Which lens would you get next?

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-06-2010, 01:38 PM

Has anyone shot a graduation with an FA Limited 77/1.8, DA* 55/1.4 or the D FA 100/2.8 Macro WR (or anything in that range)? Would these be too short if someone were sitting in the stands away from the stage?

paperbag846 · 12-06-2010, 01:47 PM

Even the 100 might be too short for a graduation. I wouldn't base my decision on that. Your 55-300 would work best there.

If you don't need the speed of the FA 77, consider the DA 70, which would compliment the DFA 100 WR very nicely at a much more attractive price point in the long run. My short time with the DA 70 was very, very positive.

But for telephoto work like a graduation, you are much better off with a zoom.

**rparmar** · 12-06-2010, 05:32 PM

You need something fast plus higher ISO to freeze the action in what are sometimes poor lighting conditions. And you will likely need something like a 135mm to do the job justice. I am writing a series of articles on 135mm lenses over at my blog which might be helpful.

pinholecam · 12-06-2010, 07:50 PM

IMHO,

Less expensive option, get the 100/2.8 macro WR. It will serve as a portrait lens and a macro lens.

If budget is alright, the 77ltd is the one to get.
DA55 is too expensive wrt to what the 77ltd can give.

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-07-2010, 09:48 AM

One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4?

DogLover · 12-07-2010, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90

One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4?

Sure, some people would (me, for instance). But only you can decide if you should.

paperbag846 · 12-07-2010, 10:47 AM

If you sell the 16-45, you lose out on the moderate-wide range, (20-28mm) which IMHO is very useful. I'd keep it, you would only get, what, 300 dollars for it? Think of how much you would spend to replace that range with primes.

PS I think if you decide on the DA 70, you will be very happy. The FA 77 is very nice, but extremely expensive. I've played with the DA 70 quite a bit. It's beautiful wide open, pretty much the perfect DOF for a sharp portrait, and your 55 will have the soft-side covered well.

By all means try out the 77... just don't let people make you believe that you are losing out if you don't drop 2 grand on the FA trio

.

timh · 12-07-2010, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Think of how much you would spend to replace that range with primes.

The idea of replacing a zoom range with primes is jarring to me, somehow. Just buy the primes necessary, and if it turns out that one needs a range, one should get a zoom.

For example I'd love a DA15 but my Sigma 10-20 is just too useful to sell (or even to leave at home). I never shoot at 30mm though, it turns out, so a DA40 is all I need between 20 and 55.

paperbag846 · 12-07-2010, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by timh

The idea of replacing a zoom range with primes is jarring to me, somehow. Just buy the primes necessary, and if it turns out that one needs a range, one should get a zoom.

I agree. However I was referring specifically to replacing anywhere in between 20 - 28mm with one prime, for the wide-normal look that is commonly used in photojournalistic photography (i.e., 35mm on film).

The perfect prime for this is the DA 21 - which is 500 dollars. You could buy a 20mm older prime, but that is still going to run you about 300. Same goes for the 24mm, which are also hard to find. Maybe you can find a 24mm 2.8 for 200. Finally, there is the cheap 28mm 2.8 option, which is closer to 100 dollars, but in the end, its not really the same feel as the classic 35mm lens on film.

So if the OP likes that range, then I think the zoom is worth keeping. The 16-45 is about the same price, or less, than most of it's functional replacements.

timh · 12-07-2010, 11:11 AM

Yeah... I do see what you mean, and I guess we're saying the same thing - it's the cost part that threw me off. Even if they were half the price, it would seem silly to me to be carrying around a DA15 and a DA21 - I know the difference in FOV is noticeable but, for me, not enough to compensate for those corrosive and uncreative "hmm, maybe I should be using the other one for this" type thoughts that swirl constantly and destroy my (mental) focus.

JeffJS · 12-08-2010, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90

One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4?

Yes, I would if I (still) had the 16-45 and and wanted the 15 (which I now have). Here's why. When I Had the 16-45 it was never wide enough where I needed it to be, and it was never long enough where I needed it to be. As a result it never got used. I do agree however that it fills that 20-30 gap quite nicely (that's where my DA*16-50 f2.8 (which replaced the 16-45) is most used).

That said, a Used 16-45 is only going to about cover half the cost of the DA15. Well worth it in my opinion though.

DogLover · 12-08-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by timh

Yeah... I do see what you mean, and I guess we're saying the same thing - it's the cost part that threw me off. Even if they were half the price, it would seem silly to me to be carrying around a DA15 and a DA21 - I know the difference in FOV is noticeable but, for me, not enough to compensate for those corrosive and uncreative "hmm, maybe I should be using the other one for this" type thoughts that swirl constantly and destroy my (mental) focus.

I would say that you are a prototypical "zoom shooter." Nothing wrong with that, you don't need a support group or anything. Zooms these days are light-years better than they used to be. Just be aware that you will almost never convince a prime shooter than zooms are better, and if you pay attention, you will notice that there are many more converts from zooms to primes than the other way around. I must say that I am pretty sold on the idea that using primes makes you a better photographer. It makes you think more and work more for your images, which also makes you appreciate them more, which leads to more enjoyment from your hobby. I know, I know, you can't quite make that connection, and that's okay. It's sort-of a "prime shooters are from Mars, zoom shooters are from Venus" kind of a thing. We're just different. Yes, I still have some good zooms, and they still get used sometimes, but they're no longer what "lives" on my camera.

timh · 12-08-2010, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by DogLover

I would say that you are a prototypical "zoom shooter."
[...]
We're just different. Yes, I still have some good zooms, and they still get used sometimes, but they're no longer what "lives" on my camera.

Um. I only use one zoom, the 10-20. The DA40 "lives" on my camera. I prefer primes when they make sense.

I was just saying that a "prime shooter" who feels they need to carry around two primes with a focal length difference of 6mm may want to consider a zoom instead even though it's not as trendy and no zoom is as beautiful as a Ltd. Controversial? Maybe!

If Pentax made a DA10 Limited would I ditch the Sigma and get that? Hell yes.

DogLover · 12-08-2010, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by timh

Um. I only use one zoom, the 10-20. The DA40 "lives" on my camera. I prefer primes when they make sense.

I was just saying that a "prime shooter" who feels they need to carry around two primes with a focal length difference of 6mm may want to consider a zoom instead even though it's not as trendy and no zoom is as beautiful as a Ltd. Controversial? Maybe!

If Pentax made a DA10 Limited would I ditch the Sigma and get that? Hell yes.

Really? You seemed to be making the exact argument that zoom shooters always make. My apologies sir, you are from Mars and not Venus (not that there's anything wrong with that

). Funny that you mentioned the 10-20. I just sold mine because I never used it. I much prefer the DA15 Ltd., even though it means giving up that 5mm.

timh · 12-08-2010, 10:59 AM

I go both ways, does that... disturb you?

12-08-2010, 10:58 AM	#44
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by timh Um. I only use one zoom, the 10-20. The DA40 "lives" on my camera. I prefer primes when they make sense. I was just saying that a "prime shooter" who feels they need to carry around two primes with a focal length difference of 6mm may want to consider a zoom instead even though it's not as trendy and no zoom is as beautiful as a Ltd. Controversial? Maybe! If Pentax made a DA10 Limited would I ditch the Sigma and get that? Hell yes. Really? You seemed to be making the exact argument that zoom shooters always make. My apologies sir, you are from Mars and not Venus (not that there's anything wrong with that). Funny that you mentioned the 10-20. I just sold mine because I never used it. I much prefer the DA15 Ltd., even though it means giving up that 5mm.

12-06-2010, 01:38 PM	#31
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71 Original Poster	Has anyone shot a graduation with an FA Limited 77/1.8, DA* 55/1.4 or the D FA 100/2.8 Macro WR (or anything in that range)? Would these be too short if someone were sitting in the stands away from the stage?

12-06-2010, 01:47 PM	#32
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Even the 100 might be too short for a graduation. I wouldn't base my decision on that. Your 55-300 would work best there. If you don't need the speed of the FA 77, consider the DA 70, which would compliment the DFA 100 WR very nicely at a much more attractive price point in the long run. My short time with the DA 70 was very, very positive. But for telephoto work like a graduation, you are much better off with a zoom.

12-06-2010, 05:32 PM	#33
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	You need something fast plus higher ISO to freeze the action in what are sometimes poor lighting conditions. And you will likely need something like a 135mm to do the job justice. I am writing a series of articles on 135mm lenses over at my blog which might be helpful.

12-06-2010, 07:50 PM	#34
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	IMHO, Less expensive option, get the 100/2.8 macro WR. It will serve as a portrait lens and a macro lens. If budget is alright, the 77ltd is the one to get. DA55 is too expensive wrt to what the 77ltd can give.

12-07-2010, 09:48 AM	#35
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71 Original Poster	One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4?

12-07-2010, 10:33 AM	#36
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90 One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4? Sure, some people would (me, for instance). But only you can decide if you should.

12-07-2010, 10:47 AM	#37
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	If you sell the 16-45, you lose out on the moderate-wide range, (20-28mm) which IMHO is very useful. I'd keep it, you would only get, what, 300 dollars for it? Think of how much you would spend to replace that range with primes. PS I think if you decide on the DA 70, you will be very happy. The FA 77 is very nice, but extremely expensive. I've played with the DA 70 quite a bit. It's beautiful wide open, pretty much the perfect DOF for a sharp portrait, and your 55 will have the soft-side covered well. By all means try out the 77... just don't let people make you believe that you are losing out if you don't drop 2 grand on the FA trio .

12-07-2010, 10:59 AM	#38
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	Originally posted by paperbag846 Think of how much you would spend to replace that range with primes. The idea of replacing a zoom range with primes is jarring to me, somehow. Just buy the primes necessary, and if it turns out that one needs a range, one should get a zoom. For example I'd love a DA15 but my Sigma 10-20 is just too useful to sell (or even to leave at home). I never shoot at 30mm though, it turns out, so a DA40 is all I need between 20 and 55.

12-07-2010, 11:03 AM	#39
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by timh The idea of replacing a zoom range with primes is jarring to me, somehow. Just buy the primes necessary, and if it turns out that one needs a range, one should get a zoom. I agree. However I was referring specifically to replacing anywhere in between 20 - 28mm with one prime, for the wide-normal look that is commonly used in photojournalistic photography (i.e., 35mm on film). The perfect prime for this is the DA 21 - which is 500 dollars. You could buy a 20mm older prime, but that is still going to run you about 300. Same goes for the 24mm, which are also hard to find. Maybe you can find a 24mm 2.8 for 200. Finally, there is the cheap 28mm 2.8 option, which is closer to 100 dollars, but in the end, its not really the same feel as the classic 35mm lens on film. So if the OP likes that range, then I think the zoom is worth keeping. The 16-45 is about the same price, or less, than most of it's functional replacements.

12-07-2010, 11:11 AM	#40
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	Yeah... I do see what you mean, and I guess we're saying the same thing - it's the cost part that threw me off. Even if they were half the price, it would seem silly to me to be carrying around a DA15 and a DA21 - I know the difference in FOV is noticeable but, for me, not enough to compensate for those corrosive and uncreative "hmm, maybe I should be using the other one for this" type thoughts that swirl constantly and destroy my (mental) focus.

12-08-2010, 09:59 AM	#41
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90 One other question, would anyone sell the Pentax DA 16-45/4 for the Pentax DA Limited 15/4? Yes, I would if I (still) had the 16-45 and and wanted the 15 (which I now have). Here's why. When I Had the 16-45 it was never wide enough where I needed it to be, and it was never long enough where I needed it to be. As a result it never got used. I do agree however that it fills that 20-30 gap quite nicely (that's where my DA*16-50 f2.8 (which replaced the 16-45) is most used). That said, a Used 16-45 is only going to about cover half the cost of the DA15. Well worth it in my opinion though.

12-08-2010, 10:38 AM	#42
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by timh Yeah... I do see what you mean, and I guess we're saying the same thing - it's the cost part that threw me off. Even if they were half the price, it would seem silly to me to be carrying around a DA15 and a DA21 - I know the difference in FOV is noticeable but, for me, not enough to compensate for those corrosive and uncreative "hmm, maybe I should be using the other one for this" type thoughts that swirl constantly and destroy my (mental) focus. I would say that you are a prototypical "zoom shooter." Nothing wrong with that, you don't need a support group or anything. Zooms these days are light-years better than they used to be. Just be aware that you will almost never convince a prime shooter than zooms are better, and if you pay attention, you will notice that there are many more converts from zooms to primes than the other way around. I must say that I am pretty sold on the idea that using primes makes you a better photographer. It makes you think more and work more for your images, which also makes you appreciate them more, which leads to more enjoyment from your hobby. I know, I know, you can't quite make that connection, and that's okay. It's sort-of a "prime shooters are from Mars, zoom shooters are from Venus" kind of a thing. We're just different. Yes, I still have some good zooms, and they still get used sometimes, but they're no longer what "lives" on my camera.

12-08-2010, 10:49 AM	#43
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	Originally posted by DogLover I would say that you are a prototypical "zoom shooter." [...] We're just different. Yes, I still have some good zooms, and they still get used sometimes, but they're no longer what "lives" on my camera. Um. I only use one zoom, the 10-20. The DA40 "lives" on my camera. I prefer primes when they make sense. I was just saying that a "prime shooter" who feels they need to carry around two primes with a focal length difference of 6mm may want to consider a zoom instead even though it's not as trendy and no zoom is as beautiful as a Ltd. Controversial? Maybe! If Pentax made a DA10 Limited would I ditch the Sigma and get that? Hell yes.

12-08-2010, 10:59 AM	#45
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	I go both ways, does that... disturb you?