On Apr 2, 2006, at 8:02 PM, David Oswald wrote:
But where I'm always feeling a need is in my non-zoom lenses.
First, I don't have anything that I would consider to be in the
range of wide angle, mounted on the *ist-DS. I've considered the
following options, but have been hesitant to jump in with wallet
and both feet:
SMC Pentax-FA 20mm f/2.8 AL
Pros: Compact. Wide-ish angle. Not prohibitively expensive.
Cons: Used on a DSLR, it's not really all *that* wide.
I tested this lens, comparing it to the Canon EF20/2.8 and the Sigma
20/1.8, all on digital bodies only. It's the best of the three wide
open, the Canon catches up by f/4, and the Sigma almost catches up
between f/4.5-5.6. I owned the Canon 20/2.8 with my 10D.
However, I decided that a zoom was more applicable in this range for
me. I'm always wanting between a 24mm and 28mm lens. I tried the
DA16-45 but didn't like its bulk/weight. I replaced that with the
FA20-35/4 AL and find it produces results competitive with the primes
in this range that I've owned and is a wonderful lens to work with:
light, compact, quick and contrasty. The one stop slower speed has
not proven to be a problem at all.
If you already have and like the DA16-45, I wouldn't bother with the
FA20. I'd want wider.
SMC Pentax-DA 14mm f/2.8 AL
Pros: Ultra-wide angle.
Cons: Priced a little beyond my comfort level for a wide angle lens.
A little wider than I feel my "only" wide angle lens should
be.
This was the only "new" lens I bought when I ordered the DS body. I'm
very glad I did: it's an excellent performer in every regard, a LOT
cheaper than the Canon or Nikon offerings in this focal length range,
and balances very well on the *ist DS. It produces the field of view
of a 21mm focal length on a 35mm film SLR, which has always been
about as wide as I need. Excellent rectilinear correction, very low
chromatic aberration, best aperture between f/4.5 and f/5.6.
Page of example shots at http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/.
Frankly, I feel that the right choice for me just isn't made. If
it were, it would be called: SMC Pentax-DA 16mm f/2.8. Could such
a contraption be on the horizon?
You already have the DA16-45/4, which is only one stop slower and
very nearly prime quality. Nothing like a DA16/2.8 is on Pentax lens
roadmap for 2006-2007.
Now on to the other gap I'm feeling: the moderate telephoto. I've
got the 50mm lens, which is a good lens for not-so-tight
portraits. And I've got the 135mm lens, which gets me in there
really tight. But I'm always wishing for something between those
two. Here are the options that I see:
SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.9 Limited
Pros: Image quality, build quality, convenient focal length.
Cons: What amateur can honestly justify its price tag?
IMO, that's the only one to go for in this range unless you really
want a macro lens. Small, light, excellent imaging quality, etc.
Right now I jump from 50 to 135 as well, sold my M85/2 as I found I
really prefer having all AF series lenses, and have been debating
getting the FA77/1.8 limited too. It's not *that* expensive given the
quality. But it's also a focal length I find I don't use all that
often. I might wait for the DA70/2.4 Limited.
Godfrey
