[zuikoholic]

"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.

[zuikoholic]

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.

[jstevewhite]

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.

[sjwaldron]

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.

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.

[Blue]

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.

[Blue]

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.

[jstevewhite]

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.

[selar]

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.

[sjwaldron]

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.

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.

[sjwaldron]

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.

[jstevewhite]

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.

[Tonto]

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.

[Blue]

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.

[jstevewhite]

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?

[zuikoholic]

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...