Really-really cheap sub-2.8 AF lens

mikeSF · 09-07-2011, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by newarts

Or don't put the camera in CIF (ie. AF.S) mode - just half-press & focus using the beep/green hexagon - then recompose & press the shutter all the way.

yes, this is how i normally use my MF lenses since the hexagon is functional, but the CIF idea would be useful to me only if there were a way to select a focus point (ie NOT in the very center). I dont often compose with the subject in the center, is all.

**ManuH** · 09-07-2011, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

My 35s see much less use than my 28s and 50s on my K20D.

I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least.

To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby...

minahasa · 09-07-2011, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

There are two Sigma 28/1.8 AF lenses (that I am aware of). The newer one that is currently in production is a lot larger and the cost is subsgtantially higher than $150 (around $350-400 if I'm not mistaken). The older AF Sigma 28/1.8 is smaller and lighter, but is somewhat difficult to find. And again, short of getting a great deal, it will run somewhere in the $225-275 range.

The older version. But yes, not even one in PK that I can see.

Originally posted by ManuH

I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least.

To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby...

Pentax + (some) manual lenses, yes it is cheap

Bramela · 09-07-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by firefly

There's always the DA 35 f/2.4. Used it should go for just a touch above $150. They're new at $189 now I think.

I've seen used for such price, but I can't seem to find one on the Marketplace now. Or is there anyone here willing to part with this lens?

I would suggest you place a thread in the Marketplace Wanted section of the Forums, that way you have much better chance of reply.

minahasa · 09-07-2011, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Bramela

I would suggest you place a thread in the Marketplace Wanted section of the Forums, that way you have much better chance of reply.

Adorama list $179 New.
Yes, I will list a thread there

Nick Siebers · 09-07-2011, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

The Sigma AF 24/2.8 is a nice lens, I used to have one. They're hard to find, and unless you get lucky, they generally sell for closer to $250.

That is what mine cost. It is quite handy!

To the OP, I would caution that AF in dimly lit bars is often slow, not to mention hit-or-miss. So temper your expectations....

RioRico · 09-07-2011, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least.

35mm isn't really 'normal' on APS-C. The diagonal of a nominal APS-C sensor is 30mm; on my K20D, it's 28mm. Those are our 'normal' focal lengths. My 35-37mm lenses are "long-normal" or "short-tele", roughly FOV-equivalent to 50-55mm on 135/FF -- and I never really liked that focal length there either, although I was often forced to use it.

That said, I include 35s (and 40s and 45s) in my lens-of-the-day rotation, and force myself to see how they see. That's a good exercise for non-prime users too. Set the zoom to some fixed 'weird' focal length for a week. Leave it there. Zoom with feet. Learn to see different compositions and angles. It's GOOD for you!

Quote:

To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby...

Buying new AF zooms sure ain't cheap! That's why I've accumulated so many MF primes.

minahasa · 09-07-2011, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

.. Zoom with feet..
.

Abbazz · 09-08-2011, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Zoom with feet.

No such thing! You cannot replace a zoom with a prime lens and using your feet, because a zoom allows you to change the compostion without affecting the perspective, while moving around with a prime lens does indeed allow you to change the composition but it also affects the perspective. And it's not always possible to move around anyway, like when you're seated in a crowded pub, for example !

Don't misunderstand me, I love prime lenses and use them a lot. But there are times when a zoom lens is the right tool and a prime simply won't make it.

Cheers!

Abbazz

**ManuH** · 09-08-2011, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Zoom with feet.

As our fellow Pentaxian Jens found out, it's not that easy!

RioRico · 09-08-2011, 08:05 AM

True, zooming with feet is not like zooming with lens.
They result in different perspectives. Which is the point!
(Just keep your filthy feet off of my nice clean lenses.)

Zooming with lens, you get varied compositions at the same perspective.
Zooming with feet, you change both the composition AND the perspective.
Zooming with feet forces you to look more closely at spatial relationships.

Zooming with lens is rather like invading your subject.
Zooming with feet is more like dancing with the subject.
Using my Schneider Betavaron, the subject and I samba.

abacus07 · 09-08-2011, 08:16 AM

zooming with your feet works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't.

I can't walk on water. I can't back up thru a cliff. I can't take a picture thru a set of trees. I can't move the foreground that I wanted in the composition. I'm not walking miles across rough terrain when I could just use a telephoto. And the list goes on.

At the same time there are plenty of instances where you find a better or more interesting composition by moving around.

**Just1MoreDave** · 09-08-2011, 08:26 AM

I might try two other techniques while waiting for a good deal on something with AF. First, the kit lens can do f4 up to 33mm or so. Just for fun, use that and try raising ISO to the maximum possible value. The noise can add to the atmosphere for that kind of photo.

Another idea: with a manual focus lens, set the focus and aperture for a certain distance and enough DOF so a person at that distance will be mostly in focus. Something like 6 feet or 2 meters away, and 1 foot/300mm of DOF. When something interesting happens within this zone, shoot. Your hit rate will depend on how well you can estimate distance and keep the camera within that distance. It's also a good way to shoot without raising the camera to your eye.

RioRico · 09-08-2011, 09:30 AM

Ah, now we move from fast lenses to techniques, and why the hell not?!? Yes, bumping-up ISO can give interesting noise-texture effects. I'll use A-type and AF lenses in TAv mode, let the ISO float as far as possible after I've selected the aperture and shutter. Such noise often looks better in B&W with noise-reduction off, than in color with NF on -- the old Tri-X-pushed-to-2000 effect, very dramatic.

And then there's hyperfocus. I'll set a 21/3.8 to f/11, prefocus to 2m, and have DOF from 1m to infinity. Or catch-in-focus -- prefocus any manual lens to a preferred distance, hold down the shutter, and CIF fires when something comes into focus. I use both these techniques with from-the-hip street-shooting. (Or just set the kit 18-55 wide-open and let it autofocus on my unframed targets.) Whatever works...

minahasa · 09-08-2011, 12:17 PM

ISO bumping is a game played mostly by Canonian, I think

K20D is not that good on high ISO, not even as good as my previous K100Ds. I've tried ISO bumping to a point that noise is still acceptable for my eyes, which is at /20 sec. - ISO 800 - F4. Can go to /30 sec - ISO 1600 F4, but only when there is not much shadow or blackness in the frame. But hey, don't we all want better results?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
very cheap k-7 w/ lens	jkglogau	Pentax Price Watch	102	10-20-2010 02:09 PM
Cheap lens	PaladinPete	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	04-25-2010 12:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: [US] 2 Cheap ME Supers, 1 Cheap ME - Pentax film bodies	Just1MoreDave	Sold Items	2	02-21-2010 02:11 PM
Forget the cheap DA normal lens, where's our cheap DA portrait lens?	EricT	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	10-04-2009 02:01 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM

09-07-2011, 11:19 AM	#31
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by newarts Or don't put the camera in CIF (ie. AF.S) mode - just half-press & focus using the beep/green hexagon - then recompose & press the shutter all the way. yes, this is how i normally use my MF lenses since the hexagon is functional, but the CIF idea would be useful to me only if there were a way to select a focus point (ie NOT in the very center). I dont often compose with the subject in the center, is all.

09-07-2011, 12:12 PM	#32
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by RioRico My 35s see much less use than my 28s and 50s on my K20D. I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least. To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby...

09-07-2011, 12:31 PM	#33
minahasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Photos: Albums Posts: 586 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies There are two Sigma 28/1.8 AF lenses (that I am aware of). The newer one that is currently in production is a lot larger and the cost is subsgtantially higher than $150 (around $350-400 if I'm not mistaken). The older AF Sigma 28/1.8 is smaller and lighter, but is somewhat difficult to find. And again, short of getting a great deal, it will run somewhere in the $225-275 range. The older version. But yes, not even one in PK that I can see. Originally posted by ManuH I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least. To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby... Pentax + (some) manual lenses, yes it is cheap

09-07-2011, 12:36 PM	#34
Bramela Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,284	Quote: Originally posted by firefly There's always the DA 35 f/2.4. Used it should go for just a touch above $150. They're new at $189 now I think. I've seen used for such price, but I can't seem to find one on the Marketplace now. Or is there anyone here willing to part with this lens? I would suggest you place a thread in the Marketplace Wanted section of the Forums, that way you have much better chance of reply.

09-07-2011, 12:46 PM	#35
minahasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Photos: Albums Posts: 586 Original Poster	Originally posted by Bramela I would suggest you place a thread in the Marketplace Wanted section of the Forums, that way you have much better chance of reply. Adorama list $179 New. Yes, I will list a thread there

09-07-2011, 07:42 PM	#36
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Originally posted by dgaies The Sigma AF 24/2.8 is a nice lens, I used to have one. They're hard to find, and unless you get lucky, they generally sell for closer to $250. That is what mine cost. It is quite handy! To the OP, I would caution that AF in dimly lit bars is often slow, not to mention hit-or-miss. So temper your expectations....

09-07-2011, 09:11 PM	#37
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by ManuH I find the 35mm an awkard FL (on APS-C) and I don't really understand the hopla for these lenses so-called normal. I'd really wish for something a bit wider, a 30mm at the very least. 35mm isn't really 'normal' on APS-C. The diagonal of a nominal APS-C sensor is 30mm; on my K20D, it's 28mm. Those are our 'normal' focal lengths. My 35-37mm lenses are "long-normal" or "short-tele", roughly FOV-equivalent to 50-55mm on 135/FF -- and I never really liked that focal length there either, although I was often forced to use it. That said, I include 35s (and 40s and 45s) in my lens-of-the-day rotation, and force myself to see how they see. That's a good exercise for non-prime users too. Set the zoom to some fixed 'weird' focal length for a week. Leave it there. Zoom with feet. Learn to see different compositions and angles. It's GOOD for you! Quote: To get back on topic, there's not much AF lenses under f/2.8 and under 150$ except for the 35mm f/2.4. Photography is really not a cheap hobby... Buying new AF zooms sure ain't cheap! That's why I've accumulated so many MF primes.

09-07-2011, 09:56 PM	#38
minahasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Photos: Albums Posts: 586 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico .. Zoom with feet.. .

09-08-2011, 01:08 AM	#39
Abbazz Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 667	Originally posted by RioRico Zoom with feet. No such thing! You cannot replace a zoom with a prime lens and using your feet, because a zoom allows you to change the compostion without affecting the perspective, while moving around with a prime lens does indeed allow you to change the composition but it also affects the perspective. And it's not always possible to move around anyway, like when you're seated in a crowded pub, for example ! Don't misunderstand me, I love prime lenses and use them a lot. But there are times when a zoom lens is the right tool and a prime simply won't make it. Cheers! Abbazz

09-08-2011, 05:46 AM	#40
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by RioRico Zoom with feet. As our fellow Pentaxian Jens found out, it's not that easy!

09-08-2011, 08:05 AM	#41
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	True, zooming with feet is not like zooming with lens. They result in different perspectives. Which is the point! (Just keep your filthy feet off of my nice clean lenses.) Zooming with lens, you get varied compositions at the same perspective. Zooming with feet, you change both the composition AND the perspective. Zooming with feet forces you to look more closely at spatial relationships. Zooming with lens is rather like invading your subject. Zooming with feet is more like dancing with the subject. Using my Schneider Betavaron, the subject and I samba.

09-08-2011, 08:16 AM	#42
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	zooming with your feet works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. I can't walk on water. I can't back up thru a cliff. I can't take a picture thru a set of trees. I can't move the foreground that I wanted in the composition. I'm not walking miles across rough terrain when I could just use a telephoto. And the list goes on. At the same time there are plenty of instances where you find a better or more interesting composition by moving around.

09-08-2011, 08:26 AM	#43
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I might try two other techniques while waiting for a good deal on something with AF. First, the kit lens can do f4 up to 33mm or so. Just for fun, use that and try raising ISO to the maximum possible value. The noise can add to the atmosphere for that kind of photo. Another idea: with a manual focus lens, set the focus and aperture for a certain distance and enough DOF so a person at that distance will be mostly in focus. Something like 6 feet or 2 meters away, and 1 foot/300mm of DOF. When something interesting happens within this zone, shoot. Your hit rate will depend on how well you can estimate distance and keep the camera within that distance. It's also a good way to shoot without raising the camera to your eye.

09-08-2011, 09:30 AM	#44
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Ah, now we move from fast lenses to techniques, and why the hell not?!? Yes, bumping-up ISO can give interesting noise-texture effects. I'll use A-type and AF lenses in TAv mode, let the ISO float as far as possible after I've selected the aperture and shutter. Such noise often looks better in B&W with noise-reduction off, than in color with NF on -- the old Tri-X-pushed-to-2000 effect, very dramatic. And then there's hyperfocus. I'll set a 21/3.8 to f/11, prefocus to 2m, and have DOF from 1m to infinity. Or catch-in-focus -- prefocus any manual lens to a preferred distance, hold down the shutter, and CIF fires when something comes into focus. I use both these techniques with from-the-hip street-shooting. (Or just set the kit 18-55 wide-open and let it autofocus on my unframed targets.) Whatever works...

09-08-2011, 12:17 PM	#45
minahasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Photos: Albums Posts: 586 Original Poster	ISO bumping is a game played mostly by Canonian, I think K20D is not that good on high ISO, not even as good as my previous K100Ds. I've tried ISO bumping to a point that noise is still acceptable for my eyes, which is at /20 sec. - ISO 800 - F4. Can go to /30 sec - ISO 1600 F4, but only when there is not much shadow or blackness in the frame. But hey, don't we all want better results?