 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006A Tale of Two Pentaxes...
While at the Javitz show on Thursday I had the opportunity to sample both the 43/1.9 Limited lens in black (Yum!) and the somewhat rare to find (or buy) 50mm f/1.4 FA - unfortunately I was only able to test these on a K10 (DSLR) body (and a K100?) so with the 1.5 crop factor I did not get the chance to see the true difference in angle of view/coverage I would have gotten had I used a full frame 35mm SLR (mine unfortunately was not with me at the time). The 43 had very nice bokeh but the 1.4's bokeh was "sublimeish". I am trying to choose between the two lenses, can't afford to get them both (and even getting one might take a bit of saving too). I am aware of the 43's "sublime" micro-contrast and 3D bokeh, but only through web examples. I also know that it is less than sharp wide open but improves a stop or two down and that it has fall off in focus/slight exposure darkening arond the edges?/corners. As just said the 50mm 1.4 has sublime bokeh but its bokeh (to me) doesn't appear as three dimensional in its transition as the Limited lens (again from web examples only - that's all, besides the show, that I have to go on other than other's opinions). I have also been to Stan Halpin's site (pardon my English/spelling) and the PDML (not to mention read posts in this group on the subject - but I'll mention it anyways ;-)). Cost (when/if I can afford them) is not a factor (or won't be when I have the money ;-)). I can't decide on which lens I should get first and I am equally torn between both lens's bokeh rendition and am not sure whether the 7mm difference will or won't afffect my shooting style (mainly half shots of people w/ a selective focus background and some environment (which leaves out the 77 Limited and 85 lenses in their various incarnations) and a wide range of general usage). I'd flip a coin to decide but it would probably stand on edge ;-). Any thoughts (both from Pentaxian users/others)? Thanks in advance :-). >While at the Javitz show on Thursday I had the opportunity to sample >both the 43/1.9 Limited lens in black (Yum!) and the somewhat rare to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Thanks in advance :-). The problem is that people will prefer one lens or the other according to their personal taste. They are very different lenses, and their differences are pretty clear cut. So your problem is actually in deciding what your personal taste is. :-) On maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.4 wins with almost a whole stop more useable aperture. If you shoot in low light, the f/1.4 will allow you to make the shots you simply couldn't get with an f/1.9 maximum aperture. On sharpness, the 43mm Limited wins. Wide open, it is significantly sharper than the 50mm FA. However, at f/4-5.6 there is little to choose between them, and at f/8, the 50mm FA is very sharp indeed. On bokeh, the 50mm FA wins. Wide open, its background bokeh is as smooth as any lens I have ever used, including a selection of Leica glass known for its bokeh. The 43mm Limited has bokeh that is (in my opinion, but based on extensive tests) slightly on the harsh side of neutral. Specular highlights are rendered brighter on the edge than in the middle, and that type of bokeh can never be described as "smooth". On 3D micro-contrast, the 43mm Limited wins. The 3D rendering is similar to that of classic Zeiss lenses. The 50mm FA does not have the same ability to separate elements of the shot at differing distances from the lens. So it's up to you. Decide what is more important, and make your choice! My own choice was the 50mm f/1.4, in my case the A version. That's because I value smooth its superior wide-open bokeh over the 43mm Limited's superior 3D micro-contrast. The only way to get both is to buy Leica lenses, which is what I did. There is another possibility; the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 FA has even better sharpness than the 50mm f/1.4, and the bokeh is very nearly as good. Its 3D micro-contrast is somewhere between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 43mm Limited. It is also much cheaper to buy - alas it is no longer available new, but used versions can be picked up on eBay for very little money. The SMC-F and SMC-A versions are even cheaper. That's the lens I would recommend if you want a strong compromise between the 50mm f/1.4 FA and the 43mm Limited, and especially if the high cost of the those lenses presents a problem at this time. Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it goes. Thanks Tony. An excellent, detailed and thoughtful reply. My response folloows sandwhiched between your response below... > >While at the Javitz show on Thursday I had the opportunity to sample > >both the 43/1.9 Limited lens in black (Yum!) and the somewhat rare to [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > differences are pretty clear cut. So your problem is actually in > deciding what your personal taste is. :-) I prefer coffee and chocolate over vanilla, but that wont help me here ;-) Or may be it will... If the 43 is coffee and the 50/1.4 is chocolate then I prefer the Jamoca Almond Fudge... Well that worked -- not ;-) :-) > On maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.4 wins with almost a whole stop more > useable aperture. If you shoot in low light, the f/1.4 will allow you > to make the shots you simply couldn't get with an f/1.9 maximum > aperture. Very true. But on the other hand I wouldn't be adverse switching from a slower (ie. 200) to a faster (ie. ISO 400) speed film when/if the light requires it. > On sharpness, the 43mm Limited wins. Wide open, it is significantly > sharper than the 50mm FA. Good to know. That surprises me, from what I heard about the 43's softness wide open I was expecting the 50/1.4 to be better in this area. However, at f/4-5.6 there is little to > choose between them, and at f/8, the 50mm FA is very sharp indeed. > > On bokeh, the 50mm FA wins. Wide open, its background bokeh is as > smooth as any lens I have ever used, including a selection of Leica > glass known for its bokeh. Its a poor man's Leica bokeh or "Polkeh" for short - bring in the accordians, LOL. :-) The 43mm Limited has bokeh that is (in my > opinion, but based on extensive tests) slightly on the harsh side of > neutral. Specular highlights are rendered brighter on the edge than > in the middle, and that type of bokeh can never be described as > "smooth". Actually at the show the (specular lights I saw in the distance had neutral bokeh (a flat evenly illuminated disc) no "bell syndrome" (bright ringing along the edges). However I had the lens stopped down to about f/2.8 I believe. Ironically I did see a posterization/rings around the hilights in a K100 (or K110, I forget which) inkjet sample image (shot of a parked bicycle on a street sidewalk at night with people walking in the background) but this was probably due to poor camera processing of an extremely bright light against a darkish background > On 3D micro-contrast, the 43mm Limited wins. The 3D rendering is > similar to that of classic Zeiss lenses. The 50mm FA does not have > the same ability to separate elements of the shot at differing > distances from the lens. If only there were a 50mm Limited combining the best of both the 43 (micro contrast, 3D bokeh and build quality with the sublime almost liquidy soft backgrounds of the 50/1.4 (and 1.7 too). > So it's up to you. Decide what is more important, and make your > choice! The more I know the harder it gets to choose -- how's the bokeh on a pinhole lens?,I hear they're cheap and they only come in one flavor - air. > My own choice was the 50mm f/1.4, in my case the A version. That's > because I value smooth its superior wide-open bokeh over the 43mm > Limited's superior 3D micro-contrast. The only way to get both is to > buy Leica lenses, which is what I did. I guess there's no Leica to Pentax adapter. Don't want to have to buy a Canon EOS (with adapter) just to get a Leica lens ;-). > There is another possibility; the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 FA has even better > sharpness than the 50mm f/1.4, and the bokeh is very nearly as good. > Its 3D micro-contrast is somewhere between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 43mm > Limited. I actually tried the Pentax 50/1.7 FA (a friend has it and I've shot with it). It has excellent/soft bokeh and good sharpness wide open (and slightly stopped down if I remember my prints/data correctly but I personally find the micro-contrast as normal (maybe its just the way I respond to it) as opposed to the 43's more etched Leica-like subtleties. Have you shot with the 43 wide open much? Were you aware of any softness, exposure vignetting and/or lack of sharpness wide open? If so what was the subject matter, lighting conditions, etc. and did they have any influence over what defects you saw (ie. if you take lots of available light shots with either plain walls or bright skies in the background you'd be more likely to see exposure fall off, if you take shots of the sides of buildings, bridges or other intricately detailed shots you might be able to notice edge sharpness fall off and/or distortion...). > It is also much cheaper to buy - alas it is no longer available new, > but used versions can be picked up on eBay for very little money. The > SMC-F and SMC-A versions are even cheaper. That's the lens I would > recommend if you want a strong compromise between the 50mm f/1.4 FA > and the 43mm Limited, and especially if the high cost of the those > lenses presents a problem at this time. It was actually a three-legged race in the beginning - the 50/1.7 being the third lens/leg of the race - but once I saw how sublime the bokeh was of the 50/1.4 I figured that a slight drop in sharpness wide open (if any?) would be a good trade off for sublime bokeh and the price difference wouldn't make or break me one way or the other so that narrowed it down to just the two legs of the 43 (and its micro contrast/3D bokeh) vs. the 50/1.4 (and its sublime bokeh). From past experience I'd say most of the time I'd be using either lens between wide open and f/4 to get a selective focus (depending on distance to the subject and the background) effect. Speaking of which, have you shot any close (5 feet or less) shots of people/objects with either lens and has their been a great or at least significant difference in selective focus blurring of the background between the longer/faster 50/1.4 and the shorter/slightly slower (just under a stop) 43 Limited? > Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it goes. I'll let you know. I'm still deciding how to decide right now :-) Its like deciding whether I want to keep my left or right arm... perhaps Ill go with prosthetics... ;-) Thanks again and in advance for your reply/ies, Tony. >Thanks Tony. An excellent, detailed and thoughtful reply. I do try. But I'm not the Pentax expert here; Peter Boorman (Bandicoot) has knowledge that I am never likely to equal, let alone surpass, especially as I only use my small remaining Pentax outfit when my Canon EOS outfit (with Canon, Leica and Carl Zeiss glass) lets me down ... >My response >folloows sandwhiched between your response below... OK, I will try to keep my replies brief. >> On maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.4 wins with almost a whole stop more >> useable aperture. If you shoot in low light, the f/1.4 will allow you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >slower (ie. 200) to a faster (ie. ISO 400) speed film when/if the >light requires it. OK, understood. That's almost a pity, because the advantage of an f/1.4 lens extends far beyond low light shooting. If you want to separate a sharply focused subject from a defocused background, a 50mm at f/1.4 does it vastly better than a 43mm f/1.9, especially one with bokeh that is less than smooth. >> On sharpness, the 43mm Limited wins. Wide open, it is significantly >> sharper than the 50mm FA. > >Good to know. That surprises me, from what I heard about the 43's >softness wide open I was expecting the 50/1.4 to be better in this >area. I am assuming that the FA version is optically similar to the A version, which is the one I tested in detail. I expect it has the same optical formula but different, better coatings. The A version is a gem. It is significantly sharper than the apparently identical M version, which is very soft wide open. The optical formula was slightly changed for the A version, and coatings improved. Outside the Leica range, I think this is probably the finest 50mm f/1.4 lens ever made. >> On bokeh, the 50mm FA wins. Wide open, its background bokeh is as >> smooth as any lens I have ever used, including a selection of Leica >> glass known for its bokeh. > >Its a poor man's Leica bokeh or "Polkeh" for short - bring in the >accordians, LOL. :-) There's nothing "poor man" about this lens. It is optically superior to every version of the Leica M 50mm f/1.4 Summilux except the current ASPH version. That is high praise. My only slight criticism is that, like most Pentax lenses, the rectilinear distortion is higher than I would like, for example in architectural photography. > The 43mm Limited has bokeh that is (in my >> opinion, but based on extensive tests) slightly on the harsh side of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >camera processing of an extremely bright light against a darkish >background A 6 MP DSLR is so far away from the resolving power of film that I would prefer not to judge lenses on their performance on that type of camera. Subtle out of focus effects are easily smudged by noise reduction and then don't reappear after unsharp mask is applied. >> On 3D micro-contrast, the 43mm Limited wins. The 3D rendering is >> similar to that of classic Zeiss lenses. The 50mm FA does not have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(micro contrast, 3D bokeh and build quality with the sublime almost >liquidy soft backgrounds of the 50/1.4 (and 1.7 too). I think the 50mm f/1.7 comes very close to that ideal. It also has lower rectilinear distortion than either of the other lenses. >I guess there's no Leica to Pentax adapter. Don't want to have to buy a >Canon EOS (with adapter) just to get a Leica lens ;-). I realise you are not serious here, but used Leica R bodies are very cheap now, and so are the older R lenses. Only if you want the very latest 3-cam/ROM Leica R glass does it get expensive. An R5, R6 or R7 body and three lenses is now a realistic proposition for those still using film. >I actually tried the Pentax 50/1.7 FA (a friend has it and I've shot >with it). It has excellent/soft bokeh and good sharpness wide open (and >slightly stopped down if I remember my prints/data correctly but I >personally find the micro-contrast as normal (maybe its just the way I >respond to it) as opposed to the 43's more etched Leica-like >subtleties. I don't disagree about the 50mm f/1.7, although I feel that the micro-contrast is more apparent than with the 50mm f/1.4. But the only people who would describe the 43mm as Leica-like are Pentax enthusiasts. It is not remotely up to Leica standards. Its micro-contrast is interesting but it falls down in too many areas to justify comparison with Leica glass. For example, compare the 43mm f/1.9 Limited with the inexpensive 1970s 40mm f/2 Summicron-C for the Leica CL. The Summicron beats the Limited in every single aspect - sharpness, distortion, bokeh, 3D micro-contrast, and even price! Leica M users find the 40mm Summi compares very well with the (justifiably) much-lauded 35mm Summicron which sells for several times the price. A Leica CL outfit with 40mm f/2 Summicron-C and 90mm f/4 Elmar-C lenses is a very good buy and offers a very low cost entry to Leica ownership. But be warned, you would probably be hooked! >Have you shot with the 43 wide open much? Were you aware of any >softness, exposure vignetting and/or lack of sharpness wide open? If so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >shots you might be able to notice edge sharpness fall off and/or >distortion...). My comparison shots are long gone. Once I made the decision to go with the 50mm f/1.4 there was no need to keep them. But I recall being impressed with the wide open performance. From memory, the sharpness was very good in the centre - better than the 50mm f/1.4 but not the f/1.7 - and good at the edges. Vignetting was OK, if I recall correctly. I cannot recall how the lenses compared at f/2, which is a major omission. I'm sorry. I suppose the availability of f/1.4 weighed fairly heavily when I made my decision. >It was actually a three-legged race in the beginning - the 50/1.7 being >the third lens/leg of the race - but once I saw how sublime the bokeh [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >between the longer/faster 50/1.4 and the shorter/slightly slower (just >under a stop) 43 Limited? I recall that I found that, compared with the 50mm f/1.4, the 43mm had "Limited" ability (sorry!) to defocus backgrounds when used wide open, partly because of the "Limited" maximum aperture and partly because of its very disappointing harsh rendition of out of focus highlights. That was more than enough reasons for me to reject the 43mm lens. Perhaps you should try to borrow both lenses and conduct a trial of your own in exactly the conditions you find most important. In the end, there is no substitute for conducting your own tests! >> Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it goes. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thanks again and in advance for your reply/ies, Tony. You're welcome. I would very much like you to have Peter Boorman's opinion on these lenses, as I know he has a rather more favourable opinion of the 43mm Limited than I do. In the interests of balance, a contrary view would be welcome. Bandicoot, where are you? ;-) Some quick responses to your much appreciated responses... :-) VARIOUS SNIPS > >Thanks Tony. An excellent, detailed and thoughtful reply. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when my Canon EOS outfit (with Canon, Leica and Carl Zeiss glass) lets > me down ... I'm anxious to here what Peter (as well as anybody else with experience) has to say too. I don't know exactly how Zeiss/Leica glass would let you down, even Canon (regular not L stuff) is adequate for most uses. But on the other hand I wouldn't be adverse switching from a > >slower (ie. 200) to a faster (ie. ISO 400) speed film when/if the > >light requires it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at f/1.4 does it vastly better than a 43mm f/1.9, especially one with > bokeh that is less than smooth. Hilight rendition aside, 1 stop makes _that_ much difference with regards to selective focus effects? Outside the Leica range, I think this is probably the > finest 50mm f/1.4 lens ever made. Better than the 50mm/1.4 Zeiss Planar Pop raved about a few years back? > >> On bokeh, the 50mm FA wins. Wide open, its background bokeh is as > >> smooth as any lens I have ever used, including a selection of Leica [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to every version of the Leica M 50mm f/1.4 Summilux except the current > ASPH version. That is high praise. High praise indeed. I meant nothing ill-fitting about the Pentax lens, what I meant was that its price (in relation to a Leica lens of the same aperture/focal length) made it a "Poor man's Leica bokeh" lens (ie. something normal folks without multi-digit bank accounts could afford, used or new. My only slight criticism is that, > like most Pentax lenses, the rectilinear distortion is higher than I > would like, for example in architectural photography. Fortunately, the people I photograph have few straight lines :-). > > The 43mm Limited has bokeh that is (in my > >> opinion, but based on extensive tests) slightly on the harsh side of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >(bright ringing along the edges). However I had the lens stopped down > >to about f/2.8 I believe. Most? if not all were probalby taken at 2.8 at the show I might have taken a few wide open but can't recall. Should have brought a digital media card (and definitely should have brought at least my ZX-5n. Ironically I did see a posterization/rings > >around the hilights in a K100 (or K110, I forget which) inkjet sample > >image (shot of a parked bicycle on a street sidewalk at night with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera. Subtle out of focus effects are easily smudged by noise > reduction and then don't reappear after unsharp mask is applied. Even though what you say is true about the resolving power of a 6MP DSLR, especially for large blow-ups, there was something ver funky (read "strange"/"weird" about the way it was processing some of the background areas in the shot with its posterization effects. The average person wouldn't know what to look for or even care if they saw it, possibly, but I would. If I wanted strange color effects I'd play with curves (or whatever) to get it. On an unrelated note, they had a large 20x? 200x? crop comparison between the K10 with 16-45 lens and the D80 with either the 18-70 or 18-50? lens. The Pentax smoked the Nikon. (I'm only reporting what I saw, so no flames, please, Nikonians). From what I believe they told me were unaltered digi files, the Nikon's rendition with its kit lens (I'm pretty sure lens here plays as much of a factor as camera in this instance) was bluish, contrasty, lost hilights and details not only due to contrast but lack of resolution. The Pentax's lens' color rendition was not only warmer and possibly more saturated but it had a clarity (detail and possibly presence too) the Nikon lens couldn't touch. Sorry if I gross anyone out here but the Pentax showed "gobs" more detail in the pores on the nose (on the Nikon most of those pores vanished completely which might make it a better lens for portraiture if the color rendition were better and it was less "soot and chalk" contrasty) and somewhat more detail on her small eyelashes. For anyone that cares, the model was Asian (Japaneese?) and she had some out of focus folliage and a small piece of sky in the background. Conditions were overcast. Of the 10MP cameras I've seen, best results came from the Sony a, which amazingly, in both detail/clarity, color rendition and saturation as well as overall "look" came the closes to film (if not real life) I've ever seen in the 13x19" Epson? inkjet sample book I perused at the Sony booth. Just amazing quality. Probably due in part to its new "Bionz" color engine. Unfortunately the autofocus seemed somewhat slow under the dim conditions and longish zoom I had on the camera and the viewfinder, of course, was rather darkish (which, admittedly may also be due tosome extent to the slow aperture of the zoom and the lowish light levels around the booth, at least compared to the seemingly more brightly and evenly lit Pentax booth. The Sony a is based on the Maxxum 5D body. What they really need is the innards/AF module of the Maxxum 7 (film camera) in the same sized body. Street price, supposedly, is in the high fives for the body USD so it would seem a bargain, given the limitations I've just mentioned. Some Zeiss lenses are being made for it (16-45 zoom as well as some fixed focal length teles, no normal lens, unfortunately). On the K10 Pentax besides the same? sensor as the Sony (at least both are 10MP and have built-in anti-shake and sensor cleaning) I liked the TAV mode (which allows one to switch to aperture or shutter priority and the camera bumps up (or down) the ISO automatically when the shutterspeed/aperture is insufficient for the light level (brilliant idea if you are shooting quickly on the fly and want to make specific settings of aperure and/or shutterspeed without having to reset the ISO) and it also has a SV (sensitivity) mode that allows you to set ISO within a range just by the use of the thumbwheel. I also liked its in camera color wheel that allows you to move a dot between quadrants to fine tune color balance exactly. > >> On 3D micro-contrast, the 43mm Limited wins. The 3D rendering is > >> similar to that of classic Zeiss lenses. The 50mm FA does not have [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > body and three lenses is now a realistic proposition for those still > using film. I want less equipment/systems not more, though it rarely seems to work out that way... > >I actually tried the Pentax 50/1.7 FA (a friend has it and I've shot > >with it). It has excellent/soft bokeh and good sharpness wide open (and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > compares very well with the (justifiably) much-lauded 35mm Summicron > which sells for several times the price. Yes, but can you Krazy (super) glue it to a Pentax K mount? > A Leica CL outfit with 40mm f/2 Summicron-C and 90mm f/4 Elmar-C > lenses is a very good buy and offers a very low cost entry to Leica > ownership. But be warned, you would probably be hooked! I probably would, except for the fact that I can't stand not seeing the bokeh so a rangefinder camera or lens, no matter how great is out of the question for me - please don't suggest a Leica M8 as a solution unless you plan to buy one for me ;-). > >Have you shot with the 43 wide open much? Were you aware of any > >softness, exposure vignetting and/or lack of sharpness wide open? If so [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > major omission. I'm sorry. I suppose the availability of f/1.4 > weighed fairly heavily when I made my decision. That's OK, thanks forthe other coments, though. > I recall that I found that, compared with the 50mm f/1.4, the 43mm had > "Limited" ability (sorry!) to defocus backgrounds when used wide open, > partly because of the "Limited" maximum aperture and partly because of > its very disappointing harsh rendition of out of focus highlights. > That was more than enough reasons for me to reject the 43mm lens. 7 little mms of difference and one f/stop, who would have thought that the selective focus effect would be that marked. > Perhaps you should try to borrow both lenses and conduct a trial of > your own in exactly the conditions you find most important. In the > end, there is no substitute for conducting your own tests! Yes, definitely but there are no "Pentax candy shops" around here, my friend only has the 50/1.7 (and I know how that looks already) and my finances can't swing buying both lenses from a camera shop and returning the one I don't like as much minus the restocking fee. But good idea... > >> Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it goes. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ;-) "Calling all Bandicoots" are you there? ;-) :-) Thanks again. >Some quick responses to your much appreciated responses... :-) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't know exactly how Zeiss/Leica glass would let you down, even >Canon (regular not L stuff) is adequate for most uses. I've never had problems with the lenses, it is just that the camera body occasionally lets me down. >> OK, understood. That's almost a pity, because the advantage of an >> f/1.4 lens extends far beyond low light shooting. If you want to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hilight rendition aside, 1 stop makes _that_ much difference with >regards to selective focus effects? Absolutely! >Outside the Leica range, I think this is probably the >> finest 50mm f/1.4 lens ever made. > >Better than the 50mm/1.4 Zeiss Planar Pop raved about a few years back? Yes, because the Pentax has far superior bokeh. Zeiss has always optimised designs for sharpness, low distortion and 3D micro contrast. Good bokeh has been delivered by luck or by accident. ;-) >> >> On bokeh, the 50mm FA wins. Wide open, its background bokeh is as >> >> smooth as any lens I have ever used, including a selection of Leica [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >(ie. something normal folks without multi-digit bank accounts could >afford, used or new. Way back in the days of SMC Takumars, the price differential between the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and the Leica Summilux 59mm f/1.4 was not that great. Since then, Pentax has embraced composite plastics and mass production; Leica still makes lenses largely by hand. > My only slight criticism is that, >> like most Pentax lenses, the rectilinear distortion is higher than I >> would like, for example in architectural photography. > >Fortunately, the people I photograph have few straight lines :-). So that's why Pentax lenses are a good choice for people photography! >> > The 43mm Limited has bokeh that is (in my >> >> opinion, but based on extensive tests) slightly on the harsh side of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >average person wouldn't know what to look for or even care if they saw >it, possibly, but I would. Some months ago I read an article about the difference between the way Japanese people looked at an image and the way Americans regarded it. A much higher proportion of Japanese valued the quality of the areas away from the subject. Do you have Japanese blood? :-) >If I wanted strange color effects I'd play >with curves (or whatever) to get it. Exactly. Or you might buy a Konica Minolta 7D. >On an unrelated note, they had a large 20x? 200x? crop comparison >between the K10 with 16-45 lens and the D80 with either the 18-70 or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the model was Asian (Japaneese?) and she had some out of focus folliage >and a small piece of sky in the background. Conditions were overcast. That's interesting. I haven't had a chance to try the K10D or the D80 but the Pentax 16-45mm is a very good lens. I was at the Pentax dealer earlier this week and he was offering this lens at an excellent price. I was sorely tempted, but as I said before, my Pentax gear only gets called out when the Canon fails me and I can use the money better elsewhere. The Nikon 18-70mm is a fine performer, much better than the average kit lens, so I suspect most of the difference you saw is likely to be in the post-processing. I have tried the D200 and was very impressed; it certainly beats the EOS 30D. But the D80 is a bit of an enigma. >Of the 10MP cameras I've seen, best results came from the Sony a, which >amazingly, in both detail/clarity, color rendition and saturation as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >light levels around the booth, at least compared to the seemingly more >brightly and evenly lit Pentax booth. The Sony a100 is a remarkable achievement. It follows two truly woeful efforts from Konica Minolta who deserved to go bust. Instead, they got rescued, and Sony have done well with the a100. >The Sony a is based on the Maxxum >5D body. What they really need is the innards/AF module of the Maxxum 7 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it (16-45 zoom as well as some fixed focal length teles, no normal >lens, unfortunately). The Zeiss 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 will apparently be available in the Sony mount before long. >On the K10 Pentax besides the same? sensor as the Sony (at least both >are 10MP and have built-in anti-shake and sensor cleaning) I liked the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >camera color wheel that allows you to move a dot between quadrants to >fine tune color balance exactly. I think the Pentax K10D uses a similar sensor to the D200, not the D80. They are all 10 MP. >> I realise you are not serious here, but used Leica R bodies are very >> cheap now, and so are the older R lenses. Only if you want the very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I want less equipment/systems not more, though it rarely seems to work >out that way... I understand. I was merely pointing out that Leica R ownership recently got much cheaper. >> A Leica CL outfit with 40mm f/2 Summicron-C and 90mm f/4 Elmar-C >> lenses is a very good buy and offers a very low cost entry to Leica [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the question for me - please don't suggest a Leica M8 as a solution >unless you plan to buy one for me ;-). I'm buying one for myself, so that must come first. ;-) >> I recall that I found that, compared with the 50mm f/1.4, the 43mm had >> "Limited" ability (sorry!) to defocus backgrounds when used wide open, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >7 little mms of difference and one f/stop, who would have thought that >the selective focus effect would be that marked. The effect of the two combined is significant. >> Perhaps you should try to borrow both lenses and conduct a trial of >> your own in exactly the conditions you find most important. In the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >returning the one I don't like as much minus the restocking fee. But >good idea... In this case, eBay could be your friend. Many of my comparisons were done by buying the relevant lenses on eBay and re-selling the one(s) I did not want. But the 43mm was a loaner from my friendly Pentax dealer. >"Calling all Bandicoots" are you there? ;-) :-) > >Thanks again. You're welcome. > "thebokehking" <thebokehking@yahoo.com> wrote: ...more than the RAM of my computer could hold ;-). SEVERAL SNIPS LATER... > >> OK, understood. That's almost a pity, because the advantage of an > >> f/1.4 lens extends far beyond low light shooting. If you want to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Absolutely! Surprised! :-) > > My only slight criticism is that, > >> like most Pentax lenses, the rectilinear distortion is higher than I > >> would like, for example in architectural photography. Why do you think they call it "Bendtax"? ;-) > >Fortunately, the people I photograph have few straight lines :-). ...they're all comedians. Sorry, had to get that one in there ;-). > >Even though what you say is true about the resolving power of a 6MP > >DSLR, especially for large blow-ups, there was something ver funky [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Do you have Japanese blood? :-) No, I'm just not a fan of posterization unless its done on purpose! LOL > >If I wanted strange color effects I'd play > >with curves (or whatever) to get it. > > Exactly. Or you might buy a Konica Minolta 7D. Actually, I forget who does/did the Sunday Morning Photographer column on photo.net/etc., but he loved the life-like color of the 7D and said so in one of his articles. > >The Sony a is based on the Maxxum > >5D body. What they really need is the innards/AF module of the Maxxum 7 > >(film camera) in the same sized body. Street price, supposedly, is in > >the high fives for the body USD so it would seem a bargain, given the > >limitations I've just mentioned. Some Zeiss lenses are being made for > >it (16-45 zoom My bad. I believ ethe Zeiss soom is a 16-80 not a 16-45. > The Zeiss 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 will apparently be > available in the Sony mount before long. A (likely) guess? Knowledge? Desire? The 35mm f/2 if they hot the bokeh right, would make a fantastic normal lens for the Sony and its crop factor. > I think the Pentax K10D uses a similar sensor to the D200, not the > D80. They are all 10 MP. I didn't know that. Are you sure? I was merely pointing out that Leica R ownership > recently got much cheaper. I understand. Thanks. > I'm buying one for myself, so that must come first. ;-) I'm almost envious (since I can't afford it anyways) ;-) > In this case, eBay could be your friend. Many of my comparisons were > done by buying the relevant lenses on eBay and re-selling the one(s) I > did not want. But the 43mm was a loaner from my friendly Pentax > dealer. Unfortunately my friendly Pentax dealer is in Colorado though eBay might be doable... eventually... >Actually, I forget who does/did the Sunday Morning Photographer column >on photo.net/etc. It was done by Mike Johntson on luminous- landscape.com Mojtaba > >Actually, I forget who does/did the Sunday Morning Photographer column > >on photo.net/etc. > > It was done by Mike Johntson on luminous- landscape.com > > Mojtaba Right you are Mojtaba, thanks. But I believe its also on photo.net too if I'm not mistaken, at least it was in the past before (and after?) he stopped writing it. [SNIP] > Fortunately, the people I photograph have few straight lines :-). I guess you've not had to photograph Grace Jones then.... ;-) Peter > [SNIP] > > Fortunately, the people I photograph have few straight lines :-). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Peter Some of the people I've photographed look more like Chuck Jones (old white male animator) ;-) Tony has given some excellent comments, can't wait for what you'll have to say too, hope you enjoyed the party :-). [SNIP] > hope you enjoyed the party :-). Thanks: any party where the kitchen is knee deep in dry ice fog is a good one :-) Peter [SNIP] > I am assuming that the FA version is optically similar to the A > version, which is the one I tested in detail. I expect it has the > same optical formula but different, better coatings. I'm told that the F is the same design as the A, but that slight changes were made for the FA that made it slightly sharper, without, supposedly, affecting the bokeh or contrast. I haven't used an FA 1.4 enough to be able to say if this is true. Most FA lenses are the same formula as their A equivalents, so this is an exception to the rule. [SNIP] > You're welcome. I would very much like you to have Peter > Boorman's opinion on these lenses, as I know he has a rather more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ;-) Apologies, I was at a party ;-) Will write some thoughts in a separate post.... Peter > While at the Javitz show on Thursday I had the opportunity to > sample both the 43/1.9 Limited lens in black (Yum!) and the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Any thoughts (both from Pentaxian users/others)? Well, not easy to add a lot to this thread now, but here's my experience. Note that (like Tony) the 50mm f1.4 that I know is the A version. The FA is supposed to be slightly sharper, but otherwise almost identical. I have and use both (the other 50s I use, though less often than these two, are the f1.7 M - I may replace it with an A one day - the f1.2 A, and the f2.8 Macro in both A and FA versions). I feel the Limited is slightly the sharper of the two, and tends to be my preferred lens for subject matter with DoF that extends from front to back. Such subjects can lack the 3D feel, and the 43 Limited is very good at keeping the sense of depth in a picture without needing to use out of focus backgrounds to achieve it. ie., it's a great landscape lens. I think it also has slightly less distortion than the f1.4 50mm, though have to admit that this is a subjective view, since I haven't tested it properly for this. (If I need ultra-low geometric distortion in a 50mm I will use one of the macros, for preference.) I don't find the Limited to have 'bad' bokeh, but I don't like the way it renders OoF highlights, and avoid it for such subjects. However, it has very good coma correction, so it is a very good lens for (especially off centre) specular highlights that ARE in focus - this makes it a good lens for night-time shots of city scenes, industry, etc. (The 31mm Limited is even better in this regard.) The 50mm f1.4 deals better with OoF highlights, and has generally 'creamier' bokeh I feel, but doesn't impart quite as much 3D 'separation' to different planes of the image when both are 'in focus' as the 43mm does. For me this makes it the better lens to use when using DoF to isolate a subject, and _very slightly_ less good as a landscape lens. I emphasise that this is a slight thing: some people might not feel there was much difference, or maybe place them in the other order. The angle of view of the 43mm does 'feel' a lot more different to that of a 50mm than that small (14%) difference would suggest. I like it a lot. Because the lens works so well for subjects that are sharp front to back, and because of its AoV, it is very nice for the sort of street or crowd photography where you pre-set the aperture to give plenty of DoF. The difference in FL combined with the speed difference does also make a significant difference in how shallow you can make the DoF by shooting wide open. Basically, if you want to throw a background 'significantly' out of focus, it needs to be a fair bit further behind your subject if you use the 43mm than with the 50mm. Somewhere I have posted a link before to a shot I did at f1.2, if you want to see what really shallow DoF is like. The difference between this shot and what you can do with the f1.4 is, I would say, less than the difference - in terms of DoF - between the 50mm f1.4 and the 43mm f1.9. The 50mm f1.4 is very flare resistant - it will blow away probably any non-Pentax lens in this regard. However, the 43mm is, I think, possibly even a little better. This is something else I haven't tested by side-by-side comparison though, so it is just an impression (at this stage...) I think the colour rendition of my 43mm may be a _tiny_ bit cooler than with my 50mm f1.4. Both are attractive, and this is rather a subjective view. Both lenses sharpen as they are stopped down, and by f4 possibly, and f5.6 pretty certainly, you couldn't separate them in terms of resolution. Both also do have some light fall-off into the corners when shot wide open - all fast 'normal' lenses do - and again with both it disappears on stopping down: I'd say it's gone by f2 or f 2 1/3 with the 50mm f1.4, and by around f2 1/2 with the 43mm. In neither lens would I say the fall-off was excessive (there's much more in the f1.2, and I don't find it particularly a problem there either.) I hope that is some help. It's not an easy choice and does depend on both what you shoot and your personal preference for how you render your subjects. I have both these lenses, but if I could have only one, even though the 43mm is perhaps the better lens for more of what _I_ shoot, it would be the 50mm f1.4 that I would choose. The 50mm f1.4 is more of an all-rounder, while the 43mm f1.9 is very good at what it does best. Peter LARGE SNIP Thanks, Peter, and of course, Tony, too for both of your detailed excellent comments/opinions/experiences. I am now equally fully knowledgable/confused ;-). What I'll probably end up doing is start saving for a used 43 off of eBay or some such when/if my finances improve and shoot with it until I know how well I can get along with its positive points (3D bokeh and smooth transition of focus and great micro-contrast) and its negative points (not nearly as capable of selective focus effects as the 50/1.4, wider angle of view (could be a positive or a negative, depending on the situation) and not as useful in low light). If I don't like it and/or it doesn't suit my needs I can always put it up for sale again and try to answer that other great Shakespearean question -- ..."To Pentax 50/1.4 or not to Pentax 50/1.4 (but to 50/1.7 instead), that is the question"... my apologies to Shakespeare and The Dead Poets Society ;-). Regards and, Again, thank you both from the bottom of the top of my bottom... and then some! ;-) >LARGE SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Regards and, Again, thank you both from the bottom of the top of my >bottom... and then some! ;-) Just a thought ... why not spend a *very small* amount of money now on the 50mm f/1.7 A (the best manual focus option if you have or intend to buy Pentax AF or digital bodies) or M (even cheaper but still optically superb good) and then consider whether the 43mm Limited or 50mm f/1.4 would be the better later addition? In the meantime, you will have an optically outstanding 50mm f/1.7 to use and enjoy ... ... just a thought! Another thought - be grateful that you don't own Nikon or Canon bodies, because you would be forced to choose between the mediocre Nikon and Canon 50mm lenses. ;-) Of course you could always get a Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 to fit the Canon via an adapter! ;-) > Another thought - be grateful that you don't own Nikon or Canon > bodies, because you would be forced to choose between the mediocre > Nikon and Canon 50mm lenses. ""My favourites are the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors. They are all superb lenses..."" Tony Polson, Feb 3, 2001 Polson: try to keep your stories straight and please post the cover you did for "Paris Match" back in the 70's. ;-) Cheers, Alan > >LARGE SNIP > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ;-) Thanks Tony. I already have an MZ-S and a ZX-5n. Time to save up for the AF lens I've always wanted, but a cheap MF 50/1.7 is something definitely to consider in the meantime... >> Just a thought ... why not spend a *very small* amount of money now on >> the 50mm f/1.7 A (the best manual focus option if you have or intend [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the AF lens I've always wanted, but a cheap MF 50/1.7 is something >definitely to consider in the meantime... Tomorrow morning I am leaving for two assignments lasting a total of three weeks. It's rare for me to shoot 100% film but both assignments call for it, so I will be taking my Pentax 35mm and Rollei medium format gear. I will take a back-up digital (Sony DSC-R1) just in case I need it. I have been packing my equipment today and I am delighted to be taking the MX, MZ-3 and some of my favourite Pentax lenses ... 50mm f/1.7A, 35-105mm f/3.5A, 70-210mm f/4A plus Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.4, and a 500mm f/8 mirror lens which I use so rarely that I am not sure why I still keep it :-). I really like the Canon EOS 5D and give it a lot of use, but I am pleased to be leaving it and most of my Leica gear behind, although I am taking my favoured M3 and 3 Leica lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm) to shoot some black and white film in Paris just for pleasure. If I like the results I might make some black and white prints for Christmas presents to friends and family. By the time I get back I expect you to have bought a 50mm f/1.7. Don't disappoint me! Best regards, Tony Hi Tony! > I have been packing my equipment today and I am delighted to be taking > the MX, MZ-3 and some of my favourite Pentax lenses ... 50mm f/1.7A, > 35-105mm f/3.5A, 70-210mm f/4A plus Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm f/2.8 and > 35mm f/2.4, Have you compared the CZJ 35mm f/2.4 to the older 35mm f/2.8? If find the f/2.8 very sharp (sharper than), but not "monumental" looking like the Schneider Curtagon 35mm or the Pentax 35mm f/3.5. > I really like the Canon EOS 5D and give it a lot of use, but I am > pleased to be leaving it and most of my Leica gear behind, although I > am taking my favoured M3 and 3 Leica lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm) to > shoot some black and white film in Paris just for pleasure. I haven't decided what to take yet, but if you see another guy shooting hopelessly outdated film equipment in Paris in mid-late November, it might be me! Cheers, Chris >Hi Tony! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If find the f/2.8 very sharp (sharper than), but not "monumental" >looking like the Schneider Curtagon 35mm or the Pentax 35mm f/3.5. No, I haven't. I am reasonably happy with the 35mm f/2.4 but preferred my previous Pentax K 35mm f/2, until it broke. :-( >> I really like the Canon EOS 5D and give it a lot of use, but I am >> pleased to be leaving it and most of my Leica gear behind, although I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >hopelessly outdated film equipment in Paris in mid-late November, it >might be me! I'm not sure how much pleasure shooting I will be able to do, as I have work commitments to fulfil every day. But I will grab every opportunity I can. Enjoy your trip! ;-) >>>Just a thought ... why not spend a *very small* amount of money now on >>>the 50mm f/1.7 A (the best manual focus option if you have or intend [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Tony Interested to hear about the 35 - 105 lens. I've been considering a manual focus zoom in the area of 28/35 - 105/135 mm. Pentax M or A line, that is. I do have a Tamron 28 - 105 autofocus but that has been a disappointment. So, would You recommend that 35 - 105 or something else? Autofocus is not important, I currently use my KX more than MZ5n. Ahhh... Paris... Väinö Louekari >Interested to hear about the 35 - 105 lens. I've been considering a >manual focus zoom in the area of 28/35 - 105/135 mm. Pentax M or A line, >that is. I do have a Tamron 28 - 105 autofocus but that has been a >disappointment. So, would You recommend that 35 - 105 or something else? >Autofocus is not important, I currently use my KX more than MZ5n. The SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm f/3.5 is a superb lens. It is very sharp at all apertures and focal lengths, has very low distortion and unusually smooth bokeh for a zoom. The "A" electronic contacts mean that it operates well on AF and digital Pentax SLRs. Pentax were perhaps not known for making exceptional zoom lenses until the 80-200 f/2.8 came along, but the 35-105mm was the exception. Its performance compares surprisingly well with Pentax fixed focal length lenses. It is a varifocal lens, meaning that focus does not remain constant as the lens is zoomed. You have to zoom *and* refocus. The front element is vulnerable and always needs a hood for physical protection. The hood will also help protect against flare, although flare at the wide angle end will always be a problem, with light sources outside the frame causing a loss of contrast. The aperture remains constant when zooming. Price depends on condition, condition, condition. Did I say condition? This is a lens that gets a lot of use, so check carefully that the zoom/focus ring operates smoothly throughout the range of focal lengths and focusing distances. In the UK, a near mint example would sell at GBP 150 - 200 (approximately Euro 225 - 300) from a dealer. Prices on eBay are generally much less, but beware: Condition! >Ahhh... Paris... Yes, Paris. And this time, someone is paying for my trip ... ;-) [SNIP] > Interested to hear about the 35 - 105 lens. I've been considering a > manual focus zoom in the area of 28/35 - 105/135 mm. Pentax M or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more than MZ5n. > Ahhh... Paris... I second Tony's opinon of this lens. The only two things I'd add, both small points against it, are that it is very heavy, and that the front element rotates when focusing, which is a nuisance if you want to use a polariser or ND grad., for example. Takes 67mm filters. If those points (and flare performance that is good, but not as good as a Pentax 'prime') don't bother you, it is a very nice lens. Peter > >> Just a thought ... why not spend a *very small* amount of money now on > >> the 50mm f/1.7 A (the best manual focus option if you have or intend [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Tony Sorry, Tony, guess I'll have to disappoint you before you go to Paris :-( -- I'm more inclined to save up the big bucks for the AF lens I want (currently the 43) and make do with the long end of the 20-35 and borrow my friend's 50/1.7 FA when I can. I already own 50's in other systems that will work in a pinch though I wont get as nice bokeh and would have to carry around multiple systems (blecch! :-)) yet again. Thinking it over, I'd just rather save up and get the lens I want than do a kludge that would take (scarce) money away from what I'm saving up for. I do wish you good photography in Paris though, let us know how they (the images) come out and how you are able to get along with "just" the Pentax gear and whether it it compromised your shooting style at all. What/which films will you be shooting? Bon Voyage (I mean "happy trails"/good shooting but my French isn't up to the apellation of "rusty" ;-)). In other words, warm regards and enjoy yourself!!! :-) >I do wish you good photography in Paris though, let us know how they >(the images) come out and how you are able to get along with "just" the >Pentax gear and whether it it compromised your shooting style at all. >What/which films will you be shooting? Kodak Elite Color 200 (C41), Kodachrome 64 (slide) with a monopod and Kodak BW400CN (C41 black and white). I can't tell you which film manufacturer sponsors me. :-) >Bon Voyage (I mean "happy trails"/good shooting but my French isn't up >to the apellation of "rusty" ;-)). > >In other words, warm regards and enjoy yourself!!! :-) Thanks, I will try. But before then I have two weeks of hard work - in the UK, but away from home. > >I do wish you good photography in Paris though, let us know how they > >(the images) come out and how you are able to get along with "just" the > >Pentax gear and whether it it compromised your shooting style at all. > >What/which films will you be shooting? > > Kodak Elite Color 200 (C41), I thought Elite color was slide film, did Kodak revamp the line or just a typo? Kodachrome 64 (slide) with a monopod and > Kodak BW400CN (C41 black and white). I can't tell you which film > manufacturer sponsors me. :-) Uhhhhhhhhh Agfa Fuji Scotch? Shhhhhhh its a secret... In the digital age I'm amazed that anyone is sponsoring anyone for film shooting! :-) Did they contact you or did you contact them for the assignment? > >Bon Voyage (I mean "happy trails"/good shooting but my French isn't up > >to the apellation of "rusty" ;-)). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, I will try. But before then I have two weeks of hard work - > in the UK, but away from home. May your hard work be hard fun - and lots of great images. >>Kodak BW400CN (C41 black and white). I can't tell you which film >>manufacturer sponsors me. :-) > > Uhhhhhhhhh Agfa Fuji Scotch? Shhhhhhh its a secret... This is Polson's photography. http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg or http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg Nobody sponsors that. "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message news:p2A3h.29620> > This is Polson's photography. > > http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg or > http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg Can't you see how they were "painted with light?" I still say he is posting from a mental institution. I'd bet the farm that he neither owns any of the cameras and lenses that he claims to possess, not has he ever handled them. I am amazed that people actually respond to him with the deference due to someone that is knowledgeable. He has been kicked off numerous moderated newsgroups, and he continues to hold himself out here as a photo expert--except that not a single one of the jobs and employers that he has claimed has ever been verified. P.T. Barnum was right . . . > P.T. Barnum was right . . . Not really... http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html mike > Tony Polson wrote: > > Thanks, I will try. But before then I have two weeks of hard work - > > in the UK, but away from home. > May your hard work be hard fun - and lots of great images. Does that mean you wish him that fun will be hard work? As they say: What ever doesn't make you stronger, kills you.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > Tony Polson wrote: > > > Thanks, I will try. But before then I have two weeks of hard work - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Just my way of saying that I hope his hard work is still fun for him. > Kodak Elite Color 200 (C41), Kodachrome 64 (slide) with a monopod and > Kodak BW400CN (C41 black and white). I can't tell you which film > manufacturer sponsors me. :-) Funny, real pros have no problem saying who sponsors them... ;-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.