Thanks, Jan and Stan. Your comments are quite helpful. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Stanley Halpin <s...@stans-photography.info> wrote: > My recommendations will pretty much echo what Jan and Steve and others have > already said. > I have the 21mm, 35mm macro, 40mm, and 100mm macro lenses you mention. > - The 21mm is always included in my travel kit. > - The 35mm is pretty much always on one of my cameras. > - I haven’t used the 40mm since I got the 35mm. > - I seldom use the 100 macro any more. I carry it (and an A-50mm) > when hunting flowers etc. but will usually use either the 35mm or 200mm > macro. If I didn’t have the 200mm, I would be using the 100mm most of the > time, not the 35mm. > > I find 35mm to be too wide a FOV for most macro work but it is a great lens > for near-far compositions (e.g., single flower or cluster of flowers in the > foreground, interesting landscape in the background). > > So, I wouldn’t buy the 35mm for its macro capability. But it is a wonderful > lens, a joy to shoot with, and the macro aspect is a nice bonus. > Of the lenses you’ve mentioned, if you buy only one, I would go with the > 21mm. Image quality may be slightly under that of the 35mm, but it does have > that wider FOV essential for many streetscapes and landscapes. And you > already have the 100 macro. > > If I were assembling a “minimal” prime-lens kit, it would include 15mm, 21mm, > 35mm macro, 55mm, and 100mm macro. Plus maybe the 300mm for long range work. > If I were assembling a basic kit built around zooms, it would include > 12-24mm, 16-50mm, and 60-250mm. If I didn’t need the reach of the 60-250, I > would be happy instead with the 50-135 + 1.4x telextender. > > stan > > On May 22, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Jan van Wijk <pen...@dfsee.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Wed, 21 May 2014 12:31:18 -0400 Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >>> >>> OK, if I do acquire a "new to me" K-5II or IIs, I should get a good >>> fixed focal length lens to go with it. Currently, I use the 18-135 >>> zoom, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the DA 50mm f1.8 with my K-r. >>> >>> I was looking at the 21mm f3.2 DA AL Limited, the 35mm f2.8 macro >>> limited and the 40mm f2.8 DA limited. Which have people here found >>> the most useful and versatile? Which (if any) do you prefer for image >>> quality? >> >> I have the 21mm and the 35mm macro. >> >> Both perform well, but I use the 35mm MUCH more than the 21. >> Somehow it FOV suits me better, and of course it does 1:1 macro >> which is extremely useful for me in the field. >> >>> I am concerned that the 40 might be too close to the 50 I use now. Is >>> it significantly better in image quality? >>> >>> I have the 100 macro; will the 35 macro allow me to do things I can't >>> with the 100? I know the 35 limited is a lot more modern, but I >>> really have no complaints about the 100 macro, aside from the shaky >>> hand behind the lens. >> >> Larger FOV, but that is not always an advantage for macro. >> It IS an advantage when you want you use it as the only lens ... >> >> It is one of my sharpest lenses for sure. >> >> Regards, JvW >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com >> Flickr : jvw_pentax >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
