Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: How yould you design a lens kit
Min FL 10mm or less 1618.82%
Min FL 11-16mm 3743.53%
Min FL 17-24mm 2731.76%
Min FL 23-30mm 78.24%
Min FL >31mm 78.24%
Max FL <50mm 55.88%
Max FL 51-80mm 1416.47%
Max FL 81-100mm 78.24%
Max FL 101-135mm 1416.47%
Max FL 136-200mm 1315.29%
Max FL >200mm 3642.35%
Is F2.8 Important over most of this range 4552.94%
Should this range be zooms 4957.65%
SHould this range be primes 3743.53%
Extreme telephoto =300mm 1618.82%
Extreme telephoto =400mm 78.24%
Extreme telephoto =500mm 1315.29%
Extreme telephoto >500mm 910.59%
Should macro be prime 4148.24%
Should a zoom have macro 1315.29%
Fisheye as prime 1214.12%
Fisheye as zoom 1315.29%
Other 55.88%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-30-2010, 03:52 PM   #16
Veteran Member
chalion's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Photos: Albums
Posts: 628
I also have multiple kits. M42 is mostly prime lenses because they were cheap enough to get. All but 2 of my macro lenses are full manual non-zooms because I sit a specific focal lengths and the extra cost of using a zoom with macro is not needed, and using these is not the best of either world (too much compromise).

I also like to do wildlife shooting, which generally means zooms, which mostly also means fast glass (f2.8 or less). Alot of the time this also means extreme long focal length (300 to 1000, with teleconverters added).

I also do sometimes like to do holiday shots, which is mostly inside, at night, with bad lighting conditions. This means fast primes.

I don't have all the lenses I want, but I do cover most of my photo shooting needs.

10-30-2010, 06:25 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
Review after 40 voters.

I have to admit, I messed up, with the wide angle ranges, as it does not have a distinction between 12mm which I would consider ultra wide, and 16 mm which would be wide angle.

Understandably the 11-16mm band is the most popular with almost equal above and below this band.

I think the forum members are equally split between the need for ultra wide or not.

What really surprises me is the number who think 200mm is not enough for the base kit., and how few feel F2.8 is not a requirement across the majority of the base kit range.

To me, this suggests that a large number are happy with F4-5.6 zooms which offer reach to perhaps 250-300mm. As opposed to shooters (self included) thatr want fast zooms from wide through to 135-200mm.

The other interesting thing is that there are not all that many thinking zooms should have macro. WHile I admit macro focusing zooms are not as good, I wtill think everyone who uses zooms should have at least one zoom that is macro capable. It just makes a good "emergency lens"

Primes as a kit for th ebase range are also strong, and I have to admit, I have both zooms and primes. Primes are for when I have time and zooms are for when I don't. I am sure others think differently here.

Overall, I think the poll will change my outlook in recommending F2.8 zooms as a backbone to the kit, and perhaps leave them as an option for low light, to be considered against the cost and weight, compared to smaller lighter F4-5.6 variable aperture zooms.
10-30-2010, 06:49 PM   #18
Site Supporter
robbiec's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cork, Ireland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,206
I wonder if that is the effect of the DA55-300, its a no brainer option / upgrade to the DA50-200. It is relatively small, light and delivers the goods optically for only a little more. I don't think I have seen or heard anybody slag it off yet.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
What really surprises me is the number who think 200mm is not enough for the base kit., and how few feel F2.8 is not a requirement across the majority of the base kit range.

To me, this suggests that a large number are happy with F4-5.6 zooms which offer reach to perhaps 250-300mm. As opposed to shooters (self included) thatr want fast zooms from wide through to 135-200mm.
10-30-2010, 07:58 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 407
QuoteOriginally posted by robbiec Quote
I wonder if that is the effect of the DA55-300, its a no brainer option / upgrade to the DA50-200. It is relatively small, light and delivers the goods optically for only a little more. I don't think I have seen or heard anybody slag it off yet.
I have to agree. My DAL55-300 is my favorite zoom. Then maybe my f 35-70. But my primes are my goto lenses. Like I said earlier I didn't feel f2.8 was necessary across the majority of focul lengths. From 40mm on down I am usuually stopping down for landscapes or quick street shots. Also above 135mm I'm stopping down a bit to f4-f5.6 for sharpness. (That could be because of my personal lenses though).I don't own any $2000.00 lenses . However I in no way feel f2.8 is remotely adequate from 50-85mm FOR ME! I don't think I have ever shot my 28mm at f2.8 is that odd? But rutinely use f1.2-f2 at the 50-58mm range.

I will admit I use the (pseudo)macro mode on my f 35-70 quite often. And it works quite well for those closeups.

Eric

10-31-2010, 11:49 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
Bump to the top
11-01-2010, 12:14 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 381
i've posted thinking that its asking what my dream kit lens should be, ie the lens which comes with the camera in the beginning - i was thinking of a 35mm equivalent to a f2.8 28-135mm zoom...reading this again, its seems like i should have been voting for a lens kit...then it would be all primes. woops.
11-01-2010, 12:28 AM   #22
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
For a kit lens, I think there should be an option for a prime or a zoom. Prime like a DA 35, or a zoom like a DA 17-70, only faster, like f/2.8 over the entire focal range. There should also be a twin lens kit offer, as is already done, with the DA 55-300, but it could also be a 70-300 f/4-5.6
11-01-2010, 04:28 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
Ash and Hoojammyflip the poll was not intended to ask about the idle kit lens (the lens that comes with the camera) but on the design of a multi lens kit either primes or zooms or both But with respect to a kit lens, the ideal for me would be 16-105 F2.8. Just so you know

11-01-2010, 11:18 PM   #24
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
My kit will cover 18mm till 300mm. I have hardly missed a shot in the film days because I did not have a lens wider than 28mm and similar 210mm with a 2x teleconverter was sufficient.

At the wider side it will consist of a 18mm/2.8 wide angle and a f/1.8 prime between 30 and 35mm. At the longer end, it will be a fast 50mm/1.7 and a 100-300mm/4 zoom.
A standard zoom (e.g. 17-70/4) for convenience will complement the set.

So my votes are Min FL 17-24, Max FL >200, extreme tele = 300 and both primes and zooms.

Some notes:
1)
If I only wanted the convenience of a zoom, it would indeed be a f/2.8 zoom.
2)
Wonder how you're going to use the results
11-02-2010, 05:25 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
Wonder how you're going to use the results
I got this started after answering a thread on how to set up a kit.

I have posted my solution / suggestion many times, and then wondered what the typical recomendation of others would be.

So I decided to set up a poll.

I admit the results are flawed specifically with respect to the wide angle, because I should have had a 10-12mm band by itself, then 13-15 then 16-18. BUT I missed it, and decided to go with the poll as it is.

Part of my normal recomendations was to start with zooms, because a lot of times people don't know what they want, and then to get function specific primes, or move to primes as they extablish their real comfort zone.

As a result, I would normally recommend trying to cover from 10/12mm at the short end to 135/200mm at the long end with zooms, and some plan to get to 300-400mm for wild life if that was of interest.

I further recommended F2.8 over as much of this range as possible.

What I have learned is that F2.8 is less important, and that the majority of shooters want to get well beyond 200mm with their every day kit. They also don't seem to need to venture as much into ultra wide. This suprised me quite a bit but it is what it is.

My reason for recommending 10-12mm at the wide end comes from shooting film. I had a 24mm wide angle, which was pushing the Ultra wide boundry on film, and when I lived in france during the 1990's I discovered that 24mm was simply not wide enough for some of the archetectural sights. When I went digital, my first camera (*istD) came with a full frame 18-35mm zoom, which I almost never used on my digital camera, it was on my PZ-1. I shot ultra wide (down to 18mm on film) and then digital for everything else, and loved it. I stopped shooting film when I got my sigma 10-20. As for good fast zooms, I think they are again needed if you travel and are not wanting to take a lot of lenses. I will travel with my sigma 10-20, my tamron 28-75F2.8 and if I know I am doing wild life, my sigma 70-200F2.8 plus the 1.4x and 2x sigma TCs. If I know I am not doing wild life the 70-200 stays home.

But the F2.8 zoom has had a lot of use from sports to wild life to theater, essentually every where where length and speed are needed.

Edit note: 63 polls as of 9:00am on Nov2, with 793 viewers.

I would love more people to participate: The idea behind this is to give people an idea on what forum members think a kit should be. Lets help out our forum members.

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 11-02-2010 at 06:13 AM.
11-02-2010, 07:49 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
Hi Lowell, not sure I did this right but I tried.
I was thinking of a "kit" lens of something around 18-90mm (5X zoom) with a "macro" function and fast. So I picked 17-24minimum, 81-100 maximum F2.8 important over most of it's range, should this range be zoom, and should a zoom have macro.
Also by "macro" I'm asuming that like most zooms you really mean "close focus". Tho a true macro would be nice.
So let's see: 18-90mm constant F2.8 and true macro at 90mm? IN A KIT LENS???

NaCl(you didn't say we had to be realisitc!)H2O
11-02-2010, 08:51 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Hi Lowell, not sure I did this right but I tried.
I was thinking of a "kit" lens of something around 18-90mm (5X zoom) with a "macro" function and fast. So I picked 17-24minimum, 81-100 maximum F2.8 important over most of it's range, should this range be zoom, and should a zoom have macro.
Also by "macro" I'm asuming that like most zooms you really mean "close focus". Tho a true macro would be nice.
So let's see: 18-90mm constant F2.8 and true macro at 90mm? IN A KIT LENS???

NaCl(you didn't say we had to be realisitc!)H2O
You have made the same mistake as a few others. Although this could be another interesting poll.

The idea was what lenses (plural) shoud be in your kit, and what ranges of focal lengths should they cover. It was not what the "ideal kit lens" (Singular) should be, although I think there are a lot who would want a zoom with a 5-6x zoom ratio starting from 16mm with close focus capabilities as a kit lens would be perfect.

By macro in the zoom, I really mean close focus, in the roughly 1:3 range, and not necessairly true 1:1 macro.

Again, the idea was to define a system, i.e what focal length ranges should you cover, what you would consider extreme, do you think the system should be zooms, primes or both, and do you think a standard kit should have macro in one of the zooms or not, and for fisheye do you want this as a zoom or a prime
11-02-2010, 08:56 AM   #28
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
Lowell, I've read your prescription for how a kit should be designed many, many times. I think it is a viable philosophy, but real life intrudes on the theoritical. Most people seem to start with three lenses; a couple of slow consumer zooms (standard, tele), and one prime. None of these choices match your ideal of 12-200mm zooms mostly at f2.8. The cost of a 2.8 zoom kit like this and some specialty primes is higher than most people want to go, and is not necessarily seen as the ideal choice. It's not surprising that most kits end up in a different configuration than your ideal.

Personally I have not found f2.8 fast enough for low light shooting, and I have a great copy of the 16-45 f4, so I either use the f4 zoom with a flash, or an f2.0 minimum prime. My next lens will either be 60-250 or 300mm f4, or an even longer slower Sigma. My only midrange fast lens is the D FA 100mm 2.8. So far I haven't felt a need for a fast mid-range tele zoom.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
But with respect to a kit lens, the ideal for me would be 16-105 F2.8. Just so you know
Is that feasible? I'm not aware of anyone even offering a 17-70mm constant f2.8 option, so I assume that it is not possible with current APS-C technology due to size/cost.

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-02-2010 at 12:36 PM.
11-02-2010, 12:14 PM   #29
Veteran Member
jolepp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
I suppose that since tele shots would typically be outside in daytime the general demand for fast lenses is not terribly strong especially as these get bulkier (and seriously expensive) as they get faster and longer. Another way of saying this would perhaps be that carrying (or buying) a fast (long) tele lens just in case, instead with a specific application in mind, would seem unlikely. And, of course, a fast tele has narrow DOF with those fast apertures, which would seem to limit the usefulness somewhat.
11-02-2010, 12:53 PM   #30
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
I suppose that since tele shots would typically be outside in daytime the general demand for fast lenses is not terribly strong especially as these get bulkier (and seriously expensive) as they get faster and longer. Another way of saying this would perhaps be that carrying (or buying) a fast (long) tele lens just in case, instead with a specific application in mind, would seem unlikely. And, of course, a fast tele has narrow DOF with those fast apertures, which would seem to limit the usefulness somewhat.
define a fast tele. My own kit has 3 tele lenses with 77 mm filters, my sigma 70-200F2.8 zoom, my pentax 300F4 and a vivitar 400F5.6

I use the sigma zoom on it's own, and with the sigma 1.4x and 2x TCs, the 300F4 I use exclusively with the 1.7x AF TC for 510mm F7, the 400F5.6 I don't use any more. (Old MF lens with 22 foot minimum focus distance)

I have used the sigma extensively (more than 3000 shots), wide open at F2.8 and mostly zoomed in to 210mm for shooting stage productions. I also use it wide open and stopped down for wildlife (birds) with either of the Sigma TCs.

Same goes for the 300F4 and the 1.7x AF TC. This is about the slowest lens you can put on the AF TC and still get the focus to work. So Yes, I do use long and fast / heavy lenses A LOT.

I use any of the three for sports both inside and out, and in a forest, it is not bright and sunny. I also use these with flash for wild life, but you still need to eb able to see and focus, and fast lenses help in this respect.

In short, I am not just a sunny day photographer.

But you are somewhat correct, not everyone uses something like a 77mm front element lens, but I think there are a lot that do, and a lot have stepped up an additional stop to a 300F2.8 or 500F4.5 (112mm filter) or bigger. Except for AF performance higher ISO is cutting the demand for these lenses somewhat I think.

The issue is, if you are only occasionally into wild life, and sports, a big lens may not be needed, you would be better off with the 50-135 and save the weight and volume. moving to wild life is a definite cost driver.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
check, fisheye, k-mount, kit, lens, macro, note, pentax lens, poll, primes, range, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA Limited lens series won the 2010 Good Design Long Life Design Award Patriot Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 11-29-2010 06:16 AM
Step By Step on Poll Design Lowell Goudge Site Suggestions and Help 3 10-29-2010 03:05 PM
Poll on lens kit design Lowell Goudge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 10-29-2010 11:58 AM
DSLR Lens Design David Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 08-04-2009 03:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top