Pentax DA 12-24mm in action

Jewelltrail · 10-14-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Canada Rockies: I brought the DA* 16-50 with me, but never put it on. The last time I did this climb, I was using the MZ-S and FA 24-90 (equivalent to 16-60), and found the field of view too narrow for the vista at the top. If the day were more sunlit, you would see just how wide this lens goes. It is very hard to see the width of the field of view of these ultra wides without a geometric subject such as an interior.

I agree with you wholeheartedly--do not forget, I regularly shoot with the Sigma 10-20 and am familiar with just how incredibly wide 12mm actually is.

And, even though I do not rely on UWA for landscapes, I still find times when they are indispensable for landscape shots, just as you have found on this hike.

Quote:

Canada Rockies: Being as out of shape as I am - I wish I had left that half-kilo 16-50 at home. Every ounce counts, and my hip is telling me how much.

You can work on getting in better shape if you so desire.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 must have a comparable weight to the Da 16-50, eh?

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-14-2010, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

You can work on getting in better shape if you so desire.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 must have a comparable weight to the Da 16-50, eh?

It surely must, huh?

Jewelltrail · 10-20-2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Canada Rockies: It surely must, huh?

My guess was wrong: I assumed, both lenses covering nearly identical focal lengths with the same constant aperture, would weigh in similarly.

Pentax 16-50mm= 565 Grams
Tamron 17-50mm= 440 Grams

The difference here is significant, even though I'm sure the Pentax is more ruggedly built. I am happy with the Tamron's build, though your neck will get stronger than mine if you keep carrying that 16-50mm.

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-20-2010, 08:33 AM

Jewelltrail: I should have printed "huh?" in bold - after all you put the Canadian "eh?" on then end of your message. Trying to be funny, and using the US "huh?" I just confused the issue!

To get back on topic, I wonder why the Pentax lens is so much heavier? Does it have more metal in it?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Action Shots	Timtast1c	Post Your Photos!	4	07-01-2009 11:15 AM
Who says you can't do fast action with a Pentax!	kkoether	Pentax DSLR Discussion	132	05-20-2009 02:17 PM
Pentax can't do action or low light...	mcleoud151	Post Your Photos!	33	10-02-2008 04:58 PM
Real world shootout Pentax FA* 24mm F2.0 vs Sigma 24mm EX DG F1.8	NaClH2O	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-18-2008 05:30 AM

10-14-2010, 10:21 AM	#16
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Canada Rockies: I brought the DA* 16-50 with me, but never put it on. The last time I did this climb, I was using the MZ-S and FA 24-90 (equivalent to 16-60), and found the field of view too narrow for the vista at the top. If the day were more sunlit, you would see just how wide this lens goes. It is very hard to see the width of the field of view of these ultra wides without a geometric subject such as an interior. I agree with you wholeheartedly--do not forget, I regularly shoot with the Sigma 10-20 and am familiar with just how incredibly wide 12mm actually is. And, even though I do not rely on UWA for landscapes, I still find times when they are indispensable for landscape shots, just as you have found on this hike. Quote: Canada Rockies: Being as out of shape as I am - I wish I had left that half-kilo 16-50 at home. Every ounce counts, and my hip is telling me how much. You can work on getting in better shape if you so desire. My Tamron 17-50 2.8 must have a comparable weight to the Da 16-50, eh?

10-14-2010, 11:02 AM	#17
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jewelltrail You can work on getting in better shape if you so desire. My Tamron 17-50 2.8 must have a comparable weight to the Da 16-50, eh? It surely must, huh?

10-20-2010, 06:54 AM	#18
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Canada Rockies: It surely must, huh? My guess was wrong: I assumed, both lenses covering nearly identical focal lengths with the same constant aperture, would weigh in similarly. Pentax 16-50mm= 565 Grams Tamron 17-50mm= 440 Grams The difference here is significant, even though I'm sure the Pentax is more ruggedly built. I am happy with the Tamron's build, though your neck will get stronger than mine if you keep carrying that 16-50mm.

10-20-2010, 08:33 AM	#19
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385 Original Poster	Jewelltrail: I should have printed "huh?" in bold - after all you put the Canadian "eh?" on then end of your message. Trying to be funny, and using the US "huh?" I just confused the issue! To get back on topic, I wonder why the Pentax lens is so much heavier? Does it have more metal in it?