A lightweight prime kit, by Pentax.

**Ash** · 04-24-2011, 12:37 AM

The DA limiteds are really cool - so compact and perfectly suited to APS-C.
My preference is still for the bulkier and heavier FA limiteds.

Chex · 04-24-2011, 09:20 AM

I also don't mind the old school Tak's, the 28/35/55 are not exactly large lenses by any means.
But definitely not DA Ltd small!

chrism_scotland · 04-24-2011, 11:02 AM

Managed to source some cheaper 15mm and 21mm's here in the UK, think I'm going to order both! to give me 15/21/40 and I'll get rid of my 18-55, 70-300 and 55mm macro for now.

axl · 04-24-2011, 11:47 AM

maybe bit late but I'll chime in....

lightweight doesn't always have to be small. I went through several stages with my line up over last three years. The most important were:
10-20 + 31 + 50-135 - very versatile but definitely not small
10-20 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 55/1.8 + 85/2 - awesome quality but too many changes
24 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 77 - getting there
24 + 31 + 43 + 77 - nearly there...

from the last one I used 24 + 43 + 77 as one line up and 31 + 77 as another. 77 was always tad long and the very often changes between 43 and 77 were driving me mad.
So I got to my signature.
and my line up? 24+55 (780g together with very little changes) competes very favourably against DA ltds (15-21-40-70 = 562g and way too many changes). I don't mind extra 200g. for huge advantage in speed and much less lens changes needed. Yes, 24 will not get shots 15 can, but then again, I've been without 10-20 for 4 months now and really haven't missed it all that much and 55 is as long as I need...
All I wanted to say, sometimes less is more. If you have too many lenses, no matter how small they are you'll get caught in lens changing whirlpool way too often instead of shooting and trying to find the right angle. I've been there, done that. Find FOVs that suit your style and be happy with 2-3 lenses max

my 2p

josephleaf · 04-24-2011, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by axl

maybe bit late but I'll chime in....

lightweight doesn't always have to be small. I went through several stages with my line up over last three years. The most important were:
10-20 + 31 + 50-135 - very versatile but definitely not small
10-20 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 55/1.8 + 85/2 - awesome quality but too many changes
24 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 77 - getting there
24 + 31 + 43 + 77 - nearly there...

from the last one I used 24 + 43 + 77 as one line up and 31 + 77 as another. 77 was always tad long and the very often changes between 43 and 77 were driving me mad.
So I got to my signature.
and my line up? 24+55 (780g together with very little changes) competes very favourably against DA ltds (15-21-40-70 = 562g and way too many changes). I don't mind extra 200g. for huge advantage in speed and much less lens changes needed. Yes, 24 will not get shots 15 can, but then again, I've been without 10-20 for 4 months now and really haven't missed it all that much and 55 is as long as I need...
All I wanted to say, sometimes less is more. If you have too many lenses, no matter how small they are you'll get caught in lens changing whirlpool way too often instead of shooting and trying to find the right angle. I've been there, done that. Find FOVs that suit your style and be happy with 2-3 lenses max

my 2p

Maybe a little off-topic, but why not just use a 28-75/2.8 instead, no need to change lenses anymore eh?

GeneV · 04-24-2011, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by josephleaf

Maybe a little off-topic, but why not just use a 28-75/2.8 instead, no need to change lenses anymore eh?

Not really small or light at that point, though, is it? That lens is twice the weight of and substantially more volume than Peter's FA ltd lenses, and his choices are toward the outer end of "small and light."

dgaies · 04-24-2011, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Not really small or light at that point, though, is it? That lens is twice the weight of and substantially more volume than Peter's FA ltd lenses, and his choices are toward the outer end of "small and light."

Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway

axl · 04-24-2011, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway

yes and no Dan.
I don't use more than 2 lenses at the moment in single outing!
which ever combo from my existing line up I'll choose, I'll be at least one stop faster than any zoom at any end! You know my blood type is of "speed freak" and highest possible IQ is very desirable to me... I haven't shot 28-75 but I doubt it will beat *24, 31&43ltds and *55 in IQ. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't mind 100-200g extra weight if it'll give me better OOF, most probably bette sharpness below f4, 1-2 stops extra of available light (for whichever purposes one wants), and in some cases "pixie dust" (now I'm just pulling the leg here

) superior (I'd say far superior) built quality and incomparable resell value....
so yes, one might save 100-200g, and few hundreds of £ or $ if it suits one... but both you and I know, that in 9x out of 10 it's not worth it... and that one missed shot? Oh well, we can't have everything, can we

dgaies · 04-24-2011, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by axl

yes and no Dan.
I don't use more than 2 lenses at the moment in single outing!
which ever combo from my existing line up I'll choose, I'll be at least one stop faster than any zoom at any end! You know my blood type is of "speed freak" and highest possible IQ is very desirable to me... I haven't shot 28-75 but I doubt it will beat *24, 31&43ltds and *55 in IQ. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't mind 100-200g extra weight if it'll give me better OOF, most probably bette sharpness below f4, 1-2 stops extra of available light (for whichever purposes one wants), and in some cases "pixie dust" (now I'm just pulling the leg here

) superior (I'd say far superior) built quality and incomparable resell value....
so yes, one might save 100-200g, and few hundreds of £ or $ if it suits one... but both you and I know, that in 9x out of 10 it's not worth it... and that one missed shot? Oh well, we can't have everything, can we

All true. I wasn't suggesting that I'd personally prefer the 28-75 over a couple of FA limited primes

I was just suggesting that the 28-75 shouldn't be dismissed on weight alone since it actually weights less than a 31 and 77. In terms of speed/IQ the FA limiteds win hands down. Now cost isn't quite so close as the 28-75 goes for about $300-400 compared to the FA limited trio which is closer to $2100-2400.

Now if these choices were easy, I wouldn't own as many lenses as I do

GeneV · 04-24-2011, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway

Point taken. A review I read overstated the weight of the 28-75, and I assumed Peter's kit was just the FA31 and FA77.

dgaies · 04-24-2011, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Point taken. A review I read overstated the weight of the 28-75, and I assumed Peter's kit was just the FA31 and FA77.

No worries. And again, I'm not suggesting the 28-75 is a suitable replacement for the FA limited trio. It is, however, a very respectable lens for it's size and cost. For times where you don't need every last drop of IQ and/or don't want to change lenses, it's a pretty solid option.

Marc Sabatella · 04-24-2011, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway

True. I'd note that a DA Limited set - either 21-40-70 or 15-40-70 - does come in at less than the weight of the 28-75.

dgaies · 04-24-2011, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

True. I'd note that a DA Limited set - either 21-40-70 or 15-40-70 - does come in at less than the weight of the 28-75.

And either DA limited option would give you a bit more width than the 28-75 without sacrificing any speed over the common range. Again, it's going to cost a bit more, but that's to be expected.

**Ash** · 04-24-2011, 05:53 PM

I can attest to the virtue of the Tamron 28-75. I wouldn't be without one, but that's for the reason of weddings of events where a zoom is much more practical. However, my FA Ltds do noticeably produce more vibrant and 3D-like results to my more flat-rendering (but still very sharp) Tamron 28-75.

Bear in mind that the Tamron costs less than any one of the FA Ltds and most of the DA Ltds...

GeneV · 04-24-2011, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

And either DA limited option would give you a bit more width than the 28-75 without sacrificing any speed over the common range. Again, it's going to cost a bit more, but that's to be expected.

And the flip side of not having to change lenses is that the full weight is on the camera all the time.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best Pentax KX & prime Europe travel kit?	WA-surfer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	50	02-10-2011 12:12 AM
Prime kit recommendations	paperbag846	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	10-26-2010 10:05 PM
K-X kit available with prime lens?	frascati	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	02-13-2010 10:46 PM
Need help choosing a prime to go with the K-x 18-55 kit	switters	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-01-2009 05:03 PM
New User - Advise on Lightweight Kit	jonlee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-22-2009 06:36 PM

04-24-2011, 12:37 AM	#76
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The DA limiteds are really cool - so compact and perfectly suited to APS-C. My preference is still for the bulkier and heavier FA limiteds.

04-24-2011, 09:20 AM	#77
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	I also don't mind the old school Tak's, the 28/35/55 are not exactly large lenses by any means. But definitely not DA Ltd small!

04-24-2011, 11:02 AM	#78
chrism_scotland Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 76	Managed to source some cheaper 15mm and 21mm's here in the UK, think I'm going to order both! to give me 15/21/40 and I'll get rid of my 18-55, 70-300 and 55mm macro for now.

04-24-2011, 11:47 AM	#79
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	maybe bit late but I'll chime in.... lightweight doesn't always have to be small. I went through several stages with my line up over last three years. The most important were: 10-20 + 31 + 50-135 - very versatile but definitely not small 10-20 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 55/1.8 + 85/2 - awesome quality but too many changes 24 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 77 - getting there 24 + 31 + 43 + 77 - nearly there... from the last one I used 24 + 43 + 77 as one line up and 31 + 77 as another. 77 was always tad long and the very often changes between 43 and 77 were driving me mad. So I got to my signature. and my line up? 24+55 (780g together with very little changes) competes very favourably against DA ltds (15-21-40-70 = 562g and way too many changes). I don't mind extra 200g. for huge advantage in speed and much less lens changes needed. Yes, 24 will not get shots 15 can, but then again, I've been without 10-20 for 4 months now and really haven't missed it all that much and 55 is as long as I need... All I wanted to say, sometimes less is more. If you have too many lenses, no matter how small they are you'll get caught in lens changing whirlpool way too often instead of shooting and trying to find the right angle. I've been there, done that. Find FOVs that suit your style and be happy with 2-3 lenses max my 2p

04-24-2011, 02:06 PM	#80
josephleaf Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: HK Photos: Gallery Posts: 36	Originally posted by axl maybe bit late but I'll chime in.... lightweight doesn't always have to be small. I went through several stages with my line up over last three years. The most important were: 10-20 + 31 + 50-135 - very versatile but definitely not small 10-20 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 55/1.8 + 85/2 - awesome quality but too many changes 24 + 31 + 43 + 50/1.2 + 77 - getting there 24 + 31 + 43 + 77 - nearly there... from the last one I used 24 + 43 + 77 as one line up and 31 + 77 as another. 77 was always tad long and the very often changes between 43 and 77 were driving me mad. So I got to my signature. and my line up? 24+55 (780g together with very little changes) competes very favourably against DA ltds (15-21-40-70 = 562g and way too many changes). I don't mind extra 200g. for huge advantage in speed and much less lens changes needed. Yes, 24 will not get shots 15 can, but then again, I've been without 10-20 for 4 months now and really haven't missed it all that much and 55 is as long as I need... All I wanted to say, sometimes less is more. If you have too many lenses, no matter how small they are you'll get caught in lens changing whirlpool way too often instead of shooting and trying to find the right angle. I've been there, done that. Find FOVs that suit your style and be happy with 2-3 lenses max my 2p Maybe a little off-topic, but why not just use a 28-75/2.8 instead, no need to change lenses anymore eh?

04-24-2011, 02:26 PM	#81
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by josephleaf Maybe a little off-topic, but why not just use a 28-75/2.8 instead, no need to change lenses anymore eh? Not really small or light at that point, though, is it? That lens is twice the weight of and substantially more volume than Peter's FA ltd lenses, and his choices are toward the outer end of "small and light."

04-24-2011, 02:37 PM	#82
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV Not really small or light at that point, though, is it? That lens is twice the weight of and substantially more volume than Peter's FA ltd lenses, and his choices are toward the outer end of "small and light." Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway

04-24-2011, 02:51 PM	#83
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by dgaies Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway yes and no Dan. I don't use more than 2 lenses at the moment in single outing! which ever combo from my existing line up I'll choose, I'll be at least one stop faster than any zoom at any end! You know my blood type is of "speed freak" and highest possible IQ is very desirable to me... I haven't shot 28-75 but I doubt it will beat 24, 31&43ltds and 55 in IQ. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't mind 100-200g extra weight if it'll give me better OOF, most probably bette sharpness below f4, 1-2 stops extra of available light (for whichever purposes one wants), and in some cases "pixie dust" (now I'm just pulling the leg here ) superior (I'd say far superior) built quality and incomparable resell value.... so yes, one might save 100-200g, and few hundreds of £ or $ if it suits one... but both you and I know, that in 9x out of 10 it's not worth it... and that one missed shot? Oh well, we can't have everything, can we

04-24-2011, 02:55 PM	#84
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by axl yes and no Dan. I don't use more than 2 lenses at the moment in single outing! which ever combo from my existing line up I'll choose, I'll be at least one stop faster than any zoom at any end! You know my blood type is of "speed freak" and highest possible IQ is very desirable to me... I haven't shot 28-75 but I doubt it will beat 24, 31&43ltds and 55 in IQ. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't mind 100-200g extra weight if it'll give me better OOF, most probably bette sharpness below f4, 1-2 stops extra of available light (for whichever purposes one wants), and in some cases "pixie dust" (now I'm just pulling the leg here ) superior (I'd say far superior) built quality and incomparable resell value.... so yes, one might save 100-200g, and few hundreds of £ or $ if it suits one... but both you and I know, that in 9x out of 10 it's not worth it... and that one missed shot? Oh well, we can't have everything, can we All true. I wasn't suggesting that I'd personally prefer the 28-75 over a couple of FA limited primes I was just suggesting that the 28-75 shouldn't be dismissed on weight alone since it actually weights less than a 31 and 77. In terms of speed/IQ the FA limiteds win hands down. Now cost isn't quite so close as the 28-75 goes for about $300-400 compared to the FA limited trio which is closer to $2100-2400. Now if these choices were easy, I wouldn't own as many lenses as I do

04-24-2011, 03:23 PM	#85
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies Yes and no. The 28-75 is certainly heavier than any single FA limited lens. However, to be fair, the 28-75/2.8 weights a fair amount less than all three together (about 550g vs 850g, all with caps and hoods, according to my kitchen scale). Even just the 31 and 77 alone, which covers the two ends of the 28-75's range, weighs 100 grams more than the zoom lens. So in terms of a lightweight kit to cover 28-75mm focal length range, the Tamron is a pretty decent option IMO. That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway Point taken. A review I read overstated the weight of the 28-75, and I assumed Peter's kit was just the FA31 and FA77.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2011, 03:31 PM	#86
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV Point taken. A review I read overstated the weight of the 28-75, and I assumed Peter's kit was just the FA31 and FA77. No worries. And again, I'm not suggesting the 28-75 is a suitable replacement for the FA limited trio. It is, however, a very respectable lens for it's size and cost. For times where you don't need every last drop of IQ and/or don't want to change lenses, it's a pretty solid option.

04-24-2011, 03:59 PM	#87
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by dgaies That said, if the OP wants a lightweight prime kit, then the 28-75 probably isn't the best option anyway True. I'd note that a DA Limited set - either 21-40-70 or 15-40-70 - does come in at less than the weight of the 28-75.

04-24-2011, 04:20 PM	#88
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella True. I'd note that a DA Limited set - either 21-40-70 or 15-40-70 - does come in at less than the weight of the 28-75. And either DA limited option would give you a bit more width than the 28-75 without sacrificing any speed over the common range. Again, it's going to cost a bit more, but that's to be expected.

04-24-2011, 05:53 PM	#89
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I can attest to the virtue of the Tamron 28-75. I wouldn't be without one, but that's for the reason of weddings of events where a zoom is much more practical. However, my FA Ltds do noticeably produce more vibrant and 3D-like results to my more flat-rendering (but still very sharp) Tamron 28-75. Bear in mind that the Tamron costs less than any one of the FA Ltds and most of the DA Ltds...

04-24-2011, 06:35 PM	#90
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies And either DA limited option would give you a bit more width than the 28-75 without sacrificing any speed over the common range. Again, it's going to cost a bit more, but that's to be expected. And the flip side of not having to change lenses is that the full weight is on the camera all the time.