and imperfections that we normally miss in real life.
I'm sure seeing the cameras sharp resolution of fine lines, hairs and pimples combined with the cameras higher contrast which shows subtle reds and darkens shadows that our eyes don't normally see can be quite misleading to a subject.
from start to finish the photo is just an interpretation of the scene... you can stick with the cameras limits and interpretations or you can apply your own.
I say the final image should either be pleasing to the subject or at least not insulting, if it is to be successful.
Comment by Don posted on Shy model! at 27/02/2011 - 18:41
Mike-P wrote:
wasn't quite done typing before you responded... yes I was a little over the top... but really the 16-50 and 50 -135 are the first of their kind for Pentax... early adopters of "New" technology should expect to be the first to find out if there are design and or production problems..... which is what I was implying when I said:Don wrote:
As far as pentax is concerned... if you feel you can't make a decent photo because of the name on the camera...
well...
good luck getting better photos with a different brand...
Where did that come from? As far as pentax is concerned... if you feel you can't make a decent photo because of the name on the camera...
well...
good luck getting better photos with a different brand...
Quote:
I think you'll find with every brand and every product out there, new models, new technology or new production facilities always equal problems... from cars to toasters to cameras.... I'm positive other camera makers are facing similar challenges.
but you're right, sorry for being so abrupt and flippant in my remarks.I think you'll find with every brand and every product out there, new models, new technology or new production facilities always equal problems... from cars to toasters to cameras.... I'm positive other camera makers are facing similar challenges.
Being the first one to catch the first wave is always fun... unless you're also the first one to find a shark in the water...
Comment by Don posted on Getting upset with Pentax at 27/02/2011 - 18:20
It was regarded by many (not JR it seems) as an excellent lens on film, but some people thought it didn't work so well on digital.
The element separation issue can apparently be fixed - in America. Don't know about here.
G
I find it works well on digital for studio and portrait work. the focus ring feels a little..vague compared to the nice damping you get on the "m" lenses, but other than that I have no complaints....