Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2012, 04:17 PM   #16
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob from Aus Quote
You make a point that I can't see answered in this thread. That is with the new K-01 it comes with a new 40mm pancake. So Why? Is the answer that to make a very flat lens for a FF or APC camera it can only be achieved between 40 and 70 mm? The 21Ltd is quite thick compared to the 40mm.
Thats because he has not made that point. K01 is not mentioned or any compact camera ?

02-10-2012, 04:22 PM   #17
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Here's what I wrote earlier in another thread:

'Normal' has many meanings. 'Norma' is Latin for a carpenter's square, so 'normal' means "at right angles". In optics, 'normal' is the frame diagonal. In statistics, 'normal' means a value within a certain proximity to an average. In common usage, 'normal' means either "not too weird" or "what we're used to". Et cetera.

For 135/FF frames, optical-normal is 43mm. Many 135 RFs had lenses around 40-45mm -- a few stare down at me from my shelves. Lensmakers found the 50-60mm range more suitable|producible for SLRs. Many SLR shooters became used to that range, so Fifties were a de-facto 'normal'. But many users of RFs such as the Olympus XA became used to its 35mm lens -- it's 'normal' on that camera for those users. So we have 135/FF psychological-normal ranging from 35-60mm. Whew! And APS-C 'normal' may range from 24-43mm, again depending on our psycho-visual canalization.

What we're used to. What we're comfortable with. How we limit our vision. All these are related to 'normal' camera usage. That's one reason for my LOTD (lens of the day) strategy, where I semi-randomly choose a lens to use for a day or ten, to train my visual system to that FOV. For even more fun, I'll use a cheap safe wide-flange NIF (no infinity focus) M42-PK adapter and/or thin macro tube to pull-in the focus range. This forces me to not only seek subjects within a specific FOV, but also in a more limited zone. Yes, it's great eye-training.

Normal can be whatever you want. Let's all get normalized, eh?
Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes.
02-10-2012, 04:34 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Or try the kit lens 18-55, which is one of the best kit lenses on the market.
Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine.
02-10-2012, 04:37 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by westmill Quote
Pentax 35mm f2.4 = 52mm.... cheap as chips and one of the best lenses out there !
31mm f1.8 = 47mm.... superb but expensive
35mm macro f2.8 = 53mm good and reasonable
43mm f1.8 = 64.5mm
That seems a pretty good choice to me ?
35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable.

FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens.
FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available.

35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for.

35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice?

Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?

02-10-2012, 04:45 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by westmill Quote
Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes.
It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view.

You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor.
For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit.

For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others.
02-10-2012, 04:48 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by NotaxPen Quote
Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?
Not what you want to hear but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 thick some of your requests, it is plastic though but i don't have a complain about the build quality but the price isn't that high and the best thing is it's a f/1.4
02-10-2012, 04:54 PM   #22
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is certainly a "real" normal lens for aps-c and fast too
02-10-2012, 04:55 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
rayallen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Forresters Beach, Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,714
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine.
Yes, +1 to that. I have both the original DA and the DA WR.

02-10-2012, 04:58 PM   #24
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by NotaxPen Quote
35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable.

FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens.
FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available.

35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for.

35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice?

Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?
Actualy I listed the 43 just because i didnt understand where you got that 28 bit from is all.
No matter how you look at it, its still a fair choice of lenses to pick from.
If you think of Nikon.... they or cannon dont offer much either in terms of APSC standards.
But yes ! I couldnt agree more... Something with a tad better build quality and a tad faster than the cheaply made 2.4 would be nice.
I expect Pentax sees the 35mm macro as a lens covering the middling ground though.
02-10-2012, 05:08 PM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Franky2step Quote
Buy one of the following; 16-45, 17-70, or 16-50, problem(your problem) solved.

I have the DA* 16-50/2.8.

If I need the range, I'll suffer the size/weight. But it's ridiculous to carry around a relatively huge heavy zoom when I know a light compact prime is all I need for the job.
02-10-2012, 05:15 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kcobain1992 Quote
What do you mean by "normal"? I use a 50mm on my digital camera without any problem.
It would be a problem if you were trying to photograph the same sized subject from the same distance as you did with your film camera.

That would require a lens with a comparable field of view on the smaller cropped sensor.
02-10-2012, 05:17 PM   #27
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view.

You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor.
For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit.

For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others.
You cant argue with that either BUT !
My quote you have just quoted me on is my exact reply to that lol
02-10-2012, 05:22 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1,095
I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99.

I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN €100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal.

Last edited by RKKS08; 02-10-2012 at 05:27 PM.
02-10-2012, 05:24 PM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
add the
DA18-55
DA18-135
DA18-250
FA28-70
FA*28-70
FA 28-80
and perhaps a few more...sheesh, i'd say they have that length pretty well covered.
If I wanted a slow or heavy zoom, yes they have those covered.
If I want relatively fast and light/small, not many options.
02-10-2012, 05:34 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RKKS08 Quote
I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99. I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN 100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal.
I would pay much more than $125 for such a lens, I want the quality more than the low price.
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!
28mm, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, style
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Feedback on a "Normal" Lens, Please TooLoose Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 12-09-2011 01:31 PM
Program mode: "Auto" vs. "Normal"? PALADIN85020 Pentax K-5 3 02-13-2011 12:22 PM
"Normal" lens? wildman Photographic Technique 68 07-19-2010 12:11 AM
A real prob"lens" with my items tcerveny Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 09-28-2009 02:19 AM
Cheap "normal" lens for Pentax APS montecarlo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-01-2009 09:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM. | 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