Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-24-2011, 01:43 AM   #241
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 145
"you're going to be packing a whole lot of lenses at that rate."

not at all - DA 15, FA 31 and 77FA and I'm covered. wide, 'standard' portrait. for most urban lanscapes (where i most often travel and love to shoot), less obtrusive than any zoom and with superior quality.

now, if i were heading to India or similar? the only appeal of any of the zooms to me is the *weather sealing*. for me, compact matters - that's why the Zuiko lenses were (are, in some ways) unrivalled in my mind. compact, light, sharp. the 21, 40 and 85 fit in a small leather satchel or a couple of pockets, i never even needed a camera bag.

except for that b*stard hulking 5D they were on...

the only things that come close in this day and age to being truly compact and light are the Pentax limiteds. hence, i'm acquiring them. the 15 blew my mind from the first image i took with it; i have no doubt the 31 and 77 will do the same.

05-24-2011, 01:45 AM   #242
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 145
sorry - not to imply the Zuikos were weather-sealed (they certainly aren't, though the OM4Ti i used for years and still use when film calls, is pretty well sealed) but for the portability/quality compromise, they have no equal in the SLR world.

not 20 years ago, and not today.
05-24-2011, 06:52 AM   #243
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by zuikoholic Quote
sorry - not to imply the Zuikos were weather-sealed (they certainly aren't, though the OM4Ti i used for years and still use when film calls, is pretty well sealed) but for the portability/quality compromise, they have no equal in the SLR world.

not 20 years ago, and not today.
Well, you've just described why I wanted an M3 back then. That tiny Leica leather satchel with slots for 35/50/90... heheheh. Compact, sharp... But it wasn't an SLR, it's true.

The Zuikos are very nice, though; I love the way they feel and focus, and there's certainly nothing to fault about their performance. That 180mm f2 was *insane*. I used an OM1n for a summer... amazing camera even in the late 80s.
05-24-2011, 02:37 PM   #244
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
In many cases that is true. However, it tight situations whether it is indoors or the photog is jammed in between something and can't back up or move forward, it can be the difference in framing everything into the shot.
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Another thing to consider is focus accuracy of the "tests". If the focus is out by a few millimeters, you will start to see degradation of fine detail.
Lens testing is something that a lot of people try, and a lot of people fail at, and can sometimes come up with wrong conclusions because of it.
I'm not sure I completely agree. The simple shots I took had some depth to them so if one of the lenses were front or back focusing (I haven't checked), the user can see where the pocket of sharp focus is when the aperture is wide. When the aperture isn't wide open, the depth of field will probably be great enough that the whole subject is in sharp focus. (edit) the point of the test was to give the user an idea of the difference between 31 and 40 more so than absolute sharpness testing.

05-24-2011, 03:16 PM   #245
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by sjwaldron Quote
I'm not sure I completely agree. The simple shots I took had some depth to them so if one of the lenses were front or back focusing (I haven't checked), the user can see where the pocket of sharp focus is when the aperture is wide. When the aperture isn't wide open, the depth of field will probably be great enough that the whole subject is in sharp focus. (edit) the point of the test was to give the user an idea of the difference between 31 and 40 more so than absolute sharpness testing.
I was referring to the ability to frame a composition in tight situations whether it is inside or out. 9mm can be very helpful in those situations.
05-24-2011, 03:19 PM   #246
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Point taken at the wide end - but on APS-C if 9mm matters between 31 and 40, that is going to depend on the individual. I just sold my Sigma 30/1.4 but kept my DA40, so I'm well aware of the difference 9/10mm off of 40 makes. Now if you prefer primes to zooms, you're going to be packing a whole lot of lenses at that rate. Not very practical or convenient, especially given the quality of zooms now a days.
I will generally take the DA 21 ltd, DA 35 ltd and FA 77mm ltd when packing light with maybe the FA 50/1.4 in there and often run 2 bodies, maybe 3. I also have a manual focus line up. With film, I have different line ups which vary depending on af or mf.

Edit: When I was a kid, my grandfather taught me to start out with the most used prime. The 1st added lens should be about 1/2 the focal length of that and the 3rd one should be about 2x that. That logic would make the DA 15/4, FA 31/1.8 and FA 77/1.8 a nice, fast set. However, I like my 21, 35 and 77 ltd setup. I also have the DA 40 and FA 50 in there with an A/1.2 lurking at times.
05-24-2011, 03:46 PM   #247
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I will generally take the DA 21 ltd, DA 35 ltd and FA 77mm ltd when packing light with maybe the FA 50/1.4 in there and often run 2 bodies, maybe 3. I also have a manual focus line up. With film, I have different line ups which vary depending on af or mf.

Edit: When I was a kid, my grandfather taught me to start out with the most used prime. The 1st added lens should be about 1/2 the focal length of that and the 3rd one should be about 2x that. That logic would make the DA 15/4, FA 31/1.8 and FA 77/1.8 a nice, fast set. However, I like my 21, 35 and 77 ltd setup. I also have the DA 40 and FA 50 in there with an A/1.2 lurking at times.
Yeah, I think I want the DA15 to go with my FA 35 f2 AL and the DA70 (just ordered yesterday). Nice small kit for street work.
05-24-2011, 06:33 PM   #248
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
DA15 to go with my FA 35 f2 AL and the DA70
Nice kit, same here, except that the FA35 is suddenly fighting for its place with the FA31 in my small kit.

05-24-2011, 06:46 PM   #249
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I was referring to the ability to frame a composition in tight situations whether it is inside or out. 9mm can be very helpful in those situations.
Sorry about that, I miss-quoted you. I was referring to the second quote.

QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Edit: When I was a kid, my grandfather taught me to start out with the most used prime. The 1st added lens should be about 1/2 the focal length of that and the 3rd one should be about 2x that. That logic would make the DA 15/4, FA 31/1.8 and FA 77/1.8 a nice, fast set. However, I like my 21, 35 and 77 ltd setup. I also have the DA 40 and FA 50 in there with an A/1.2 lurking at times.
Your grandfather is a wise man. The 15, 31, 77 would be a great kit. I personally use the 14, 31, and 55 as a kit quite often. The 15 would be nice though considering the small size and of course the 77 for various reasons.
05-24-2011, 06:49 PM   #250
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
I'd also like to point out that the 2.8x difference in price probably has a lot to do with the large difference in amount of optical glass the 31 uses. It's also probably physically larger by 2.8x meaning more material and tooling costs.
05-24-2011, 07:59 PM   #251
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by sjwaldron Quote
I'd also like to point out that the 2.8x difference in price probably has a lot to do with the large difference in amount of optical glass the 31 uses. It's also probably physically larger by 2.8x meaning more material and tooling costs.
I bet the raw glass and aluminum probably cost less than $25.00 for either lens. You could probably buy the glass in ingot form for $85 - there are several places that supply Schott glass in ingot form. Manufacturing such precise elements is what costs money. And pixie dust is expensive and non-renewable.
05-24-2011, 08:35 PM   #252
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
New FA31 1.8 Owner Here

Just to add my thoughts. I believe its all to do with the focal length in combination with its 1.8 speed and 'That' Bokeh.
As some of you know I was battling with the 30-35mm range for my current trip and was about to get a Sigma 30 1.4 , with no stock of that I was looking at B&H and pulled the trigger on the FA.
After using it for a week on holiday it truely is a great length on APSC, a slightly wide lens which would normally have me stepping back quite a few steps to fit the same into 40-50mm.
Any wider would not suit single portrait but is great for environmental portraits or groups of people especially indoors.
Initially I had it stopped down alot to try to get maximum sharpness out of it but it really is best at 1.8 its not about the sharpness, its about detail.
05-24-2011, 08:36 PM   #253
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I bet the raw glass and aluminum probably cost less than $25.00 for either lens. You could probably buy the glass in ingot form for $85 - there are several places that supply Schott glass in ingot form. Manufacturing such precise elements is what costs money. And pixie dust is expensive and non-renewable.
I doubt Pentax uses common Schott glass. Some elements cost more than others depending on whether they are ED, molded vs. ground, contain flourite or lanthanum etc. Canon actually makes their own blanks. Some of these processes aren't quite as costly as they once were. Some vintage premium glass may actually have lanthanum elements in them.

I suspect they use Hoya glass.

This is an interesting link.

Technology Hall | Virtual Lens Plant



Edit: The FA 31mm/1.8 Ltd has 1 high dispersion low refraction lens, and extra low dispersion element (ED) and a molded aspherical element (AL) and 9 elements in 7 groups overall whereas the DA 40mm Ltd has an aspherical element and 5 elements in 4 groups overall. Both have Ghostless Coating.

Last edited by Blue; 05-24-2011 at 08:51 PM.
05-24-2011, 09:38 PM   #254
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I doubt Pentax uses common Schott glass. Some elements cost more than others depending on whether they are ED, molded vs. ground, contain flourite or lanthanum etc. Canon actually makes their own blanks. Some of these processes aren't quite as costly as they once were. Some vintage premium glass may actually have lanthanum elements in them.

I suspect they use Hoya glass.
.
LOL! Absolutely! I was just using Schott as a common example. I'm familiar with rare earth glasses and ED; My point was that the manufacturing process itself costs far more than the raw materials, as is generally true in manufacturing. A BMW is, what, $500 worth of steel, $100 worth of oil, and $2500 worth of leather before it gets made?
05-24-2011, 10:06 PM   #255
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 145
I thought ED glass was all hype until I shot with a few of the Zuikos that used it - holy crap, talk about sharp. here's an idea of what I mean: 100mm f2 - miyajima deer, zuiko 100mm f2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! - not bad bokeh either.

re: Pentax three lens kit, am thinking 15, 31, 77 will certainly do me - i *do* kind of miss the perfect balance of the DA21, but wanted faster. next LBA battle will be trying to justify the FA 20...
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!
da40, fa31, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, thread, times, walkaround
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA31 Ltd. DogLover Ask B&H Photo! 6 04-07-2011 10:20 AM
To Da40..or not to Da40...tiss the question! Shutter-bug Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-26-2010 08:46 AM
FA31 and K-7 Danny Delcambre Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 07-16-2010 09:27 PM
FA31 problem maybe.. what do you think? joele Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 11-22-2009 04:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 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