Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

David H. Lipman wrote:

That's why you performed the spam in the first place !

I have NEVER confronted a spammer who didn't think what they did wasn't spam. Those that
are confrontable are in denial. Those that can't be confronted know they spam, do it
anyway, and that's why they can't be confronted.


You do have to give some leeway to people who simply, exuberantly endorse
products that they believe to be exceptional.

(I have no idea if the thread OP is a spammer or not, but it is high time for
this thread to die ... lest ye give too much attention and victory to the "spam"
if that's what it is ....)

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
RichA wrote:
I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.

You know that's been re-launched?

That's a hypothesis.

Pentax have announced a 40mm/f2.8 "Pancake" lens.
But there's no confirmation that this is simply
a re-launch of the old 40mm pancake as a DA lens.
We'll know more when we see shipping products.

I think saying the original pancake SUCKED is a
little over the top, too. It certainly wasn't a
great lens, but neither was it the worst lens in
the Pentax line-up.

John Francis wrote:
[]
You know that's been re-launched?

That's a hypothesis.

I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

Cheers,
David

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
John Francis wrote:
[]
You know that's been re-launched?

That's a hypothesis.

I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

Well, the big change is the absence of an aperture ring - it's a DA lens,
intended for use on cameras with body-mounted aperture controls.

I'm not sure whether the image circle is large enough to cover 35mm,
but I don't believe it is. That could mean it's a totally new design,
or it could just mean that Pentax have decided not to try to use the
weakest part of the old design (which got a bit soft in the corners).

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:16:57 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

RichA wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:


I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John


Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

The pancake lenses were meant to be discrete street shooting lenses. Scenes
where absolute sharpness/contrast were not as important as the ipmact of the
scene. Shoot with fast, grainy, contrasty, pushed 400 B&W and who cares how
sharp the damned lens is?

Did I say "Cheers?"

Cheers,
Alan.

Exactly how are they "discrete?"
-Rich

RichA wrote:


Exactly how are they "discrete?"
-Rich

Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Exactly how are they "discrete?"
-Rich

Have you ever seen two in the same place?

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:50:33 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

RichA wrote:


Exactly how are they "discrete?"
-Rich

Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.

Cheers,
Alan

I guess that's what made rangefinders popular in some circles, that,
and the fact they have no shutter sound and mirror slap to speak of.
-Rich

John Doe wrote:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
makes it spam.

--
Jeremy |

John Francis wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Exactly how are they "discrete?"
-Rich


Have you ever seen two in the same place?

LOL!



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.