[abacus07]

I think I might have been one of those four, but not the winner. K135/2.5?

I snipe as an LBA control. I only bid in the last 5 to 10 seconds and only bid once. It forces me to limit my purchases to auctions I can watch at the end, to set a price in advance, and not go over it.

I snipe to win and I'm a lot more happy with the supertak 105/2.8 that I just sniped for 84. But really this has to stop. I've won two cheap 50's ($20-25 shipped), a M50 macro ($70 shipped) and the 105 ($95 shipped) this week.

I'm hoping that this will satisfy the Pentax/Tak 85mm itch that I have. That one is a little too expensive right now.

---

Last edited by abacus07; 07-27-2011 at 10:03 AM.

[RioRico]

I've won two cheap 50's ($20-25 shipped), a M50 macro ($70 shipped) and the 105 ($95 shipped) this week.

That's a good start. Just wait till you get a bellows and start finding super-duper enlarger lenses for a couple bucks apiece, eh? I tell ya, the Apos Algeet Colorstigmat 90/4.5 and Ilex Solar Anastigmat 140/4.5, not to mention the Industar-58U 75/3.5 and Industar-100U 110/3.5, feel really liberating on the Macrobel.

[jimr-pdx]

I do Not snipe! I bid what i am willing to pay, then let go. If i am outbid with a few hours left i may bid once more but often not. Sure I lose a lot to you cruel snipers, but more lenses will appear; i picked up a Rikenon xr 70-150/4 this week, could be fun.

[RioRico]

Sure I lose a lot to you cruel snipers, but more lenses will appear;

And that is the truth. My strategy: Bid often; bid low; lose 99% of auctions; don't sweat it, another will come along immediately if not sooner.

[Nick Siebers]

Actually, in The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (Sussman, I have the 8th edition from 1973) he defines "fast" lenses as starting at f/2.8; it is stated as commonly accepted knowledge. And of course, people rave about f/2.8 zooms as being fast. But I wouldn't claim the DA40 is fast, just that it isn't SLOW.

What I found odd was discussing a lens you AREN'T considering in an LBA post. But it seems I misunderstood your point. In any case, I doubt there is much more to say on the subject. Sorry if you felt put upon.

Its an LBA thread! Geez, what's odd about discussing lenses that you are considering? As for my statement about it being slow - 2.8 is slow for a mid-level prime in my book. Back in SLR days anything above f2 was slow and I still think they are slow even on dSLRs. As for other factors, yes but that does not mean they negate the issues of it being an odd length and slow for a prime. Heck, even the "budget" DA35 is faster.

[clover]

Hi,

My name is clover, I think I have LBA.
It is very very agressive for me, so I even incite friends to buy lenses.

My last weakness...

Buying the 21mm, 40mm and 70mm DA limited, in silver color... Event I already have 31mm, 43mm and 77mm in black color...

Sorry, I am very ashame...

Here is a picture of my LBA...

[Docrwm]

Actually, in The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (Sussman, I have the 8th edition from 1973) he defines "fast" lenses as starting at f/2.8; it is stated as commonly accepted knowledge. And of course, people rave about f/2.8 zooms as being fast. But I wouldn't claim the DA40 is fast, just that it isn't SLOW.

What I found odd was discussing a lens you AREN'T considering in an LBA post. But it seems I misunderstood your point. In any case, I doubt there is much more to say on the subject. Sorry if you felt put upon.

Not felt put upon, quibbled with, but not put upon. 2.8 in a Prime is not fast - can't care less what some 40+ year old expert claimed. Fast is <2.0 - always has been in non-Tele primes.

[paperbag846]

Fast compared to what?

Your lamborghini is a snail compared to my boeing 747 .

[Blue]

Anything that's fast enough to isolate the subject from the background is fast in my book. Actually, that's all the use the faster glass has with the high noiseles iso's nowadays.

That is not the case. High ISO allows us to push the envelop even more with a f1.2 lens. Furthermore, my A 50/1.2 allows 50% more light in than my M 50/1.4 which is a big deal when manual focusing. When I work in aperture mode with that A 50/1.2 in the A mode, it stays side open and stops down to the setting used by the dial on the camera body. That is a big deal late in the golden hour or into the blue hour. Granted this is a specialized application but it is a big deal. The high ISO isn't going to do me jack if I can't see to focus.

Edit: This high ISO with f2.4 and 2.8 lenses reminds me of the way the latest MicroSux OS chokes down the latest greatest hardware. I can't even imagine how fast windows 3.11 would be on these current machines. Planned obsolescence and the Pirates of the Silicon Valley (Bill & Steve) have us by the gonads.

[Docrwm]

Fast compared to what?

Your lamborghini is a snail compared to my boeing 747 .

How about compared to normal focal length lenses historically? For decades anything in the 35-85 range that was f2+ was considered slow. That is why there are so many <f2 normal length lenses available and why there just aren't many above that number - except for some oddballs and specialty lenses. I like my M50/4 Macro for its purpose and even use it occasionally for daylight shots because its sharp, but its not as useful around the house for candids as the 50/1.4 and never will be.

This started because I called the Pentax 40/2.8 slow and I stand by that description. Its slow for its focal length. I brought it up here in the LBA Club because I can make a case for buying nearly any lens I see - just look at what I have acquired in <1 years time But I just can not generate ANY enthusiasm for the Pentax 40/2.8 and that is really odd for me. I just can not understand why the Pentax 40/2.8 is so valued when there are LOTS of lenses that are sharp and FAST in the 35-50mm focal range. 2.8 is just NOT fast unless you are talking about a Tele or a Zoom.

[Nick Siebers]

How about compared to normal focal length lenses historically? For decades anything in the 35-85 range that was f2+ was considered slow. That is why there are so many <f2 normal length lenses available and why there just aren't many above that number - except for some oddballs and specialty lenses. I like my M50/4 Macro for its purpose and even use it occasionally for daylight shots because its sharp, but its not as useful around the house for candids as the 50/1.4 and never will be.

This started because I called the Pentax 40/2.8 slow and I stand by that description. Its slow for its focal length. I brought it up here in the LBA Club because I can make a case for buying nearly any lens I see - just look at what I have acquired in <1 years time But I just can not generate ANY enthusiasm for the Pentax 40/2.8 and that is really odd for me. I just can not understand why the Pentax 40/2.8 is so valued when there are LOTS of lenses that are sharp and FAST in the 35-50mm focal range. 2.8 is just NOT fast unless you are talking about a Tele or a Zoom.

I am not sure why you are going on so about this. You can't build enthusiasm for that lens, fine. But why bolster your point with inaccuracies? F/2 or smaller max aperture considered slow "for decades", for 35mm and 85mm lenses? By whom? Can you show me one person in the film era who considered a 35/2 lens slow? Can you show me anyone besides yourself who would consider an 85/2 lens slow?

And regarding not understanding the appeal of the DA40 - are you trying to understand the appeal? Our just highlighting your powers of discrimination? Because only one of those seems to me to be of any use to anyone. But it is your thread, I guess, so I am not really sure why I am going on about these issues either.

[RioRico]

[mediation]

For small-format cameras (135 FullFrame and HalfFrame, including our dSLRs), we expect certain things at various focal lengths. At 50mm-58mm, f/1.2 is super-fast, f/1.4 is fast, f/2 is medium, f/2.8 is getting slow. At 35mm and 85mm, f/1.4 is super-fast, f/2 is fast, f/2.8 is medium, f/3.5 is getting slow. We can't just set one arbitray dividing line between slow and fast; it shifts, and there's a middle ground.

Other formats and focal lengths have different standards. I have a B&H Filmovara 15-25/1.2 -- wow, that's ULTRA-FAST!! Not for 8mm cine, it ain't. And it only cost me ONE BUCK! Wow, that's cheap!! Not in that realm, it ain't. I see piles of new CCTV lenses, 6-8-12-16mm, f/1.2, selling for US$3-$6. No big thang. And FAST in a LF lens is something else.

Back to our world: Is a 40/2.8 fast? Not really. Slow? Not really. On my 135/FF RFs, a 45/1.8 is fast. Around there, f/2.8 is medium. Whip out a 40/1.2 and I'll change my tune, eh?

[Nick Siebers]

Thanks RR! Not sure why this issue has gotten under my skin. Probably sublimated debt ceiling fear (oops! Better save it for the politics thread).

[photocanadian]

Howdy, I started this hobby with a couple of Takumars to "spice up" the kit lens...
Now the collection includes ones that apparently were not even sold to the public (100mm/3.5 m42).
Then, all kinds of m42 appeared (Carl Zeiss Jenas, the Russian mafia, the "other" German mafia and their friends).
A healthy Pentax-M collection followed.
Then, I discovered Pentax-K and Pentax-A.
Then, I got lazy - Pentax-F and Pentax-FA/FAJ was king. Somehow Adaptall-2/PKA made it in.
One day I got a couple of DA Ltds. They got me somewhat hooked ...
Now I am at the FA Ltd stage ;-)
I don't know what's next - something's gotta go, I am running out of room (~150 lenses, 2 enlargers/darkroom, 5 tripods, no less than 10 flashes, around 20 working bodies). Wife is slowly beginning to notice (and understand) .

My name is Mike and I am an addict.

And proud of it.

Q: What would you "thin out" of first:
- m42/Taks (don't use much, street value ~$2k+ - some gems like flek 35, sonnar 135, smc 50/1.4, 100/4, 135/2.5 and more)
- -M (don't use much with DSLRs, use -K with SLRs, street value $0.5k+)
- -K (use sparsly, some real gems like 200/2.5 or 85/1.8. Most likely to keep those, ~$1k+)
- Canon stuff (2x F1n, some nice lenses - 35/2, 100/2.8, 50/1.2). Use a contax/cz 50/1.7 for film now.

(need $ to support the habbit)

Before someone calls me crazy, I do not pay "retail" - good knowledge of android/unix/python/perl/http pays off sometimes.


Help.

[paperbag846]

How about compared to normal focal length lenses historically? For decades anything in the 35-85 range that was f2+ was considered slow. That is why there are so many <f2 normal length lenses available and why there just aren't many above that number - except for some oddballs and specialty lenses. I like my M50/4 Macro for its purpose and even use it occasionally for daylight shots because its sharp, but its not as useful around the house for candids as the 50/1.4 and never will be.

Well back then, people were using film.

protip: digital sensors see the world differently, and actually don't capture light well at oblique angles. Because of this, anything faster than about f1.8 has little light gathering advantage. use a fast aperture for DOF, not light gathering. Don't believe me? Try it at home. Very little different in exposure between f1.4 and f1.8. Not at all 50% more light. Not even close.

It's still nice for the DOF control, but buy a fast lens for the right reasons. The DA 40 is only 1 stop (effectively) slower than the FA 50. Don't believe me? Check the exposures. The big difference between them in rendering, including DOF.

A 28mm f2 would be very nice, but for the prices they go for (NB: manual focus, manual exposure lenses) they are hardly worth it IMHO. I would pony up for a 28mm f2 with autofocus etc if it was reasonably compact, but until then, I can fully understand why people opt for the 50-60 dollar 28mm f2.8 option.