. . . and give me your thoughts.
Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Dakota in a
little over a month and have an extremely limited budget. I'm quite
literally saving up the quarters from my tips (along with everything
else that I can) to finance it. But, you want to mak
"OT"? What could possibly be more *on-topic* than questions about
Pentax photo equipment? :-)
Why take the K100D Super when you've got a K20 and K-x along? It'll
just add weight.
Have you not got a DA 18-55 kit lens? I'd use that for wide landscapes
myself. It's a darned sharp lens. And small and
Walt,
Reduce your body count by 1. Get rid of the Promaster zoom.
For general purpose shooting, the stock 18-55 will do fine.
Then spend the extra money on 2 lenses: A50/2.8 macro & DA35/2.4 come to
mind first.
Unless you want sky-scapes, any very wide lens will be disappointing,
imnsho.
Perhaps
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might make the
cut, so I thought that might make it semi-OT. But, since they'd be
K-mounts, I guess I was just being a little extra cautious.
I wanted to carry three bodies just to make sure I have a fairly long
zoom for wildlife, one o
Thanks, Collin!
I explained to Bruce why I'm planning to take three bodies -- to me,
it's mostly a matter of not minding the encumbrance compared to having a
camera readily available at a moment's notice. Also, I really can't get
rid of the Promaster as I would likely get next-to-nothing for i
Walt, The 16-45 Pentax lens is not bad and could gotten pretty cheap.
If you could find a 18mm Pentax lens cheap, you might like it. On the
more money front there is a Simga 18 to 50 F2,8 Macro which is nice
and then there is the Simga 10mm to 20mm F3.5 which is also nice. I
have them all and l
Thank you, Joe.
I'm making a list and checking prices and availability.
So far, I've found an SMC-M 28/2.8 for $45 at KEH. Don't know much about
the lens, but assume it's got to be better than the Takumar I have.
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 6:27 PM, jn289 wrote:
Walt, The 16-45 Pentax lens is not b
Walt, but that puts you near a 50 mm and I think you would want
something wider. See if you can find the 16-45 lens..Joe
Thank you, Joe.
I'm making a list and checking prices and availability.
So far, I've found an SMC-M 28/2.8 for $45 at KEH. Don't know much
about the lens, but assume it'
I did find a 16-45, but they were asking over $300 for it. I'd have to
get really lucky (and smart) over the next month to be able to get that
one. I bet it is a really nice lens, though.
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 6:48 PM, jn289 wrote:
Walt, but that puts you near a 50 mm and I think you would want
Also, check out the excellent A35-105. Quite sharp though heavy as it is
solidly constructed. Often about $125.
The A200/4 would be a great long lens that is very compact. In the $150
neighborhood, iirc.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml
Thanks again, Collin!
I /may/ be able to pull off the A35-105 -- which sounds nice. I like
some heft to my gear. The desire for featherweight bodies and lenses has
always been a bit lost on me.
Although, I do have the F35-135 that I hadn't considered. It's a pretty
sharp lens that just might
on 2012-08-20 16:56 Walt Gilbert wrote
[...] and
I'd like to have something wider for landscapes. I have a Takumar 28/2.8, but
it's really a pretty crappy lens compared to the others.
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the lowest buck
-- for the wider landscapes? Al
A K28 3.5. Really sharp. They can be had at KEH for a reasonable
price. MF, but no big deal for landscapes.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:19 PM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2012-08-20 16:56 Walt Gilbert wrote
>>
>> [...] and
>>
>> I'd like to have something wider for landscapes. I have a Takumar 28/
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
> As things stand, I'll likely opt for the DA 18-55 kit lens for the wider
> shots. I'm just not crazy about the f/3.5 max aperture. I'd like something a
> little faster, even if it means giving up auto-focus, metering and aperture
> controls -
1, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
. . . and give me your thoughts.
Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Dakota in a
little over a month and have an extremely limited budget. I'm quite
literal
Borrow something.
Walt Gilbert wrote:
>. . . and give me your thoughts.
>
>Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Dakota in a
>
>little over a month and have an extremely limited budget. I'm quite
>literally saving up the quarters from my tips (along with everything
>else
llery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Walt Gilbert"
Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might make the
cut, so I thought that might make it semi-OT. But, since they'd
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
> What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the lowest
> buck -- for the wider landscapes? All I really care about is the focal length
> and IQ -- everything else is mere window dressing as far as I'm concerned.
> I'm essen
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the least expensive way to get wide angles and high image
> quality is to stitch multiple exposures together in a panorama.
>
> Put the 50mm prime on your camera, mount it on the tripod in vertical
> orientation and whe
Walt,
I have some lenses that I am willing to loan out.
Tamron 300/5.6.
M100/4 macro
M28/2.8 (second edition, same as the "A" but w/o the "A" setting)
Sincerely,
Collin Brendemuehl
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
-- Jim Elliott
--
PDML Pentax
trip?
>
> I'd offer, but i think going via Australia is probably a bit more of a
> detour than you'd want to take...
>
> - Peter
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Walt Gilbert
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:26 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subje
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>
>> It seems to me that the least expensive way to get wide angles and high
>> image quality is to stitch multiple exposures together in a panorama.
>>
>> Put the 50mm prime on your cam
Maybe the old Tokina RMC 17mm f/3.5. If you can find one it should be
very cheap.
I would prefer the DA18-55 II for the best price/performance.
Toine
On 21 August 2012 00:56, Walt Gilbert wrote:
> . . . and give me your thoughts.
>
> Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Da
a 28-80 3.5-4.5 F & a 70-210 4 - 5.6 F.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: "Walt Gilbert"
Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might
On 8/21/2012 3:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the lowest buck
-- for the wider landscapes? All I really care about is the focal length and IQ
-- everything else is mere window dressing
On 8/20/2012 8:19 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2012-08-20 16:56 Walt Gilbert wrote
[...] and
I'd like to have something wider for landscapes. I have a Takumar
28/2.8, but
it's really a pretty crappy lens compared to the others.
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for th
Thanks, Toine!
I'll look into that one and see if I can find a nice deal. I really
would like to have a decent short prime -- one that's better than my Tak
28/2.8. But, if I can't come up with one, I suppose my 18-55 will be fine.
-- Walt
On 8/21/2012 9:34 AM, Toine wrote:
Maybe the old Tok
Thank you, Collin! I may very well take you up on one or more of those
and will happily pay the shipping when the time comes and I still
haven't come up with anything.
I very much appreciate the offer!
-- Walt
On 8/21/2012 8:29 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Walt,
I have some lenses that I a
I have to admit that it is a little hard to put oneself in your shoes
because your objectives seem at odds with each other.
You started off saying you wanted wide (for landscapes) and then say
that f3.5 is too slow for you. Few landscapes are shot wide open, and
most wide lenses are going to be slo
That's most likely what'll happen. I was just hoping there might be a
glut of some great short lens out there that "everyone" has in their kit
just because they're so great and readily available.
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 10:39 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:
Borrow something.
Walt Gilbert wrote:
- From: Walt Gilbert
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
. . . and give me your thoughts.
Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Dakota in a
little over a month and have an ext
On 8/21/2012 11:01 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
I have to admit that it is a little hard to put oneself in your shoes
because your objectives seem at odds with each other.
You started off saying you wanted wide (for landscapes) and then say
that f3.5 is too slow for you. Few landscapes are shot wide op
From: Walt Gilbert
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might make the
cut, so I thought that might make it semi-OT. But, since they'd be
K-mounts, I guess I was just being a little extra cautious.
I wanted to carry three bodies just to make sure I have a fairly long
zoom f
On 8/21/2012 9:45 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Walt Gilbert
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might make the
cut, so I thought that might make it semi-OT. But, since they'd be
K-mounts, I guess I was just being a little extra cautious.
I wanted to carry three bodies ju
our than you'd want to take...
- Peter
-Original Message- From: Walt Gilbert
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
. . . and give me your thoughts.
Say you're going to be leaving for
Thanks for the heads-up, Steven!
I've got a little time to do a little more saving-up. If I can manage to
save enough dough, I'll definitely put that in the "possibilities" pile.
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 8:49 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
A K28 3.5. Really sharp. They can be had at KEH for a re
on 2012-08-21 9:39 Walt Gilbert wrote
I've thought about trying my hand at stitching in the past. I may well give it
a whirl at some point on this trip. Is there any particular pano stitching
software you recommend?
i've used Hugin & Photoshop; Hugin gives you a lot of control, and is free, but
From: Walt Gilbert
On 8/21/2012 3:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the lowest buck
-- for the wider landscapes? All I really care about is the focal length and IQ
-- everything else is
On 8/21/2012 2:05 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2012-08-21 9:39 Walt Gilbert wrote
I've thought about trying my hand at stitching in the past. I may
well give it
a whirl at some point on this trip. Is there any particular pano
stitching
software you recommend?
i've used Hugin & Photoshop; Hugin
On 8/21/2012 2:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Walt Gilbert
On 8/21/2012 3:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Walt Gilbert wrote:
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the
lowest buck -- for the wider landscapes? All I really care about is
the
loan of
>a
>> lens for the trip?
>>
>> I'd offer, but i think going via Australia is probably a bit more of
>a
>> detour than you'd want to take...
>>
>> - Peter
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message- From: Walt Gilbert
>> Se
on 2012-08-21 7:54 Larry Colen wrote
I didn't say that it was the best way, I just said that it was the cheapest way.
actually, the cheapest way is to stitch hand-held shots; it works pretty well
if you practice a little; pano software can compensate for a lot; i've only
done a few of these,
If shooting RAW, set all captures to the same RAW setting - anyone but auto.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "steve harley"
Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
on 2012-08-21 7:54 L
It's very easy to do handheld panorama shots if you are doing
landscapes where there isn't something close to you that will shift
with parallax.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>
>> It seems to me that the least expens
David Parsons wrote:
>It's very easy to do handheld panorama shots if you are doing
>landscapes where there isn't something close to you that will shift
>with parallax.
Another good trick is, if there are any objects close you that might
cause parallax problems, compose panoramas that put these o
Walt, you can have SMCP DA 16-45/4 for like USD 250. It shows every now
and then on PentaxForums market place. My encounter with this lens back
in 2008 has convinced me that it was quite an excellent optic. With 16
mm at wide end you will get FOV similar to that of 24 mm lens on film
which is p
46 matches
Mail list logo
