What? No pancakes?

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

Tord S Eriksson said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

Tord S Eriksson said:

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

brightcolours said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the size, not the bokeh!

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

Tord S Eriksson said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the size, not the bokeh!

Click to expand...

Odd! You replied to my post which had one line: "Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.". Which referred specifically to your post that Pentax has many pancake lenses "with excellent reputation".

So, I am not getting it, sorry. And if you were thinking about size, the 77mm f1.8 makes even less sense! At least it has nice bokeh, but it is not a pancake in any sense.

Tord S Eriksson said:

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

brightcolours said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the size, not the bokeh!

Click to expand...

Odd! You replied to my post which had one line: "Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.". Which referred specifically to your post that Pentax has many pancake lenses "with excellent reputation".

So, I am not getting it, sorry. And if you were thinking about size, the 77mm f1.8 makes even less sense! At least it has nice bokeh, but it is not a pancake in any sense.

Click to expand...

Nice bokeh, yes.

Compared to the F Mount lenses most carry around like the Sigma 35 Art I used to own, I remember fondly the small size of the Pentax lenses, but Nikon has a few nice ones, too, if not exactly pancakes.

Never got along with the DA21, though, which is pancake-y!

The wife's DA15 (since a couple of years gone) was somewhere in-between the DA21 and the FA77 in size, I seem to recall.



--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

brightcolours said:

All Bushs Fault said:

Are you with the band, Daft Punk? Pretty sure that name is copyrighted.

Click to expand...

oh nous, how he will get sued.

Click to expand...

Before you go jumping to your usual mis-conclusions, the OP hasn't answered the question.

All Bushs Fault said:

brightcolours said:

All Bushs Fault said:

Are you with the band, Daft Punk? Pretty sure that name is copyrighted.

Click to expand...

oh nous, how he will get sued.

Click to expand...

Before you go jumping to your usual mis-conclusions, the OP hasn't answered the question.

Click to expand...

Let me preface this with "I am not a laywer"... that said, there are a few issues with this train of thought.

First off, you do not copyright a band name; you would trademark it. (You would own copyright on the recordings the band made). See http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm for some details.

Secondly, unless the OP also was in a (different) band called 'Daft Punk' and was trying to release materials under that name, chances are he is completely fine. Trademarks are generally not enforceable across different industries; i.e. he could open a clothing store catering to skaters called "Daft Punk Apparel" or something and he would probably be ok. See http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-i-trademark-a-similar-name-in-a-different-indu-69533.html for some more details.

Finally, it's a user name in an online camera forum. Even lawyers would hopefully have a bit of sense and not launch a lawsuit against some random internet user because they used a favourite band's name in their username. (Maybe in Texas...)

Cheers

Edit: with a name like "All Bushs Fault", you would probably be more in danger of being sued for slander than the OP would for copyright infringement. ;-)

The Big One said:

Edit: with a name like "All Bushs Fault", you would probably be more in danger of being sued for slander than the OP would for copyright infringement. ;-)

Click to expand...

Good point ;-)

brightcolours said:

The Big One said:

Edit: with a name like "All Bushs Fault", you would probably be more in danger of being sued for slander than the OP would for copyright infringement. ;-)

Click to expand...

Good point ;-)

Click to expand...

Aye, on both!

Plastic Pudding tried to sue the Swedish Perstorps Plattan company for infringement, as their logos were next to identical, but PP's advisors must have been real bad, as you can't infringe on something that was there before you!

It ended very costly for PP and the Swedish PP lived happily in many more years (I think the company eventually became Forbo, the flooring specialists, but I haven't checked).

Plastic Pudding is still here, on my little island, but they are not doing well!

The Big One said:

Edit: with a name like "All Bushs Fault", you would probably be more in danger of being sued for slander than the OP would for copyright infringement. ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm. Am I saying every ill of this country is "All Bush's Fault" or am I repeating a Democratic Party pat answer when someone dares to hold them accountable on their watch?

All Bushs Fault said:

The Big One said:

Edit: with a name like "All Bushs Fault", you would probably be more in danger of being sued for slander than the OP would for copyright infringement. ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm. Am I saying every ill of this country is "All Bush's Fault" or am I repeating a Democratic Party pat answer when someone dares to hold them accountable on their watch?

Click to expand...

Heh, touché ;-)

Daft Punk said:

Really like shooting Canon with the 40mm Canon pancake. It's small and super sharp.

Moving to D810. It's obviously the best all round DSLR you can buy.

But - I am a bit bummed out to see Nikon has no equivalent lens to the 40mm pancake.

All the regular primes available to me seem large and I like the 40mm length.

Any solutions you guys can think of??

Thanks

Click to expand...

Canon pancake lens is certainly a jewel for its price, but it is specially good for cropped sensor cameras. When using it mounted on FX camera like 1D3 the borders are very unsharp when the lens is wide open, although it will be overall sharp only one stop closer. From f/4 you have a sharp lens also for FX, but some people do not consider a f/4 lens as a fast one.

But the humble Nikkor f/1.8 AFS will offer you the same or better sharpness for the same aperture... ok, it is bigger, heavier... and more expensive... uhmmm... well, c´est la vie mon cher ami!

All the best,

--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin

Forgot the DA40, the last Pentax lens I've kept, which is said to be much better in the HD DA40 (which I haven't used).

Is it?!

Some samples from my Pentax days ;-)!


One of my very first (digital) Pentax shots!


Mum, just before we went to Thailand!


3Hjul simply means three wheels!


The Tamron 70-200 was one of the lenses I loved!




SAAB J32 Lansen, originally a ground attack aircraft.


Frecce Tricolori.

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

brightcolours said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

brightcolours said:

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FA 43 and FA 77 are both pre-digital FF lenses. DA 40 and DA 70 are the digital era versions.

DavidOB said:

DavidOB said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

brightcolours said:

Tord S Eriksson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

brightcolours said:

And then there is the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P. Also manual focus, and quite nice too.

Click to expand...

Roland Vink's site indicates an average of only 5000 copies a year sold in the 5 years which the 45mm P was in production - despite it having a very high optical reputation.

Having a pancake autofocus lens is one thing - making a profit can be a different proposition

Click to expand...

Pentax have quite a few, most with excellent reputation!

Click to expand...

Most with unattractive bokeh rendering, too.

Click to expand...

The FA77 has lovely, and just the size of a double-pancake with jam!

Click to expand...

The FA 77mm f1.8 is in no way a pancake lens, and only APS-C. It gets quite a bit longer when focussing close, so no idea why you think it would qualify... The reason it is "shorter" than for instance 85mm lenses is because it is not IF.

DavidOB said:

The FA43 is the size of the Nikon above, does that count?!

Click to expand...

The FA 43mm f1.9 is a pancake indeed. It is quite a bit more fat than the Nikkor above, though (17mm vs 24mm), so not "the size of the Nikon", and again, only APS-C.

Its bokeh is pretty horrid. So, how do you mean, does it count?

DavidOB said:

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FA 43 and FA 77 are both pre-digital FF lenses. DA 40 and DA 70 are the digital era versions.

Click to expand...

I know, I had both the 43 and the 40, and preferred the former! Got well paid for the former, so I sold that and kept the DA40! Never owned the DA70, any good?!

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

I enjoyed my DA70 until I dropped it. But I am moving away from Pentax because the AF was not good enough for me. The D750 AF is quite a bit better than my K5 and K01.

Still shoot the Pentax occasionally but the Nikon gets used much more often nowadays.

DavidOB said:

I enjoyed my DA70 until I dropped it. But I am moving away from Pentax because the AF was not good enough for me. The D750 AF is quite a bit better than my K5 and K01.

Still shoot the Pentax occasionally but the Nikon gets used much more often nowadays.

Click to expand...

Same here, for similar reasons (too many lost shots), but my Pentax only gets used when I feel nostalgic (even got a 35mm film Pentax SFX - sounds like a machine gun, its built-in winder is hopeless!).

I frankly tired of the K-5, which both of me and the wife had, one each. Loved the menu system, but the D600 isn't too bad ;-) !