Re: Wide angle for K-X?

[Mat Maessen]

On 1/1/10, Sandy Harris  wrote:
>  price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
>  possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
>  me.

Price aside, the 21/3.2 limited is a very nice little lens. It's on my
list, once some money is freed up in the budget.

-Mat

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[paul stenquist]

Don't rule out the new DA* zooms. They're as good or better than many primes. I 
would venture to say that the DA* 16-50/2.8 is better than the old 24/2.8 
prime. I once shot nothing but primes. I think I bought my first zoom just a 
few years ago after 30 years of shooting primes. But I'm very happy with the 
DA( 16-50, 50-134 and 60-250.
Paul
On Jan 1, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
> 
> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
> 
> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
> me.
> 
> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
>
> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
>
> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
> me.
>
> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
>

Finish the set, I'd go for the Voigtlander 20/3.5 SLII as my first
choice, the DA 21/3.2 Limited as my second.


-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

The DA21/3.2 Limited is what I'd recommend. While a little tighter FoV
compared to your MX + 28mm setup, it's close and it is an excellent
performing lens.

I personally would never buy a Sigma lens.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

The closest thing to a Prime lens with 24mm AOV for the APS-C sensor 
would be either the 15mm f4.0 or the 14mm f2.8 neither would be my 
choice as a lens for someone on a budget.  You might be able to get a 
~30mm AOV by looking for a nice bargain grade 20mm A f2.8 at KEH.


On 1/1/2010 10:49 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.

My last good camera (stolen some time back&  not yet replaced) was an
MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
Comments on that choice appreciated too.

What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
me.

What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.

   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Christine Aguila]

Hi Sandy:  Like Godfrey, I'd like to recommend the Pentax DA 21mm.  I did a 
quick check in Lightroom, and since last March, I have shot over 1000 frames 
with the 21mm; that surprised me; I didn't think I'd shot that many.  I went 
with the 21mm prime because I really wanted to go light in terms of weight 
for the wide end and have a lens that wouldn't call attention to itself.  I 
am a huge fan of the DA* 50-135mm--a superb lens--and I'm sure the DA* 
16-50mm f 2.8 is equally superb, but in considering a wide lens for weight, 
street work, and family snaps, (anything really--Ted has shot some beautiful 
landscapes with the 21mm)  you just can't go wrong with 21mm.  Despite its 
3.2 f-stop, it also performs well in challenging light situations.  I've put 
together a gallery of 12 pics shot in different light situations. I didn't 
use any flash for any of these pics.  The meta data is at the top, and a 
very brief description of the lighting situation is at the bottom.


All of these pics have had some tweaking in post-processing, but nothing 
extensive--I might have lightened up darks or shadows a twinge or bumped up 
the lights or increased exposure by +19 or 29---very quick tweaking done in 
a matter of seconds.  If I could only take two lenses while traveling, I 
would take DA 21mm & the DA* 50-135mmand, well, I'd probably have to 
sneak the FA 50 mm f1.4 in my brazier--that's great lens too in my view--I'm 
kind of partial to that lens as well  :-).


Anyway,  here's the link: http://www.caguila.com/caguila/21mm/index.html
HTH.

Cheers, Christine





- Original Message - 
From: "Sandy Harris" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 9:49 PM
Subject: Wide angle for K-X?



I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.

My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
Comments on that choice appreciated too.

What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
me.

What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.

--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Cotty]

Nobody mention the A20 2.8?



I had it for a while and it was beyond excellent.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Toine]

If on a limited budget and lightweight the 16-45 is what you want. One
of my most used lenses.
Toine

2010/1/2 Sandy Harris :
> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
>
> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
>
> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
> me.
>
> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bob Sullivan]

Whoa Christine, I wouldn't want to get on your bad side.
http://www.caguila.com/caguila/21mm/content/truman_graduation_2009_92_large.html
That's a nice gallery from the DA21mm/
Regards, Bob S.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Christine  Aguila
 wrote:
> Hi Sandy:  Like Godfrey, I'd like to recommend the Pentax DA 21mm.  I did a
> quick check in Lightroom, and since last March, I have shot over 1000 frames
> with the 21mm; that surprised me; I didn't think I'd shot that many.  I went
> with the 21mm prime because I really wanted to go light in terms of weight
> for the wide end and have a lens that wouldn't call attention to itself.  I
> am a huge fan of the DA* 50-135mm--a superb lens--and I'm sure the DA*
> 16-50mm f 2.8 is equally superb, but in considering a wide lens for weight,
> street work, and family snaps, (anything really--Ted has shot some beautiful
> landscapes with the 21mm)  you just can't go wrong with 21mm.  Despite its
> 3.2 f-stop, it also performs well in challenging light situations.  I've put
> together a gallery of 12 pics shot in different light situations. I didn't
> use any flash for any of these pics.  The meta data is at the top, and a
> very brief description of the lighting situation is at the bottom.
>
> All of these pics have had some tweaking in post-processing, but nothing
> extensive--I might have lightened up darks or shadows a twinge or bumped up
> the lights or increased exposure by +19 or 29---very quick tweaking done in
> a matter of seconds.  If I could only take two lenses while traveling, I
> would take DA 21mm & the DA* 50-135mmand, well, I'd probably have to
> sneak the FA 50 mm f1.4 in my brazier--that's great lens too in my view--I'm
> kind of partial to that lens as well  :-).
>
> Anyway,  here's the link:     http://www.caguila.com/caguila/21mm/index.html
> HTH.
>
> Cheers, Christine
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Sandy Harris" 
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 9:49 PM
> Subject: Wide angle for K-X?
>
>
>> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
>> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
>> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
>>
>> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
>> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
>> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
>> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
>> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
>>
>> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
>> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
>> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
>> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
>> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
>> me.
>>
>> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
>> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
>>
>> --
>> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David J Brooks]

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Cotty  wrote:
> Nobody mention the A20 2.8?

No one expects the A20 2.8

Dave
>
> 
>
> I had it for a while and it was beyond excellent.
>
> --
>
>
> Cheers,
>  Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)  |     People, Places, Pastiche
> --      http://www.cottysnaps.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.
>



-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David J Brooks]

Have you thought about the Pentax 16-45 f 4. Its a pretty decent lens
and produces good results.
I have not checked camera web sites for a while so i';m not sure if
its still available new or just used.

Dave

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
>
> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
>
> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
> me.
>
> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

Hum, yes I did...

On 1/2/2010 5:08 AM, Cotty wrote:

Nobody mention the A20 2.8?



I had it for a while and it was beyond excellent.

--


Cheers,
   Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Stan Halpin]

Nice collection Christine! I particularly like the last shot, of Darrel.
And I agree with you about the 21mm. I have been surprised by how much I have 
used mine. In my film days I seldom used my 30mm or 31mm (approximately the 
same FOV), but the 21mm has been one that is always carried and frequently 
used. I also have the 14/2.8 and the 15/4.0 lenses. The bulk of the 14mm is 
offputting for me, but the 15mm is another winner in a class with the 21mm. The 
14mm is in my small stack of items I have decided to sell one of these days 
when I get around to it...

stan

On Jan 2, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:

> Hi Sandy:  Like Godfrey, I'd like to recommend the Pentax DA 21mm.  I did a 
> quick check in Lightroom, and since last March, I have shot over 1000 frames 
> with the 21mm; that surprised me; I didn't think I'd shot that many.  I went 
> with the 21mm prime because I really wanted to go light in terms of weight 
> for the wide end and have a lens that wouldn't call attention to itself.  I 
> am a huge fan of the DA* 50-135mm--a superb lens--and I'm sure the DA* 
> 16-50mm f 2.8 is equally superb, but in considering a wide lens for weight, 
> street work, and family snaps, (anything really--Ted has shot some beautiful 
> landscapes with the 21mm)  you just can't go wrong with 21mm.  Despite its 
> 3.2 f-stop, it also performs well in challenging light situations.  I've put 
> together a gallery of 12 pics shot in different light situations. I didn't 
> use any flash for any of these pics.  The meta data is at the top, and a very 
> brief description of the lighting situation is at the bottom.
> 
> All of these pics have had some tweaking in post-processing, but nothing 
> extensive--I might have lightened up darks or shadows a twinge or bumped up 
> the lights or increased exposure by +19 or 29---very quick tweaking done in a 
> matter of seconds.  If I could only take two lenses while traveling, I would 
> take DA 21mm & the DA* 50-135mmand, well, I'd probably have to sneak the 
> FA 50 mm f1.4 in my brazier--that's great lens too in my view--I'm kind of 
> partial to that lens as well  :-).
> 
> Anyway,  here's the link: http://www.caguila.com/caguila/21mm/index.html
> HTH.
> 
> Cheers, Christine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Sandy Harris" 
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 9:49 PM
> Subject: Wide angle for K-X?
> 
> 
>> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
>> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
>> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.
>> 
>> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
>> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
>> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
>> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
>> Comments on that choice appreciated too.
>> 
>> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
>> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
>> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
>> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
>> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
>> me.
>> 
>> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
>> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Steve Sharpe]

At 11:39 AM +0100 1/2/10, Toine wrote:

If on a limited budget and lightweight the 16-45 is what you want. One
of my most used lenses.


Agreed. It is my walkabout lens on both the *istD and now the K20D. 
Great optics. I am not so sure about the longevity due to the 
plasticky construction, though.


--

Steve Sharpe
d...@eastlink.ca
•

http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bertil Holmberg]

>> 
>> If on a limited budget and lightweight the 16-45 is what you want. One
>> of my most used lenses.
> 
> Agreed. It is my walkabout lens on both the *istD and now the K20D. 
> Great optics. I am not so sure about the longevity due to the 
> plasticky construction, though.

Hm, 16 + 45 / 2 = 30.5. I guess that's why I love the 31mm Limited ;-)

Regards,
Bertil

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bruce Dayton]

Hello Sandy,

It would help to indicate realistically how much you are willing to
spend.  There are quite a few options that have a wide range of
price.  Also, since you are talking about an APS-C format, how wide
are you really thinking?  28mm for full frame is not really very
wide, just starting to get wide.  For APS-C that is about an 18mm
lens.  So it you really want wide, you are looking at the 14/2.8,
18-55, 16-45 and 16-50 for current lenses.

More info would help us give more useful opinions.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, January 1, 2010, 7:49:39 PM, you wrote:

SH> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
SH> combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
SH> getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.

SH> My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
SH> MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
SH> most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
SH> either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
SH> Comments on that choice appreciated too.

SH> What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
SH> wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
SH> 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
SH> price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
SH> possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
SH> me.

SH> What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
SH> a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.




-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Christine Aguila]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Sullivan" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


Whoa Christine, I wouldn't want to get on your bad side.
http://www.caguila.com/caguila/21mm/content/truman_graduation_2009_92_large.html
That's a nice gallery from the DA21mm/
Regards, Bob S.


He was just clowning for the camera.  :-)  Cheers, Christine 




--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Christine Aguila]

- Original Message - 
From: "Stan Halpin" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?



Nice collection Christine! I particularly like the last shot, of Darrel.
And I agree with you about the 21mm. I have been surprised by how much I 
have used mine. In my film days I seldom used my 30mm or 31mm 
(approximately the same FOV), but the 21mm has been one that is always 
carried and frequently used. I also have the 14/2.8 and the 15/4.0 lenses. 
The bulk of the 14mm is offputting for me, but the 15mm is another winner 
in a class with the 21mm. The 14mm is in my small stack of items I have 
decided to sell one of these days when I get around to it...



Thanks, Stan.  I've got the 15 mm on my list.  Good to know it's a winner! 
Cheers, Christine 




--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

Bruce Dayton  wrote:

>  It would help to indicate realistically how much you are willing to
>  spend.

Under $1500, preferably well under. If that gets a camera and one
good lens, OK. If it covers two lenses, better yet. BH show $600
for K-x, so roughly $900 available for lenses.

Getting one high-grade lens and either buying used for the other
or waiting to buy it later is possible. So is having one be manual
focus, perhaps even stop-down metering. I'll be buying in Hong
Kong, so there are quite a few used options.

>  There are quite a few options that have a wide range of
>  price.  Also, since you are talking about an APS-C format, how wide
>  are you really thinking?  28mm for full frame is not really very
>  wide, just starting to get wide.  For APS-C that is about an 18mm
>  lens.  So it you really want wide, you are looking at the 14/2.8,
>  18-55, 16-45 and 16-50 for current lenses.
>
>  More info would help us give more useful opinions.

What I have in mind is the classic 35/85 two lens kit.

35 full-frame equivalent would be wide enough for most of my
purposes. Good cheap 24/2 or 2.8 would be first choice if there
was one. 21 Limited definitely appeals, but nothing wider unless
it is a zoom.

I thought of a 10-20 or 12-24 zoom, but I don't think I'd need
the wider end much and those lenses tend to be fairly heavy
& expensive.

On the longer side, 75 mm equivalent is the minimum, and
I'd prefer a bit longer. Voigtlander 58/1.4 is my first thought.

I can afford 21 Limited and 50/1.4, giving me two autofocus
Pentax lenses. Those look like a good match and comments
on them are all positive. 50 is not quite as long as I'd like,
but you can't have everything.

Voigtlander 58/1.4 would be preferable on the long end,
but it is more money, not autofocus and perhaps harder
to match. Might not work well with 21, too big a gap
between.

I thought perhaps the 58 and Sigma 24/1.8 to give me
two fast lenses, but the Sigma i's fairly heavy and no-one
here is praising it. I'm no longer considering that.

The advice to use the 16-45 was a surprise. That is a
pretty flexible lens. Going down to 24 mm equivalent
may not be essential, but it is something I'd use.

The obvious 2nd lens to go with it would be 70/2.4
Limited. That would be a bit beyond what I want to
spend, but a very flexible kit. Hmmm

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/2/10, Christine  Aguila  wrote:

> Hi Sandy:  Like Godfrey, I'd like to recommend the Pentax DA 21mm.
> ...

It seems a lot of people really love that lens.

> ... it also performs well in challenging light situations.  I've put
> together a gallery of 12 pics shot in different light situations.

Thank you. Those are a fine demo of the capabilities of both lens
and photographer. I especially like the elephant shot.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Boris Liberman]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> I can afford 21 Limited and 50/1.4, giving me two autofocus
> Pentax lenses. Those look like a good match and comments
> on them are all positive. 50 is not quite as long as I'd like,
> but you can't have everything.
>
> Voigtlander 58/1.4 would be preferable on the long end,
> but it is more money, not autofocus and perhaps harder
> to match. Might not work well with 21, too big a gap
> between.
>
> I thought perhaps the 58 and Sigma 24/1.8 to give me
> two fast lenses, but the Sigma i's fairly heavy and no-one
> here is praising it. I'm no longer considering that.
>
> The advice to use the 16-45 was a surprise. That is a
> pretty flexible lens. Going down to 24 mm equivalent
> may not be essential, but it is something I'd use.

Sandy, if you are considering buying Voigt 58 and Sigma 24, then I
humbly suggest that you consider not buying a Pentax camera. It makes
reduced amount of sense :-) to buy a camera and use it with 3rd party
lenses. There are quite a few deficiencies in being an owner of Pentax
system (you can throw all the rotten vegetables you want at me, I
know) such as: 1. lack of support and/or services 2. lack of
professional services, which to my understanding also includes ability
to rent expensive cameras and lenses for short periods of time
(something I'd love to do) 3. still unclear fate of FF body (again,
this is debatable and depends on one's preferences) 4. generally
weaker AF performance (yes, even K-7 is outgunned by its rivals),
which again is either important or not, depending on your shooting
style. However, in sooth, I am not trying to advocate you against
Pentax, because 1. Pentax has excellent glass 2. Pentax has great
value for money 3. Pentax is also about PDML 4. Pentax lenses are
smallest in size yet boast highest optical quality.

It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.

Just my cents.

-- 
Boris

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bruce Dayton]

Very well said Boris.  I tend to agree with this.  The biggest reason
for Pentax is the glass.  The only time to buy 3rd party is when
there is not an equivalent Pentax lens.  The focal lengths you are
looking for are covered by Pentax, so I would go with one of those
suggestions.  If you buy a new K-x, spend the tiny bit more for the
kit lens.  That will get you down to 18mm if/when you really need it.
Then it sounds like the 21 and 70 might be the two for you.

I will vouch for the 16-45 - It is quite a find performer for the
money.  If you want samples, I can provide you with some.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, January 2, 2010, 10:09:04 PM, you wrote:

BL> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
>> I can afford 21 Limited and 50/1.4, giving me two autofocus
>> Pentax lenses. Those look like a good match and comments
>> on them are all positive. 50 is not quite as long as I'd like,
>> but you can't have everything.
>>
>> Voigtlander 58/1.4 would be preferable on the long end,
>> but it is more money, not autofocus and perhaps harder
>> to match. Might not work well with 21, too big a gap
>> between.
>>
>> I thought perhaps the 58 and Sigma 24/1.8 to give me
>> two fast lenses, but the Sigma i's fairly heavy and no-one
>> here is praising it. I'm no longer considering that.
>>
>> The advice to use the 16-45 was a surprise. That is a
>> pretty flexible lens. Going down to 24 mm equivalent
>> may not be essential, but it is something I'd use.

BL> Sandy, if you are considering buying Voigt 58 and Sigma 24, then I
BL> humbly suggest that you consider not buying a Pentax camera. It makes
BL> reduced amount of sense :-) to buy a camera and use it with 3rd party
BL> lenses. There are quite a few deficiencies in being an owner of Pentax
BL> system (you can throw all the rotten vegetables you want at me, I
BL> know) such as: 1. lack of support and/or services 2. lack of
BL> professional services, which to my understanding also includes ability
BL> to rent expensive cameras and lenses for short periods of time
BL> (something I'd love to do) 3. still unclear fate of FF body (again,
BL> this is debatable and depends on one's preferences) 4. generally
BL> weaker AF performance (yes, even K-7 is outgunned by its rivals),
BL> which again is either important or not, depending on your shooting
BL> style. However, in sooth, I am not trying to advocate you against
BL> Pentax, because 1. Pentax has excellent glass 2. Pentax has great
BL> value for money 3. Pentax is also about PDML 4. Pentax lenses are
BL> smallest in size yet boast highest optical quality.

BL> It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
BL> mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
BL> of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
BL> of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
BL> idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.

BL> Just my cents.

BL> -- 
BL> Boris




-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Joseph McAllister]

On Jan 2, 2010, at 22:09 , Boris Liberman wrote:


The advice to use the 16-45 was a surprise. That is a
pretty flexible lens. Going down to 24 mm equivalent
may not be essential, but it is something I'd use.


SNIP




There are quite a few deficiencies in being an owner of Pentax
system (you can throw all the rotten vegetables you want at me, I
know) such as: 1. lack of support and/or services 2. lack of
professional services, which to my understanding also includes ability
to rent expensive cameras and lenses for short periods of time
(something I'd love to do)


Pentax/Hoya announced a program for professionals and advanced  
amateurs who jump through a few hoops (not a lot) whereby most Pentax  
equipment, but especially the more exotic glass would be loaned or  
rented for short term or specific projects. The hoops consist mainly  
of making Pentax aware of your expertise and professionalism, then  
starting with baby steps to built a rapport. Loans or rentals depends  
on the relationship you have with Pentax, and the possibility that an  
article would be published with Pentax credit in your byline. They see  
the need for loans such as this as a sales opportunity, and creating  
goodwill amongst those who would be most useful in promoting the  
Pentax philosophy.


Get in touch. Sell yourself. Promote yourself to Pentax. It can have  
good ramifications.


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com

“ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.”
— Kevan Olesen


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Boris Liberman]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
> Get in touch. Sell yourself. Promote yourself to Pentax. It can have good
> ramifications.
>
> Joseph McAllister
> pentax...@mac.com

Joseph, I live in Israel. Here, the official Pentax distributor also
happens to be the official Canon distributor. Do I need to say more?


-- 
Boris

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[mike wilson]

David J Brooks wrote:

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Cotty  wrote:


Nobody mention the A20 2.8?



No one expects the A20 2.8


Because of the comfy bokeh?



Dave




I had it for a while and it was beyond excellent.


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Carlos R]

Besides the excellent 16-45 that some people suggested, there is the FA 
20-35. Small, AF and high IQ too, though you would have to look for a 
second hand one.


The Voigtländer 58mm 1.4 seems an excellent choice for an 85mm 
equivalent, but I think it will be hard to focus it accurately using the 
comparatively small K-x viewfinder, as you come from an MX which has an 
enormous viewfinder compared to APS-C DSLRs. Every time I compare my two 
MX to the *ist DS and K10D, I am astonished at the difference. But in 
that case you can buy a Pentax O-ME53 magnifying eyecup.


Carlos

Sandy Harris escribió:




What I have in mind is the classic 35/85 two lens kit.

35 full-frame equivalent would be wide enough for most of my
purposes. Good cheap 24/2 or 2.8 would be first choice if there
was one. 21 Limited definitely appeals, but nothing wider unless
it is a zoom.

I thought of a 10-20 or 12-24 zoom, but I don't think I'd need
the wider end much and those lenses tend to be fairly heavy
& expensive.

On the longer side, 75 mm equivalent is the minimum, and
I'd prefer a bit longer. Voigtlander 58/1.4 is my first thought.

I can afford 21 Limited and 50/1.4, giving me two autofocus
Pentax lenses. Those look like a good match and comments
on them are all positive. 50 is not quite as long as I'd like,
but you can't have everything.

Voigtlander 58/1.4 would be preferable on the long end,
but it is more money, not autofocus and perhaps harder
to match. Might not work well with 21, too big a gap
between.

I thought perhaps the 58 and Sigma 24/1.8 to give me
two fast lenses, but the Sigma i's fairly heavy and no-one
here is praising it. I'm no longer considering that.

The advice to use the 16-45 was a surprise. That is a
pretty flexible lens. Going down to 24 mm equivalent
may not be essential, but it is something I'd use.

The obvious 2nd lens to go with it would be 70/2.4
Limited. That would be a bit beyond what I want to
spend, but a very flexible kit. Hmmm






Se certifico que el correo entrante no contiene virus.
Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es 
Version: 9.0.725 / Base de datos de virus: 270.14.124/2596 - Fecha de la version: 01/01/10 10:20:00




--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty wrote:

>Nobody mention the A20 2.8?
>
>
>
>I had it for a while and it was beyond excellent.

Or the FA 20/2.8 -- same glass as the A20 2.8 but with a 6-bladed
diaphragm rather than 5. Not quite the build quality of the "A" lens
but you get autofocus in return for that trade-off :)


-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Boris Liberman]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Carlos R  wrote:
> Every time I compare my two MX to the
> *ist DS and K10D, I am astonished at the difference. But in that case you
> can buy a Pentax O-ME53 magnifying eyecup.
>
> Carlos

Carlos, I've O-ME53 and Katz Eye focusing screen on my cameras.
Although I wouldn't revert back to stock configuration, and although
admittedly it does help to focus, the experience of MX (ME Super)
viewfinder is still far up in the clouds.


-- 
Boris

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Boris Liberman  wrote:
>
> Sandy, if you are considering buying Voigt 58 and Sigma 24, then I
> humbly suggest that you consider not buying a Pentax camera. It makes
> reduced amount of sense :-) to buy a camera and use it with 3rd party
> lenses. There are quite a few deficiencies in being an owner of Pentax
> system (you can throw all the rotten vegetables you want at me, I
> know) such as: 1. lack of support and/or services 2. lack of
> professional services, which to my understanding also includes ability
> to rent expensive cameras and lenses for short periods of time
> (something I'd love to do) 3. still unclear fate of FF body (again,
> this is debatable and depends on one's preferences) 4. generally
> weaker AF performance (yes, even K-7 is outgunned by its rivals),
> which again is either important or not, depending on your shooting
> style. However, in sooth, I am not trying to advocate you against
> Pentax, because 1. Pentax has excellent glass 2. Pentax has great
> value for money 3. Pentax is also about PDML 4. Pentax lenses are
> smallest in size yet boast highest optical quality.
>
> It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
> mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
> of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
> of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
> idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.
>
> Just my cents.
>
> --
> Boris
>

Actually, I'd disagree here. There's really nothing else comparable to
the K-x on the market, it has a unique combination of size, features
and performance and that's the real draw there.

Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
length differences remain noticeable.

At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
zooms.

-Adam


-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> Under $1500, preferably well under. If that gets a camera and one
> good lens, OK. If it covers two lenses, better yet. BH show $600
> for K-x, so roughly $900 available for lenses.
>
> Getting one high-grade lens and either buying used for the other
> or waiting to buy it later is possible. So is having one be manual
> focus, perhaps even stop-down metering. I'll be buying in Hong
> Kong, so there are quite a few used options.
> ,,,
> What I have in mind is the classic 35/85 two lens kit.

As time went on shooting with Pentax gear, my equipment needs wound
down to a body, the DA21 and FA43. I don't think I used anything else
for the last year I was working with Pentax gear. The FA43, in
particular, was my all time favorite Pentax lens. It's a little
shorter in equivalent focal length than your 85mm target, but such a
superb lens I don't think you could go wrong with it. I almost kept
the K10D simply so that I could continue to shoot with the 43.

That rolls up to almost exactly $2000 at Adorama, $500 over your target.

Sheesh, both of those Pentax lenses are about $250 more than when I
bought them, each. But you might be able to find one or both of them
on the used market at a lower price.

On the other hand, combining body only, 21 and Voigtländer 58 would
get the total price right down into the $1500 ballpark. Body and two
premium lenses ... way to go. ;-)



-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Graydon]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:26:44AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi scripsit:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> > Under $1500, preferably well under. If that gets a camera and one
> > good lens, OK. If it covers two lenses, better yet. BH show $600
> > for K-x, so roughly $900 available for lenses.
> >
> > Getting one high-grade lens and either buying used for the other
> > or waiting to buy it later is possible. So is having one be manual
> > focus, perhaps even stop-down metering. I'll be buying in Hong
> > Kong, so there are quite a few used options.
> > ,,,
> > What I have in mind is the classic 35/85 two lens kit.
> 
> As time went on shooting with Pentax gear, my equipment needs wound
> down to a body, the DA21 and FA43.

It's a heterodox suggestion, but Sandy could get the DA55-300 for the
long end.  It's not fast but it's a remarkably nice lens image-quality
wise, and would start at the nominal equivalent of the 85-on-full-frame.

-- Graydon

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Graydon  wrote:
>
> It's a heterodox suggestion, but Sandy could get the DA55-300 for the
> long end.  It's not fast but it's a remarkably nice lens image-quality
> wise, and would start at the nominal equivalent of the 85-on-full-frame.
>
> -- Graydon
>

3 stops slower, much larger and no cheaper than the 58 Nokton. And
inferior IQ as well (The Nokton is superb, the DA55-300 merely quite
good).

-Adam

-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Graydon]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:12:54PM -0500, Adam Maas scripsit:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Graydon  wrote:
> > It's a heterodox suggestion, but Sandy could get the DA55-300 for the
> > long end.  It's not fast but it's a remarkably nice lens image-quality
> > wise, and would start at the nominal equivalent of the 85-on-full-frame.
> 
> 3 stops slower, much larger and no cheaper than the 58 Nokton. And
> inferior IQ as well (The Nokton is superb, the DA55-300 merely quite
> good).

Granted, but also potentially longer (if 58mm was seeming short),
auto-focus, and quick shift.

-- Graydon

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Joseph McAllister]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:


Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
length differences remain noticeable.

At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
zooms.

-Adam




You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?

Joseph McAllister
Lots of gear, not much time

http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[paul stenquist]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:

> On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>> Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
>> handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
>> and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
>> recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
>> Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
>> length differences remain noticeable.
>> 
>> At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
>> While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
>> full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
>> zooms.
>> 
>> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
> 
I was wondering the same thing. Any fast and wide lens will be somewhat large. 
But I think the 14/2.8 is a good compromise. That being said, I get by with the 
12-24/4. It's a bit slower, but it's also wider than the 14 and very good.
Paul
> Joseph McAllister
> Lots of gear, not much time
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/jomac
> http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
>> handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
>> and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
>> recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
>> Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
>> length differences remain noticeable.
>>
>> At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
>> While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
>> full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
>> zooms.
>>
>> -Adam
>
>
>
> You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
>

Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
current-production

-Adam

-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bob Sullivan]

Adam,
Of course, I can argue that a useful ISO 1600 in digital negates the
need for an f2 or better.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Adam Maas  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>> Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
>>> handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
>>> and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
>>> recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
>>> Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
>>> length differences remain noticeable.
>>>
>>> At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
>>> While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
>>> full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
>>> zooms.
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
>>
>
> Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
> equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
> faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
> 21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
> wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
> current-production
>
> -Adam
>
> --
> M. Adam Maas
> http://www.mawz.ca
> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David Savage]

I agree, but it's the DOF control offered by the fast stuff that gives
creative possibilities.

I just bought the Nikon 85mm f1.4. Sure, it's not at it's best at that
aperture, but the ability selectively isolate details and surround
them with soft bokeh goodness is awesome.

DS

2010/1/4 Bob Sullivan :
> Adam,
> Of course, I can argue that a useful ISO 1600 in digital negates the
> need for an f2 or better.
> Regards,  Bob S.
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Adam Maas  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:
>>>
 Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
 handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
 and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
 recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
 Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
 length differences remain noticeable.

 At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
 While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
 full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
 zooms.

 -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
>> equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
>> faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
>> 21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
>> wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
>> current-production
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> --
>> M. Adam Maas
>> http://www.mawz.ca
>> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>>
>> --
>> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Joseph McAllister]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 18:10 , Adam Maas wrote:



You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?



Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
current-production




But Pentax lenses don't go *poof* when production stops, and so far,  
they are all supported, for what they are.


As far as I'm concerned, all Pentax lenses are current. Just can't get  
some of them repaired by Pentax any more.


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com

"Gaudeamus igitur, juvenes dum sumus..."
http://tinyurl.com/ndmfhb





--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[paul stenquist]

Right you are. That's why I hang onto my K85/1.8. The DA* 50-135/2.8 is just as 
good or better at f2.8, but sometimes those extra stops can work wonders.
Paul
On Jan 3, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Savage wrote:

> I agree, but it's the DOF control offered by the fast stuff that gives
> creative possibilities.
> 
> I just bought the Nikon 85mm f1.4. Sure, it's not at it's best at that
> aperture, but the ability selectively isolate details and surround
> them with soft bokeh goodness is awesome.
> 
> DS
> 
> 2010/1/4 Bob Sullivan :
>> Adam,
>> Of course, I can argue that a useful ISO 1600 in digital negates the
>> need for an f2 or better.
>> Regards,  Bob S.
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Adam Maas  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
 On Jan 3, 2010, at 06:32 , Adam Maas wrote:
 
> Pentax offers nothing truly comparable to the 58 Nokton, the FA 50/1.4
> handles worse (particularly for manual focus, the Nokton has a large
> and well damped focus ring) and has significant QC problems with
> recent production and the DA* 55 is about twice the price of the
> Nokton and both are shorter lenses in a range where smaller focal
> length differences remain noticeable.
> 
> At the wide end Pentax is lacking any fast glass wider than 31mm.
> While Pentax lenses are excellent, Pentax really has not provided a
> full lens line unless your needs are small but slow primes and/or f2.8
> zooms.
> 
> -Adam
 
 
 
 You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
 
>>> 
>>> Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
>>> equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
>>> faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
>>> 21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
>>> wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
>>> current-production
>>> 
>>> -Adam
>>> 
>>> --
>>> M. Adam Maas
>>> http://www.mawz.ca
>>> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

And I can argue the opposite, having run out of shutter speed at f1.4
and ISO 6400 regularly (and even more so at ISO 3200), where running
out of shutter speed means below 1/8th second (My absolute lower limit
even with IS on anything with a mirror). But I shoot in a lot of very
low-light situations. I need the speed, not everybody does.

-Adam

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
> Adam,
> Of course, I can argue that a useful ISO 1600 in digital negates the
> need for an f2 or better.
> Regards,  Bob S.
>


-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Joseph McAllister  wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2010, at 18:10 , Adam Maas wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You consider the DA 14mm ƒ2.8 slow?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but not terribly so, f2.8 is quite acceptable for a 21mm
>> equivalent, but by is no means fast. Remember, the FF world has lenses
>> faster than f2 in this FoV range (Oly 21/2, Sigma 20/1.8, Leica
>> 21/1.4, even Pentax's prototype 20/1.4). Pentax has exactly two lenses
>> wider than 31mm and faster than f2.8 (28/2, FA* 24/2), and neither are
>> current-production
>
>
>
> But Pentax lenses don't go *poof* when production stops, and so far, they
> are all supported, for what they are.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, all Pentax lenses are current. Just can't get some
> of them repaired by Pentax any more.
>
> Joseph McAllister
> pentax...@mac.com
>

And some are simply bloody hard to find. Same problem in
Minolta/Sony-land. Just not enough of those interesting lenses out
there.

-Adam
Who in fact owns a 24/2 in KA mount, not the FA* sadly, merely a vivitar.
-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Charles Robinson]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 8:32, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
> Actually, I'd disagree here. There's really nothing else comparable to
> the K-x on the market, it has a unique combination of size, features
> and performance and that's the real draw there.
> 

I have to agree.  I played with my dad's K-x over the Christmas holiday here, 
and it is quite a winner. Small, fast, and pretty full-featured.  If I'd not 
already succumbed to the charms of two-wheel controls and weather sealing of 
the K10D, I'd want this camera so hard it would not be funny.

It does, however, look a bit "off-balanced" attached to the DA 16-50.  That 
lens kind of overwhelms the K-x. I wonder what the it would look like with the 
DA-40 mounted to it - pocketable?  

The thought of having the K-x with a DA21 on it makes me drool just a little.

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Martin Trautmann]

Bruce Dayton wrote:

Very well said Boris.  I tend to agree with this.  The biggest reason
for Pentax is the glass.  The only time to buy 3rd party is when
there is not an equivalent Pentax lens.  


There's plenty of glass around where Pentax just added the label to it.
There's plenty of glass around which is not named Pentax, but may 
provide excellent results on the K-x.
And Pentax once offered very good glass for very reasonable price - but 
the price advantage seems to be gone by now.


So I do feel that any lense is justified to be used on a suitable Pentax 
body, while there may be much worse combinations of certain Pentax 
optics and bodies - and although Pentax does offer the major 
compatibility between former and now, Pentax and Non-Pentax, there's 
plenty of incomplete support between original Pentax lenses and body.


Concerning the support itself: from the European point of view it's an 
argument against Pentax by now.


- Martin


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Martin Trautmann]

David Savage wrote:

I agree, but it's the DOF control offered by the fast stuff that gives
creative possibilities.


For wide angles which are the topic here?

I'm more concerned by the max. opening which does provide good quality. 
I do prefer a f/2.8 which becomes excellent at f/4.0 to a brighter f/1.8 
which sucks up to f/5.6.


So I'm more interested in image quality for wide angles than for max. 
opening. The more tele it becomes, the more I do prefer the opposit 
tendency and do accept slight quality decrease at max. opening.


- Martin


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Martin Trautmann  wrote:
> For wide angles which are the topic here?
>
> I'm more concerned by the max. opening which does provide good quality. I do
> prefer a f/2.8 which becomes excellent at f/4.0 to a brighter f/1.8 which
> sucks up to f/5.6.

Most of the best wide-angle lenses made are relatively slow lenses,
f/4 is fast for an ultrawide.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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: Wide angle for K-X?

[J.C. O'Connell]

fwiw, both the k35/3.5 and k28/3.5 are truly excellent lenses on
digital.

--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Martin Trautmann  wrote:
> For wide angles which are the topic here?
>
> I'm more concerned by the max. opening which does provide good 
> quality. I do prefer a f/2.8 which becomes excellent at f/4.0 to a 
> brighter f/1.8 which sucks up to f/5.6.

Most of the best wide-angle lenses made are relatively slow lenses, f/4
is fast for an ultrawide.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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.


-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

Both of which are "normal" on an APS C sized sensor,   35mm being  ~ 
50/55mm the longish normal we're used to with 35mm film cameras. 28mm 
being approximatly the diagonal of the sensor, making it a true normal 
as defined my most other photographic formats.


On 1/5/2010 4:46 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

fwiw, both the k35/3.5 and k28/3.5 are truly excellent lenses on
digital.

--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER&  DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Martin Trautmann  wrote:
   

For wide angles which are the topic here?

I'm more concerned by the max. opening which does provide good
quality. I do prefer a f/2.8 which becomes excellent at f/4.0 to a
brighter f/1.8 which sucks up to f/5.6.
 

Most of the best wide-angle lenses made are relatively slow lenses, f/4
is fast for an ultrawide.

   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:

>  Sandy, if you are considering buying Voigt 58 and Sigma 24, then I
>  humbly suggest that you consider not buying a Pentax camera.

I am. As Panasonic G1 with the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 has considerable
appeal, but the 20 is not as wide as I'd like and the system is a bit
beyond my budget and lacks in-body IS.

It seems to me in-body IS is obviously the right thing to do. If I
had a lot more money and was not worried about weight, I'd buy
the full-frame Sony and some Zeiss glass.

On my budget, the choices are lesser Sony models, Olympus
and Pentax. Among those, the K-X looks to me to be the best
right now.

>  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
>  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
>  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
>  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
>  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.

Good advice, thanks.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Dario Bonazza]

Sandy Harris wrote:


I am. As Panasonic G1 with the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 has considerable
appeal, but the 20 is not as wide as I'd like and the system is a bit
beyond my budget and lacks in-body IS.

It seems to me in-body IS is obviously the right thing to do. If I
had a lot more money and was not worried about weight, I'd buy
the full-frame Sony and some Zeiss glass.

On my budget, the choices are lesser Sony models, Olympus
and Pentax. Among those, the K-X looks to me to be the best
right now.


I've just tested the Sony A550 and the Pentax K-x. IQ is terrific for both, 
with the K-x being even better than the truly excellent A550 at high ISO 
settings. The K-x is more camera, while the A550 looks, feels and operates 
like a toy in comparison.
The A550 viewwfinder is a nightmare, so tiny and dark that a friend looking 
through it indoor thought the cap was still on the lens! However, both 
deliver excellent pictures, which is what counts at the end. If I had to 
suggest one for a starter (irrespectively of the cost, of the lens outfit 
and whatever), the K-x would be my advice in a blink. Go figure for a 
Pentaxian!


Dario 



--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Dario Bonazza  wrote:
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
>> I am. As Panasonic G1 with the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 has considerable
>> appeal, but the 20 is not as wide as I'd like and the system is a bit
>> beyond my budget and lacks in-body IS.
>>
>> It seems to me in-body IS is obviously the right thing to do. If I
>> had a lot more money and was not worried about weight, I'd buy
>> the full-frame Sony and some Zeiss glass.
>>
>> On my budget, the choices are lesser Sony models, Olympus
>> and Pentax. Among those, the K-X looks to me to be the best
>> right now.
>
> I've just tested the Sony A550 and the Pentax K-x. IQ is terrific for both,
> with the K-x being even better than the truly excellent A550 at high ISO
> settings. The K-x is more camera, while the A550 looks, feels and operates
> like a toy in comparison.
> The A550 viewwfinder is a nightmare, so tiny and dark that a friend looking
> through it indoor thought the cap was still on the lens! However, both
> deliver excellent pictures, which is what counts at the end. If I had to
> suggest one for a starter (irrespectively of the cost, of the lens outfit
> and whatever), the K-x would be my advice in a blink. Go figure for a
> Pentaxian!
>
> Dario
>

The A550 is also significantly more expensive than the K-x (Nearly
twice the price). It's sole advantage seems to be the ability to
select AF points. The K-x is shaping up to be a HUGE win for Pentax,
there's nothing even vaguely comparable for similar money as it's
significantly cheaper and faster than the D5000 or Rebel T1i, let
alone the A450/500/550.

Pentax hit one out of the park here.

-Adam
Who is actually seriously considering wwapping his E-30 for the K-x,
for its low-light capabilities.

-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Dario Bonazza]

Adam Maas wrote:


The A550 is also significantly more expensive than the K-x (Nearly
twice the price). It's sole advantage seems to be the ability to
select AF points.


The K-x can also do that, but it doesn't show the selected point in the 
viewfinder. So you have to remember the AF point you selected and rely on 
the AF brackets in the screen as a reference when focusing.


The A550 advantage are the tiltable monitor and the AF point indication in 
the viewfinder.


Dario 



--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David J Brooks]

I have the Sigma 10-20 in Nikon mount and it does a pretty decent job.
Its not a fast lens though

Dave




-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[J.C. O'Connell]

right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
anything called normal in the old days, I recall
when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
to mention...

--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:41 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


Both of which are "normal" on an APS C sized sensor,   35mm being  ~ 
50/55mm the longish normal we're used to with 35mm film cameras. 28mm 
being approximatly the diagonal of the sensor, making it a true normal 
as defined my most other photographic formats.

On 1/5/2010 4:46 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> fwiw, both the k35/3.5 and k28/3.5 are truly excellent lenses on 
> digital.
>
> --
> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
> Join the CD PLAYER&  DISC Discussions : 
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf 
> Of Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:37 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Martin Trautmann  wrote:
>
>> For wide angles which are the topic here?
>>
>> I'm more concerned by the max. opening which does provide good 
>> quality. I do prefer a f/2.8 which becomes excellent at f/4.0 to a 
>> brighter f/1.8 which sucks up to f/5.6.
>>  
> Most of the best wide-angle lenses made are relatively slow lenses, 
> f/4 is fast for an ultrawide.
>
>


-- 
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to
Thunderbird 3.0 and the interface subtly weird.\par }


-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
> right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
> anything called normal in the old days, I recall
> when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
> the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
> to mention...
>
> --
> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)

28mm is a 42mm-e on APS-C, pretty much exactly the same as Pentax's
43mm 'true normal' and right on the 40-45mm normal range that was
typical for fixed-lens RF's and P&S's back in the day as well as being
moderately common in SLR's from the mid-70's on. A 35 is a long normal
on APS-C.

55mm as a normal was only ever an abberation of 60's SLR designs, as
it was a bit easier to design for a SLR mount than 50mm that had been
the  the 'normal' for 35mm since the original Leica was introduced in
the late 1920's. Many systems never even had a 55 normal or only had
exotic 55's (usually an f1.2 or a macro). 55's as the standard on
SLR's only lasted about 15 years from the early 60's to the late 70's,
which was also when 40's and 45's became increasingly common as
normals from Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss (Contax) Olympus and Pentax.
Canon, Olympus and Nikon only did exotic 55's.

35mm has traditionally had a longer normal than other formats, due to
Oskar Barnack's taste in lenses.

-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[J.C. O'Connell]

there is no "true normal", normal is not an exact defintion of a focal
length, and 50mm was what came with many many slrs for many years, one
could argue that that was "normal", not 43mm or 55mm
 on film
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ 


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM, J.C. O'Connell 
wrote:
> right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
> anything called normal in the old days, I recall
> when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
> the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
> to mention...
>
> --
> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)

28mm is a 42mm-e on APS-C, pretty much exactly the same as Pentax's 43mm
'true normal' and right on the 40-45mm normal range that was typical for
fixed-lens RF's and P&S's back in the day as well as being moderately
common in SLR's from the mid-70's on. A 35 is a long normal on APS-C.

55mm as a normal was only ever an abberation of 60's SLR designs, as it
was a bit easier to design for a SLR mount than 50mm that had been the
the 'normal' for 35mm since the original Leica was introduced in the
late 1920's. Many systems never even had a 55 normal or only had exotic
55's (usually an f1.2 or a macro). 55's as the standard on SLR's only
lasted about 15 years from the early 60's to the late 70's, which was
also when 40's and 45's became increasingly common as normals from
Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss (Contax) Olympus and Pentax. Canon, Olympus
and Nikon only did exotic 55's.

35mm has traditionally had a longer normal than other formats, due to
Oskar Barnack's taste in lenses.

-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David Savage]

"There is no spoon"

2010/1/7 J.C. O'Connell :
> there is no "true normal", normal is not an exact defintion of a focal
> length, and 50mm was what came with many many slrs for many years, one
> could argue that that was "normal", not 43mm or 55mm
>  on film
> --
> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
> Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions :
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:21 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM, J.C. O'Connell 
> wrote:
>> right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
>> anything called normal in the old days, I recall
>> when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
>> the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
>> to mention...
>>
>> --
>> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
>
> 28mm is a 42mm-e on APS-C, pretty much exactly the same as Pentax's 43mm
> 'true normal' and right on the 40-45mm normal range that was typical for
> fixed-lens RF's and P&S's back in the day as well as being moderately
> common in SLR's from the mid-70's on. A 35 is a long normal on APS-C.
>
> 55mm as a normal was only ever an abberation of 60's SLR designs, as it
> was a bit easier to design for a SLR mount than 50mm that had been the
> the 'normal' for 35mm since the original Leica was introduced in the
> late 1920's. Many systems never even had a 55 normal or only had exotic
> 55's (usually an f1.2 or a macro). 55's as the standard on SLR's only
> lasted about 15 years from the early 60's to the late 70's, which was
> also when 40's and 45's became increasingly common as normals from
> Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss (Contax) Olympus and Pentax. Canon, Olympus
> and Nikon only did exotic 55's.
>
> 35mm has traditionally had a longer normal than other formats, due to
> Oskar Barnack's taste in lenses.
>
> --
> M. Adam Maas
> http://www.mawz.ca
> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[David J Brooks]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Savage  wrote:
> "There is no spoon"
>
Explains why my soup drips off the fork.

Dave
-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Adam Maas]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:06 AM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
> there is no "true normal", normal is not an exact defintion of a focal
> length, and 50mm was what came with many many slrs for many years, one
> could argue that that was "normal", not 43mm or 55mm
>  on film
> --
> J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)

A 'True Normal' is a lens with the focal length approximately equal to
the diagonal of the format, for 35mm this is an approximately 43mm
lens. Normal does have a standard definition of focal length, but 35mm
(and 645 MF) generally ignore this for a slightly longer 'normal'.

And yes, 50mm is the traditional normal length for 35mm, but it is not
a 'true normal' in any respect, it was chosen solely because Oskar
Barnack liked a longer normal.


-- 
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Ken Waller]

You mean we've been forked.

Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

- Original Message - 
From: "David J Brooks" 


Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?



On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Savage  wrote:

"There is no spoon"


Explains why my soup drips off the fork.

Dave
--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

I let this pass before, since there's not any point in arguing with 
someone who /knows/ /everything/ .


True normal is a convention.  That convention is the normal focal lenght 
is the diagonal of the film or in modern day sensor format.  Most non 
35mm cameras with fixed lenses have a normal focal lenght that follows 
that rule. For 6x9 it's 105mm or if you prefer inches 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 
works out to about 4 inches, 4x5 is approximately a 6 inch lens as as 
examples.  If you look at most any fixed camera made by any manufacturer 
in the last 100 years you'll find that the manufacturer fitted it with a 
"normal" lens.  That's been the definition since at least the turn of 
the last century.


There are historical reasons that 50~58mm lenses were sold as normal 
lenses on interchangeable lens 35mm cameras, but that was an exception 
to the general rule.  Because of this there was some bleed over from the 
interchangeable lens category to fixed lens 35mm cameras.  Even with 
that a lot of fixed lens35mm cameras were manufactured with 40-45mm lenses.


35mm SLRs are not the end all and be all of photography.

 With that I'll say no more on the subject, at least not in this thread.

On 1/7/2010 10:06 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

there is no "true normal", normal is not an exact defintion of a focal
length, and 50mm was what came with many many slrs for many years, one
could argue that that was "normal", not 43mm or 55mm
  on film
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER&  DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM, J.C. O'Connell
wrote:
   

right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
anything called normal in the old days, I recall
when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
to mention...

--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
 

28mm is a 42mm-e on APS-C, pretty much exactly the same as Pentax's 43mm
'true normal' and right on the 40-45mm normal range that was typical for
fixed-lens RF's and P&S's back in the day as well as being moderately
common in SLR's from the mid-70's on. A 35 is a long normal on APS-C.

55mm as a normal was only ever an abberation of 60's SLR designs, as it
was a bit easier to design for a SLR mount than 50mm that had been the
the 'normal' for 35mm since the original Leica was introduced in the
late 1920's. Many systems never even had a 55 normal or only had exotic
55's (usually an f1.2 or a macro). 55's as the standard on SLR's only
lasted about 15 years from the early 60's to the late 70's, which was
also when 40's and 45's became increasingly common as normals from
Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss (Contax) Olympus and Pentax. Canon, Olympus
and Nikon only did exotic 55's.

35mm has traditionally had a longer normal than other formats, due to
Oskar Barnack's taste in lenses.

   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

But is there a fork?

On 1/7/2010 10:07 AM, David Savage wrote:

"There is no spoon"

2010/1/7 J.C. O'Connell:
   

there is no "true normal", normal is not an exact defintion of a focal
length, and 50mm was what came with many many slrs for many years, one
could argue that that was "normal", not 43mm or 55mm
  on film
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER&  DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/


-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wide angle for K-X?


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM, J.C. O'Connell
wrote:
 

right on the 35, but the 28 is wider than most
anything called normal in the old days, I recall
when 55mm on 35mm film was "normal".  Regardless,
the K24/3.5 is pretty damn good too, which I forgot
to mention...

--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
   

28mm is a 42mm-e on APS-C, pretty much exactly the same as Pentax's 43mm
'true normal' and right on the 40-45mm normal range that was typical for
fixed-lens RF's and P&S's back in the day as well as being moderately
common in SLR's from the mid-70's on. A 35 is a long normal on APS-C.

55mm as a normal was only ever an abberation of 60's SLR designs, as it
was a bit easier to design for a SLR mount than 50mm that had been the
the 'normal' for 35mm since the original Leica was introduced in the
late 1920's. Many systems never even had a 55 normal or only had exotic
55's (usually an f1.2 or a macro). 55's as the standard on SLR's only
lasted about 15 years from the early 60's to the late 70's, which was
also when 40's and 45's became increasingly common as normals from
Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Zeiss (Contax) Olympus and Pentax. Canon, Olympus
and Nikon only did exotic 55's.

35mm has traditionally had a longer normal than other formats, due to
Oskar Barnack's taste in lenses.

--
M. Adam Maas
http://www.mawz.ca
Explorations of the City Around Us.

--
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.

 
   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Mark Roberts]

David Savage wrote:

>"There is no spoon"

"The cake is a lie"


-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

I guess this answers my question.

On 1/7/2010 10:10 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Savage  wrote:
   

"There is no spoon"

 

Explains why my soup drips off the fork.

Dave
   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:

>  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
>  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
>  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
>  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
>  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.

Sounds like very good advice.

My current plan is to buy the 16-45 and look for a good used 50/4
macro. (Anyone got a spare?) Playing with that should let me
figure out if the 50/1.4 or 70/2.4 should be next.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[frank theriault]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Savage  wrote:
>> "There is no spoon"
>>
> Explains why my soup drips off the fork.


You need a spork.

Or a foon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork

cheers,
frank



-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[eckinator]

Sporks are great but would be even better as part of a leatherman or
perhaps even a Swiss Army Spork... =)

2010/1/8 frank theriault :
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Savage  wrote:
>>> "There is no spoon"
>>>
>> Explains why my soup drips off the fork.
>
>
> You need a spork.
>
> Or a foon.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
>
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Cotty]

On 8/1/10, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

>You need a spork.

Funny you should say that.



Filmed the inventor with some prototypes in the 1990s and he gave me one
which we use to this day

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Boris Liberman]

I am not familiar with 50/4 macro lens, but I do know that A 50/2.8 
macro exists and it is highly regarded. Perchance it would be a better 
choice for you simply because it is faster and because being A lens, it 
will have native metering with your cameras...


Boris

On 1/8/2010 2:09 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:


  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.


Sounds like very good advice.

My current plan is to buy the 16-45 and look for a good used 50/4
macro. (Anyone got a spare?) Playing with that should let me
figure out if the 50/1.4 or 70/2.4 should be next.




--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[eckinator]

I have a EX+ boxed, all papers DFA 50/2.8 macro for sale if you're
interested but please mind the USD-EUR gap, you'd be looking at € 200
plus shipment and all x1.5 if paid in USD
Cheers
Ecke

2010/1/8 Boris Liberman :
> I am not familiar with 50/4 macro lens, but I do know that A 50/2.8 macro
> exists and it is highly regarded. Perchance it would be a better choice for
> you simply because it is faster and because being A lens, it will have
> native metering with your cameras...
>
> Boris
>
> On 1/8/2010 2:09 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>
>> On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:
>>
>>>  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
>>>  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
>>>  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
>>>  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
>>>  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.
>>
>> Sounds like very good advice.
>>
>> My current plan is to buy the 16-45 and look for a good used 50/4
>> macro. (Anyone got a spare?) Playing with that should let me
>> figure out if the 50/1.4 or 70/2.4 should be next.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bran Everseeking]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:29:17 +0200
Boris Liberman  wrote:

> >
> > My current plan is to buy the 16-45 and look for a good used 50/4
> > macro. (Anyone got a spare?)

There is an M50 f4 macro for sale on my local, Saskatoon, kijiji.com
site at $125 CDN

http://saskatoon.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Pentax-50mm-Macro-lens-W0QQAdIdZ177405105

-- 
"Love" is that condition in which the happiness of another person is
essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy
condition.- Robert Heinlein

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/2/10, paul stenquist  wrote:
> Don't rule out the new DA* zooms. They're as good or better than many primes. 
> I would venture to say that the DA* 16-50/2.8 is better than the old 24/2.8 
> prime. I once shot nothing but primes. I think I bought my first zoom just a 
> few years ago after 30 years of shooting primes. But I'm very happy with the 
> DA( 16-50, 50-134 and 60-250.

Anyone got the DA * 17-70/4 and if so, what do you think? Is the image quality
up to snuff?

It is heavier and more expensive than 16-45, but it goes longer and has SDM.
The 16-50 is definitely too heavy & expensive for me, but this might not be.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[wendy beard]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Bran Everseeking
 wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:29:17 +0200
> Boris Liberman  wrote:
>
>> >
>> > My current plan is to buy the 16-45 and look for a good used 50/4
>> > macro. (Anyone got a spare?)
>
> There is an M50 f4 macro for sale on my local, Saskatoon, kijiji.com
> site at $125 CDN
>

There's one for sale here at my house for $100 :-)

--
Wendy Beard
Carp, 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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Bran Everseeking]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:40:33 -0500
wendy beard  wrote:

> > There is an M50 f4 macro for sale on my local, Saskatoon, kijiji.com
> > site at $125 CDN
> >
> 
> There's one for sale here at my house for $100 :-)

hrmm go with Wendy's copy its sure to be user verified as PDML quality.


-- 
"Love" is that condition in which the happiness of another person is
essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy
condition.- Robert Heinlein

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[gldnbearz]

HI Sandy-

I own the 16-45 and recently rented the 17-70 during the holidays.
For me, the 16-45 images were always contrasty enough.  I was trying
to see if I could do better with a slightly longer lens and the fact
that the 16-45 is at its longest length when it is at 16mm was always
rather odd.

I liked how quiet the SDM was paired with the K7.  I used it during an
indoor speaking event and did not draw as much notice as using the
16-45.  However, I am concerned a bit that the lens is SDM only; I
don't know why since both the K7 & K200D are capable of SDM. I do have
a *istDS, but that body doesn't see much use these days.  It is
substantially larger than the 16-45 and doesn't balance well (IMO) on
the K7 (no grip).  Unfortunately, I chose the gray & wet of winter to
try a lens.

The collective wisdom of the PDML has me putting the DA 70 on my next
shopping list to complement my 16-45.  If I did not already have the
16-45, I might very well get the 17-70.

My 2 cents.

- Pat

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> Anyone got the DA * 17-70/4 and if so, what do you think? Is the image quality
> up to snuff?
>
> It is heavier and more expensive than 16-45, but it goes longer and has SDM.
> The 16-50 is definitely too heavy & expensive for me, but this might not be.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/3/10, Carlos R  wrote:

> Besides the excellent 16-45 that some people suggested, there is the FA
> 20-35. Small, AF and high IQ too, though you would have to look for a second
> hand one.

That looks good but B&H and Amazon don't list it, and the one Hong Kong
dealer I've found with a web catalog (http://www.tincheungcamera.com.hk/)
want nearly $1000 US for it, 7500-odd HK vs about a third of that for the
16-45.

Was there ever an A or F version of this?

I've found some references to an M 20-35/3.5
(http://stans-photography.info/BriefComments.html#24-35%20mm%20f/3.5%20M)
but not anything between it and the expensive FA.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Derby Chang]

Sandy Harris wrote:

I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel
combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just
getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some.

My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an
MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for
most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use
either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander.
Comments on that choice appreciated too.

What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a
wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or
10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate
price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious
possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for
me.

What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see
a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings.

  


Very very late on this, but despite the naysayers, I've had pretty good 
experience with half a dozen Sigma EX lenses. The 20/1.8 is my favourite 
widey for gig shots (have a PDML Book submission taken with it), and I'd 
say the 24/1.8 is a tad more useful than the FA24/2. May just be luck, 
but in extreme lighting, the Sig 24 is sharper, has less PP, and focuses 
slightly closer.


D

--

der...@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:43 AM, Derby Chang wrote:




Very very late on this, but despite the naysayers, I've had pretty  
good experience with half a dozen Sigma EX lenses. The 20/1.8 is my  
favourite widey for gig shots (have a PDML Book submission taken  
with it), and I'd say the 24/1.8 is a tad more useful than the  
FA24/2. May just be luck, but in extreme lighting, the Sig 24 is  
sharper, has less PP, and focuses slightly closer.


About a month ago, I picked up a Sigma 20/1.8.  In most respects, I  
really liked the lens. Unfortunately, something about the manual focus  
felt very lumpy. I mentioned this problem on the list.  I talked with  
Sigma, decided that I'd send it in for repair, but after the  
holidays.  The lens worked, it was just a bit unpleasant to use.


This week I was going to pack it up to ship it off to Sigma. While I  
was writing the letter describing the problems, I realized that the  
mysterious lumpiness had gone away.  I don't know what the problem  
was, maybe a lump of grease on one of the gears, but it seems to have  
solved itself.


Over all, I'm very happy with the lens.  Here's a set that I shot  
tonight with it:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=177374&id=653299672&l=90b4340ed6
Band at ISO 400-640, dancers at 3200, all manual focus, manual  
exposure (1/10-1/25 sec at f/1.8)


The focus still feels like a cheap kit lens, but it's reasonably  
sharp, and it's fast enough for my uses.


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[P. J. Alling]

On 1/14/2010 3:34 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:

On 1/3/10, Carlos R  wrote:

   

Besides the excellent 16-45 that some people suggested, there is the FA
20-35. Small, AF and high IQ too, though you would have to look for a second
hand one.
 

That looks good but B&H and Amazon don't list it, and the one Hong Kong
dealer I've found with a web catalog (http://www.tincheungcamera.com.hk/)
want nearly $1000 US for it, 7500-odd HK vs about a third of that for the
16-45.

Was there ever an A or F version of this?

I've found some references to an M 20-35/3.5
(http://stans-photography.info/BriefComments.html#24-35%20mm%20f/3.5%20M)
but not anything between it and the expensive FA.

   
The FA 20-35mm is a very nice lens, but hardly worth $1000 USD or AUS 
for that matter.  I think I paid ~$250 for mine brand new in box with US 
warrantee.  I keep thinking that there's Gold in my lens collection.  
There was no A or F version of this lens.


Try http://www.keh.com they have one in stock for $299.00  listed as 
EX+.  They usually grade very conservatively, I'd expect that it would 
be mint by any other company's standards.


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[John Sessoms]

From: Sandy Harris

On 1/3/10, Carlos R  wrote:

> Besides the excellent 16-45 that some people suggested, there is the FA
> 20-35. Small, AF and high IQ too, though you would have to look for a second
> hand one.


That looks good but B&H and Amazon don't list it, and the one Hong Kong
dealer I've found with a web catalog (http://www.tincheungcamera.com.hk/)
want nearly $1000 US for it, 7500-odd HK vs about a third of that for the
16-45.


KEH is currently showing one "20-35 F4 SMC FA AL (58) 35MM SLR AUTO 
FOCUS ZOOM SUPER WIDE ANGLE LENS" ... Condition EX+ at $399. (USD)


Plus whatever they charge for shipping it from Atlanta. I don't know 
what you would have to deal with as far as customs and whatever.


--
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Sandy Harris]

On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:

>  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
>  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
>  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
>  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good
>  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.

Good advice, but I did not follow it exactly. So far I have three Pentax
lenses. The 16-45 I found used for under $200 and jumped at it. Then
a cheap screwmount 50/1.7 and a reasonably priced A 35-70 F4 zoom.

So far, the 35-70 has spent more time on the camera than the other
two combined. Using it seems natural to me. I'll learn how to use
the 16-45 over the next while.

I'll start another thread about buying in Shanghai, in particular the
used camera market there.

-- 
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: Wide angle for K-X?

[Steve Sharpe]

At 7:58 PM +0800 1/28/10, Sandy Harris wrote:

On 1/3/10, Boris Liberman  wrote:


  It is therefore my humble suggestion that you look for Pentax glass to
  mount on your Pentax camera. If you're willing to entertain the idea
  of DA 16-45/4, then I suggest that you simply add to this a good copy
  of FA 50/1.4 and shoot until you both got the money and also the good

 >  idea where to go next - wide angle, portraits, telephoto, etc.


If anyone's interested, Forest City Image Centre in London, Ontario 
(the storefront for CameraCanada.com) had a new 50mm f1.4 FA for 
C$199 when I was in there a week ago. I don't know if they do mail 
order from the storefront, but it may be worth a try if you want one 
of these!


--

Steve Sharpe
d...@eastlink.ca
•

http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html


--
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.