Re: Lens purchase advice
When I don’t want to carry my whole kit, the setup I keep in the trunk of my car is my K-x with the DA 35 macro. I find that with macro I need a range of fields of view just as much as I do with normal photography because I want to choose how much I have in the background. There are also some times when I don’t have the room to move my camera any further back and need the wider field of view. To my surprise the lens that just stays on my K-5 II is the 16-50/2.8. It’s weather sealed, covers the most needed ranges and is fast enough in most lighting situations. I’ve got the 31/1.8 ltd and have used that as my walkaround prime. There are a surprising number of times that I could really use the extra 2/3 stop that I’d get with an f/1.4 lens. I have the DA 40/2.8 ltd. I bought it because it was cheap (at the time) and looked fun. I was surprised by how much I liked it’s image quality, and for ages I kept it on my K-x as my “pocket SLR” combo. I got the DA 35 macro because when I want to walk in the woods I often want to take macros of flower, mushrooms etc. and the DA40 just doesn’t get close enough. I’m embarassed to say that I’ve hardly used it in ages. If I were smart I’d talk you into buying mine. Of the lenses you mentioned, I’d say that the DA 35 macro is probably your best bet for a single walk around lens. If you do a lot of work indoors and in low light, I’d suggest looking at either the sigma 30/1.4 or 35/1.4, especially since you already have a macro lens. Those two stops of speed can really come in handy. On May 21, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks for your comments, Larry. The Sigmas are a bit pricey, but that f/1.4 would make it extremely useful as a street lens and for late day scenics. I will have to cogitate and check my budget. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: When I don’t want to carry my whole kit, the setup I keep in the trunk of my car is my K-x with the DA 35 macro. I find that with macro I need a range of fields of view just as much as I do with normal photography because I want to choose how much I have in the background. There are also some times when I don’t have the room to move my camera any further back and need the wider field of view. To my surprise the lens that just stays on my K-5 II is the 16-50/2.8. It’s weather sealed, covers the most needed ranges and is fast enough in most lighting situations. I’ve got the 31/1.8 ltd and have used that as my walkaround prime. There are a surprising number of times that I could really use the extra 2/3 stop that I’d get with an f/1.4 lens. I have the DA 40/2.8 ltd. I bought it because it was cheap (at the time) and looked fun. I was surprised by how much I liked it’s image quality, and for ages I kept it on my K-x as my “pocket SLR” combo. I got the DA 35 macro because when I want to walk in the woods I often want to take macros of flower, mushrooms etc. and the DA40 just doesn’t get close enough. I’m embarassed to say that I’ve hardly used it in ages. If I were smart I’d talk you into buying mine. Of the lenses you mentioned, I’d say that the DA 35 macro is probably your best bet for a single walk around lens. If you do a lot of work indoors and in low light, I’d suggest looking at either the sigma 30/1.4 or 35/1.4, especially since you already have a macro lens. Those two stops of speed can really come in handy. On May 21, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
I heartily agree with Stan's recommendations. I love my DA 21. Excellent lens. I very much like my Da 40, but it's a curious lens. It's very sharp and very light on the camera, which makes it a dream to shoot with. I still, however, think it's wider than it actually is. Sometimes I'm think a bit wider than the lens can accommodate. I don't know why my mind's eye still hasn't made the adjustment. Just me really. Cheers, Christine Sent from my iPad On May 22, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:I 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks, Christine! Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Christine Aguila christ...@caguila.com wrote: I heartily agree with Stan's recommendations. I love my DA 21. Excellent lens. I very much like my Da 40, but it's a curious lens. It's very sharp and very light on the camera, which makes it a dream to shoot with. I still, however, think it's wider than it actually is. Sometimes I'm think a bit wider than the lens can accommodate. I don't know why my mind's eye still hasn't made the adjustment. Just me really. Cheers, Christine Sent from my iPad On May 22, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:I 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. -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
I've found 28mm to be the most useful on aps-c. It yields an equivalent of 42mm. Its wider than a 35 for sure, but just slightly tighter than 24mm. I find it much, much more useful than the classic 50mm and can see why pentax made so many lenses around the 40mm mark. Of course Pentax doesn't make a modern 28mm, but I'm sure if you needed AF, an FA 28mm would serve you very well. The AL version seems to be pretty sharp from the reviews I looked at. I would say a lot of my favorite images were taken with a 28mm due to the natural look. It basically matches your eye. On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Christine! Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Christine Aguila christ...@caguila.com wrote: I heartily agree with Stan's recommendations. I love my DA 21. Excellent lens. I very much like my Da 40, but it's a curious lens. It's very sharp and very light on the camera, which makes it a dream to shoot with. I still, however, think it's wider than it actually is. Sometimes I'm think a bit wider than the lens can accommodate. I don't know why my mind's eye still hasn't made the adjustment. Just me really. Cheers, Christine Sent from my iPad On May 22, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:I 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. -- 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
Re: Lens purchase advice
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I've found 28mm to be the most useful on aps-c. It yields an equivalent of 42mm. Its wider than a 35 for sure, but just slightly tighter than 24mm. I find it much, much more useful than the classic 50mm and can see why pentax made so many lenses around the 40mm mark. I feel the same way--I got hooked on 40mm when I got a Canonet QL17 GIII rangefinder, which had a fixed 40mm lens. A few years ago I did a project where I gave up all my other lenses for Lent and shot only the Pentax A 28/2.8 on the K10D. -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
For quite some time I had an M28/3.5 permanently attached to my k-7. It was just such a good lens it made me sad anytime that I took it off. My copy now has really sticky blades and needs a CLA. It will get mailed into Eric sooner or later here along with a minty looking ME that I picked up not long ago. On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I've found 28mm to be the most useful on aps-c. It yields an equivalent of 42mm. Its wider than a 35 for sure, but just slightly tighter than 24mm. I find it much, much more useful than the classic 50mm and can see why pentax made so many lenses around the 40mm mark. I feel the same way--I got hooked on 40mm when I got a Canonet QL17 GIII rangefinder, which had a fixed 40mm lens. A few years ago I did a project where I gave up all my other lenses for Lent and shot only the Pentax A 28/2.8 on the K10D. -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
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 -- This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
buy every focal length from 15mm to 500mm and decide what kit to actually carry depending on the application for the day. -- J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
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.
Lens purchase advice
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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
When I travel light, I like to carry the 43mm limited. I've can't imagin using the 40mm instead, but it is quite a bit more expensive these days. On aps-c shorter focal lengths and I guess that 40 and 50mm lenses qualify. On 35mm film there seems to be almost no difference, unless you take the photo from exactly the same spot and do a side by side comparison, but on aps-c sensors those lenses have a very different feel to them. I really can't talk too much about Macro, the only Macro lens I have is the Vivitar S1 90-180mm not a lens to use in tight working spaces. The 21mm is a kind of funny lens, it's not wide enough for my tastes, (~e-32), or general general purpose enough, like say a 24mm (~e35mm). Which is strange, when I was a starving student I carried a MX and for a wide I used a Vivitar 28mm f2.8, not the best lens in creation, but it did the job, then later acquired a Pentax [K] 30mm f2.8 which I used until I bought a K 24mm f2.8 and a M 35mm f2.0 which I used on both MX and LX cameras, after which the 30mm languished, thought it was a lovely lens that made nice sharp photos I just didn't find myself using the focal length much. I use it (e-30mm)a lot more now, but the 20-35mm is the shortest rectilinear focal lenght lens I currently own. The 35mm On 5/21/2014 12:31 PM, 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks for your comments, PJ. You have been helpful. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:05 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: When I travel light, I like to carry the 43mm limited. I've can't imagin using the 40mm instead, but it is quite a bit more expensive these days. On aps-c shorter focal lengths and I guess that 40 and 50mm lenses qualify. On 35mm film there seems to be almost no difference, unless you take the photo from exactly the same spot and do a side by side comparison, but on aps-c sensors those lenses have a very different feel to them. I really can't talk too much about Macro, the only Macro lens I have is the Vivitar S1 90-180mm not a lens to use in tight working spaces. The 21mm is a kind of funny lens, it's not wide enough for my tastes, (~e-32), or general general purpose enough, like say a 24mm (~e35mm). Which is strange, when I was a starving student I carried a MX and for a wide I used a Vivitar 28mm f2.8, not the best lens in creation, but it did the job, then later acquired a Pentax [K] 30mm f2.8 which I used until I bought a K 24mm f2.8 and a M 35mm f2.0 which I used on both MX and LX cameras, after which the 30mm languished, thought it was a lovely lens that made nice sharp photos I just didn't find myself using the focal length much. I use it (e-30mm)a lot more now, but the 20-35mm is the shortest rectilinear focal lenght lens I currently own. The 35mm On 5/21/2014 12:31 PM, 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Dan, I love the 21mm Limited ... it was my first fixed focal length AF lens for my ole K7, chosen to gain focus speed in family grab shots .. it's pouch hangs from my camera strap most of the time so I don't forget it. Wide enough that I don't have to be so careful in my framing when the grandchildren are playing. -- Richard Dell On 5/21/2014 12:31 PM, 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- Richard Dell -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
If i go just prime on a walk,i usually take my DA F 50 f2.8 and the FA 100 f2.8 macro. Now that i have them dialed into my K-5 i get great results. I have to say my recent Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 is also working out quite well. Dave On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Once I bought the FA43/1.9 Limited, I sold my FA 50/1.4, FA 28/2.8, and FA 35/2. The DA21 and FA 43 plus one longer focal length (FA 77 or D-FA 100) is a near perfect kit. Godfrey On May 21, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com 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. -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks, Richard, David and Godfrey. David, the 50/1.8 and 100/2.8 macro are what I am using now. Perhaps I should just continue with them for a bit. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Richard Dell rd...@ptd.net wrote: Dan, I love the 21mm Limited ... it was my first fixed focal length AF lens for my ole K7, chosen to gain focus speed in family grab shots .. it's pouch hangs from my camera strap most of the time so I don't forget it. Wide enough that I don't have to be so careful in my framing when the grandchildren are playing. -- Richard Dell On 5/21/2014 12:31 PM, 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- Richard Dell -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Dan, not sure if you're if looking for a single walk around lens or one to add to your kit. For me when I take my K-3 out with me I always carry along several lenses - 28-80 F (sometime replaced with a 16-50DA*), 70-210 F, 200 A* macro, 300mm AF and a 1.4 converter. I could probably leave the 200 behind on most outings. Always looking for less weight and sometimes I leave all but the K-3 and one lens in the car within close proximity to where I'm shooting. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com Subject: Lens purchase advice 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks, Ken. Of course, I want both. G If I am going to the sculpture garden, or the balloon festival, or the bike races, or the ball park, I will take my larger bag and several lenses. When I go into the city for a play, I usually take just my 50/1.8, to keep the bulk and weight to a minimum and to not attract too much attention from people in the street. For flowers or butterflies, usually I take just the 100/2.8 macro. For just walking around, sometimes just the camera and the 18-135 Zoom. For whales or birds, the camera and my 70-300 zoom. I guess what I am looking for now is a lens that would replace the 50/1.8 for street photography, giving me a wider angle of view, and also to put in the bigger bag, to have more choices when I go out fully equipped. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Dan, not sure if you're if looking for a single walk around lens or one to add to your kit. For me when I take my K-3 out with me I always carry along several lenses - 28-80 F (sometime replaced with a 16-50DA*), 70-210 F, 200 A* macro, 300mm AF and a 1.4 converter. I could probably leave the 200 behind on most outings. Always looking for less weight and sometimes I leave all but the K-3 and one lens in the car within close proximity to where I'm shooting. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com Subject: Lens purchase advice 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 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. Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
on 2014-05-21 10:31 Daniel J. Matyola wrote 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 not used the 21 or the 40; my sequence of ownership of primes i've really liked (all Pentax with one exception): A 50/1.7, Sigma EX 105/2.8 macro, FA 28/2.8, DA 15/4, DA 35/2.8 macro … i got the 35 only a couple of months ago, and it has so far completely displaced the 28, largely displaced the 50, and it is edging in on the 105 macro's duties; when i traveled to Copenhagen recently, i took only the 35 and the 15 and used the 35 80% of the time; my typical kit now is just the 35 with the 15 optional 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 find the 35 to be more versatile, both in field of view and in convenience (small size, built-in hood), than my Sigma 105; for true macro, the downside is that you have to get quite close to things, but for not-quite-macro i often prefer its field of view, especially for plants; my garden is my muse so by end of summer i will have a more seasoned verdict on the 35; i suspect a 24-28mm macro with other qualities similar to the 35 might appeal to me even more i still use the 105 macro (and plan to eventually trade it for a Pentax WR 100mm) for serious macro work, but i don't carry it around nearly as much as the 35 after exhausting other used sources i bought the 35 macro from KEH in EX condition, which wound up meaning there was the slightest amount of wear on the lens cap -- 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.
Re: Lens purchase advice
Thanks, Steve. The 35 might indeed suit many of my needs. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2014-05-21 10:31 Daniel J. Matyola wrote 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 not used the 21 or the 40; my sequence of ownership of primes i've really liked (all Pentax with one exception): A 50/1.7, Sigma EX 105/2.8 macro, FA 28/2.8, DA 15/4, DA 35/2.8 macro … i got the 35 only a couple of months ago, and it has so far completely displaced the 28, largely displaced the 50, and it is edging in on the 105 macro's duties; when i traveled to Copenhagen recently, i took only the 35 and the 15 and used the 35 80% of the time; my typical kit now is just the 35 with the 15 optional 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 find the 35 to be more versatile, both in field of view and in convenience (small size, built-in hood), than my Sigma 105; for true macro, the downside is that you have to get quite close to things, but for not-quite-macro i often prefer its field of view, especially for plants; my garden is my muse so by end of summer i will have a more seasoned verdict on the 35; i suspect a 24-28mm macro with other qualities similar to the 35 might appeal to me even more i still use the 105 macro (and plan to eventually trade it for a Pentax WR 100mm) for serious macro work, but i don't carry it around nearly as much as the 35 after exhausting other used sources i bought the 35 macro from KEH in EX condition, which wound up meaning there was the slightest amount of wear on the lens cap -- 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.
