Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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'v

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 t

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 cat

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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.

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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-cam

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 > exi

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 Ha

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 ___/\_

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 so

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 co

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 Cour

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

dam 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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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:h

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@pdm

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

ailto: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 w

RE: Wide angle for K-X?

& 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 Su

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'Connel

RE: Wide angle for K-X?

o.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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 s

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 ob

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

ginal 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

RE: Wide angle for K-X?

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? > >

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 wi

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 bright

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 ar

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 Ch

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 >>

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 situation

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 possib

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 Pe

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 Sulli

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 no

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 signific

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 significan

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 nomi

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 sl

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 availab

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 f

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 wo

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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" l

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 di

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 woul

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 situation

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

- 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 ha

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

- 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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

>> >> 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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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, thoug

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

ristine > > > > > > - 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 l

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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:/

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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)  |     P

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

at'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: &q

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 d

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 _ --

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

#x27;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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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,

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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:

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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 hap

Re: Wide angle for K-X?

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.

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 lea