Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2010, 08:22 PM   #31
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide.
or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom?
One zoom, it would have to be the 16-50mm. Three primes, I'd go for 15mm, FA 31mm Ltd or FA 35 and D FA 100mm WR macro. I'd choose the 31mm if I was spending your money. For my money I went FA 35. OTOH I like macro (real macro, not DA 35 macro). For someone who likes portraits, 15mm, 35mm, 70 or 77mm would be a nice kit.


Last edited by audiobomber; 11-11-2010 at 08:51 PM.
11-11-2010, 08:48 PM   #32
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
There's not much the 15mm can do that the 16-45 can't. There's a 1mm difference in fov and a slight quality difference. I don't see the point of carrying both. There's more difference with the 55mm, speed and IQ, but I'd like more tele in a three lens kit, something from 70-100mm.
You might be right, I'm a bit of a wide junkie and I also desire a 15, which I cannot afford , and I don't much care for anything over 100, and tend to shy away from even the 80 range! However many others like those FL's so heres a more versatile suggestion.

I suppose why i liked the suggestion in the 3 limitation is such:

1) the zoom would often be used for convenience, and the primes would stay at home.

2) the DA 15 is a little expensive, but would be great for hiking when you do not want bulk.

So perhaps I should revise with:

1) DA 21
2) DA* 55
3) DA 55-300

Now there is pretty much no overlap considering the DA* and the zoom are meant for completely different things, and you cover a pretty huge zoom range, at the cost of super-wide. The 21 is still pretty wide.
11-11-2010, 09:52 PM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,554
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
That sounds like it would have cost a lot of money in the 1970's. A pro would likely need all of them, I'd bet the average SLR owner world have gotten by with a 28, 50, and 85, or a 70-200 zoom in place of the 85.
The news kit was 28, 55, 135. I used only those with my manual film SLR's until the late 70's and had no great problems, except when it was time to make a quick change. The first over was the A 70-210 to replace the 135. IQ is important to me, but so is flexibility. My light (you might find it heavy) kit is DA 12-24/4, DA* 16-50/2.8 and DA* 50-135/2.8. My hiking up the mountains for scenery kit is the DA 12-24 and lunch.
11-11-2010, 10:50 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
The news kit was 28, 55, 135. I used only those with my manual film SLR's until the late 70's and had no great problems, except when it was time to make a quick change. The first over was the A 70-210 to replace the 135. IQ is important to me, but so is flexibility. My light (you might find it heavy) kit is DA 12-24/4, DA* 16-50/2.8 and DA* 50-135/2.8. My hiking up the mountains for scenery kit is the DA 12-24 and lunch.
And the crop equivalent of the 28/55/135 is close to the 21/35/85 which imo is a pretty good set of primes. obviously you would use a 70 or 77 unless you had a MF 85.

For me I will probably take 4 primes for extended traveling. If I had to drop one it would be the fast 50 because it isn't a great focal length for me. But it's really small and light so it stays.
21mm (or 15mm) - easy to get to and frequently used
MF 35mm - (or an AF 31/40) - easy to get to
a fast MF 50 - optional and maybe not convenient
a 100/105/120/135 - more situational and maybe not convenient to get to

I like having the longer telephoto to snipe candids of people in open spaces or to isolate sections of landscape in otherwise cluttered landscapes.

11-12-2010, 04:47 AM   #35
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
i think, primes for most used ranges, and some zoom for snapshots.

and using so many lens can kill photography desire as long as think of lens choice override the scene capture. IMO photography = moment+light+others.
combination of them is related with professionality which i havent
11-12-2010, 05:15 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,430
QuoteOriginally posted by Fl_Gulfer Quote
One lens in South Florida because of the salt air getting in your camera when you change lenses.
I'm surrounded by saltwater on all sides. I manage just fine with the 15, 21, 40, 100, and 18-250. You just gotta know when and where you can change lenses safely.
11-12-2010, 05:18 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
If I'm mixing film and digital, M20/4, FA 50/2.8 macro, FA77 is a nice triplet. I may throw in a 28mm/2 or a longer zoom (M75-150 or DA55-300) on one of the bodies.
11-12-2010, 05:58 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 381
I've considered this problem some more, and revoke the call for a 31ltd with the 17-70 zoom. The kit which replicates the field of view of my favourite lenses would be the DA Ltds:
DA 21/35 macro/70

The 70mm could be replaced with the 50-135mm zoom. Having looked briefly at it, Pentax's DA primes selection is absolutely superb. For me, I'd like a 135mm DA, which is the only hole in the line up. I am glad I chose Pentax when I moved up to SLR's.

I looked into the FA Ltd's too. It strikes me that they would not suit my FOV preferences on the cropped sensor. Furthermore, it appears that the 3 FA Ltds would be about 50% more expensive than the DA Ltds, which makes very little sense to me, and would suggest that they are low supply.

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
If I'm mixing film and digital, M20/4, FA 50/2.8 macro, FA77 is a nice triplet. I may throw in a 28mm/2 or a longer zoom (M75-150 or DA55-300) on one of the bodies.
It amazes me that the DA 21 Ltd costs new about the same as the M20/4 second hand! How do the two compare on the cropped sensor format?


Last edited by whojammyflip; 11-12-2010 at 06:10 AM.
11-12-2010, 06:23 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by kshapero Quote
14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide.
or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom?
why not both. Why does it have to be an either / or solution.

I have AF zooms covering 10mm through 200mmwith 28-200mm at F2.8, and I have primes in both K mount and M42 mount covering 24-200mm I am looking for wider primes for both kits,

I use them differnetly. Zooms are when I travel, and only want to carry 2-3 lenses total, and do not have time, with family to shange lenses and compose as I want all the time, as would be required with primes.
Primes are when I have time to do as I wish
11-12-2010, 06:28 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Downunda
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 212
My three would be 15, 28, 43, and 77.
11-12-2010, 07:34 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by hoojammyflip Quote

It amazes me that the DA 21 Ltd costs new about the same as the M20/4 second hand! How do the two compare on the cropped sensor format?
That was not true a few years ago, when people were picking up older M lenses to avoid the price of the limiteds. I use them both, and I don't see much difference the performance of the two lenses in terms of resolution on a DSLR. On a DSLR, the DA21 is a bit faster and much, much more convenient. The color of the M20 seems a bit snappier to me, but I wouldn't see much reason to own both of them if I didn't shoot film. The M20 is one of my favorite lenses on the MX or LX.

Last edited by GeneV; 11-12-2010 at 07:42 AM.
11-12-2010, 08:38 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
That was not true a few years ago, when people were picking up older M lenses to avoid the price of the limiteds. I use them both, and I don't see much difference the performance of the two lenses in terms of resolution on a DSLR. On a DSLR, the DA21 is a bit faster and much, much more convenient. The color of the M20 seems a bit snappier to me, but I wouldn't see much reason to own both of them if I didn't shoot film. The M20 is one of my favorite lenses on the MX or LX.
gene

I wonder this question as well.

I would, for example be interested whether there is any vignetting on either lens.

I did a test on my Tak 50, and SMC 50 (Both F1.4) and found that there was about 3/4 of a stop (difference if 30 greyscale in the histogram) between the center and edge at F1.4, which disappeared totally at F2

My test was simple, take a shot at the correct exposure for wide open, and then stop down 1 stop and cut shutter speed in half and take another shot. I used a uniformly lit paving stone that just filled the frame, as the reference.

My Photo editor (PSP X3) can measure the histogram for a selection area,. so I select the middle and one corner and compare.

If both the DA21 and M20 are the same in resolution and exposure , and things like vignetting, I would expect the M20 to be cheaper because it is A) used and B) manual aperture.

the pricing lately suggests that the older lenses are better optically, or at least people think so,
11-12-2010, 09:02 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 381
Just did a little search for prices of the M 20 and DA 21 and lo and behold a mint DA 21 went last week for GBP 252 and a M20 went for GBP 255.

I'm getting a bit excited about this. The DA Ltds look like they offer real value. I just read the "online photographer" Michael Johnston review of the DA 35mm macro, and it sounds really good, being compared to Leica. Looking for used prices, it seems I could pick up the set of the 21/35/70 for about GBP 900 or USD 1500 off Ebay. Still quite a lot, but I reckon a two prime set up of the 35 macro and the 70 would be sufficient. Most of my shots are really taken with a normal and short tele, with wide angles only being used outdoors.
11-15-2010, 08:33 AM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
Lately I walk around with 3 m primes (28 3.5 50 1.7 100 2.8) occasionally i drop in a 200 or the da 14 and just the k 10 body, it weighs less than the body and grip with the sigma 24-70 did for the most part and i don't mind the manual focus (it makes me slow down a bit and i get more keepers)
I've even shot a couple of concerts with these though i must admit the AF is much more usful in that ligh.
11-15-2010, 12:20 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
gene

I wonder this question as well.

I would, for example be interested whether there is any vignetting on either lens.

I did a test on my Tak 50, and SMC 50 (Both F1.4) and found that there was about 3/4 of a stop (difference if 30 greyscale in the histogram) between the center and edge at F1.4, which disappeared totally at F2

My test was simple, take a shot at the correct exposure for wide open, and then stop down 1 stop and cut shutter speed in half and take another shot. I used a uniformly lit paving stone that just filled the frame, as the reference.

My Photo editor (PSP X3) can measure the histogram for a selection area,. so I select the middle and one corner and compare.

If both the DA21 and M20 are the same in resolution and exposure , and things like vignetting, I would expect the M20 to be cheaper because it is A) used and B) manual aperture.

the pricing lately suggests that the older lenses are better optically, or at least people think so,
The DA21 does show vignetting on full frame and has no aperture ring, so the M20 still gets a lot of use in my film kit. I've never done a resolution test comparing the two, but the DA21 just won't work on my film bodies at all. I don't know whether there are a lot of folks like me who need film performance or the price has simply detached itself from the performance of the lens.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, primes, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Primes / Vivitar zoom JP_Seattle Sold Items 7 05-10-2010 12:39 PM
working without zoom (primes only) WMBP Photographic Technique 39 10-01-2009 10:12 AM
135mm Lens test: Six primes and a zoom Just1MoreDave Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 07-30-2009 09:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax M Primes, S-M-C Primes, THE Series 1 70~210 Zoom, Viv MFTC and more monochrome Sold Items 33 02-13-2009 01:29 PM
Fisheye questions: Pentax 10-17 zoom or primes? troyz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 08-02-2008 05:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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