Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-17-2013, 12:02 PM   #16
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
but I think having a moderate wide angle....a portrait (70mm), general purpose (40MM)....all well designed and of excellent quality makes a nice, light, high performing kit.
Thats sort of what I'm shooting for, in the long run, at least. I like how tiny the limiteds are, I can shove them into a cargo pocket, or take a small bag, and leave my gigantic bag (the 55-300 and the 100mm macro are really too huge to take out that often) in the closet. I would really like something a bit longer than the 70mm for it, but it seems a good trade off with length, size, and price.

QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
I know it seems to be different in the USA from what I've read.

Especially where I'm at. I think we're down to one decent sized camera store (maybe two), and they really don't carry any Pentax. Its pretty much the internet or nothing, which is a bit of a shame. I'd be more comfortable dealing locally, easier returns, better service, more chatting. We have some big-box stores, but last time I tried to deal with them, they tried to sell me a Nikon lens for my Kx.

02-17-2013, 01:43 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,099
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
Thats sort of what I'm shooting for, in the long run, at least. I like how tiny the limiteds are, I can shove them into a cargo pocket, or take a small bag, and leave my gigantic bag (the 55-300 and the 100mm macro are really too huge to take out that often) in the closet. I would really like something a bit longer than the 70mm for it, but it seems a good trade off with length, size, and price.
Do you have the new 100 Macro WR, as these are not very big.



Especially where I'm at. I think we're down to one decent sized camera store (maybe two), and they really don't carry any Pentax. Its pretty much the internet or nothing, which is a bit of a shame. I'd be more comfortable dealing locally, easier returns, better service, more chatting. We have some big-box stores, but last time I tried to deal with them, they tried to sell me a Nikon lens for my Kx.
I live in a city of about 700,000. We have one Eastern Canadian chain with 3 stores, one Western Canadian chain with three stores, One Cdn. drugstore chain with one store and one private company with one store. All eight stores in the city, carry Pentax equipment and will match the price of any other Canadian outlet that has a building address.
02-17-2013, 06:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
No, I have the FA 100mm 2.8, which is massive. Its almost twice as heavy as the WR (600g), but its pretty much fully metal and glass, with barely a sliver of plastic on it. When the world ends, and cockroaches inherit the earth, they will be using that lens still.

Thats kind of depressing. My city has over 1 million people, 3.25 million counting suburbs, and pretty much no Pentax products, outside of point and shoots. The closest I've seen is a single Q, in a lonely display case, and a big film 645 kit for rental.
02-18-2013, 02:08 PM   #19
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
I understand the money burning a hole in your pocket, lol, you've got the bug and need to buy.
My first two limited lens purchases were the DA15 followed by the DA70. Both are excellent for landscapes, I noted. For portraits, I preferred shallower DOF than the 70 could offer, so sold it to get the FA77 which is the most lovely rendering lens in my collection, btw.
Someone commented that the DA15 can be a little wide for some. The DA21 performs similar to the 15 and is not as wide. I actually like it more than the DA15 for some reasons.
Good luck!!!

02-18-2013, 03:10 PM   #20
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
I grabbed the 15mm. About half of the decision was impulse, since I figure I probably can't go wrong either way. The other half was mostly based on the minimum shooting distance, potential overlap in my collection, and analyzing my own trends. I generally find myself trying to get close, the other day I was pretty much trying to touch geese with the tip of my lens, if not for my girlfriend and some modicum of common sense, I probably would have been in the pond with them. Shooting with the 55-300 got a bit aggravating at times, because I felt like my ability to compose was somewhat limited by how close I could get. This might not be the best reason in the world.

I've got two zoom lenses that cover 70mm right now, the (oddly brilliant) F35-70 "Macro", and the 55-300. The 70mm would probably be better than these lenses, in almost every way, but I don't have anything as wide as the 15, with the exception of the 18-55 kit lens, which doesn't optically compare at all. I've also noticed, outside the extreme end of the 55-300, I like to shoot wide. Since getting the Sigma 24, it has pretty much stayed on my camera, completely replacing the the 35 and 50 as my go to choice. This is also why I'm not opting for the 21, I love that 24mm, even if it loves to flare, and loses contrast even if you think about the sun. The 24 sits with the A/FA 50 1.7 as the lenses that have the best "look", that I've experienced.

"2 to 4" days can't come soon enough.
02-19-2013, 12:32 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
I generally find myself trying to get close
OK, sounds like you're a real wide angle shooter!
You should enjoy the DA 15.
02-19-2013, 09:45 AM   #22
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
Due to the vagaries of shipping; tomorrow. Sadly its going to be raining all day. I feel sorry for my cats and kitchen implements, they're probably going to have a camera shoved in their face all day.
02-19-2013, 09:59 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
I feel sorry for my cats, they're probably going to have a camera shoved in their face all day.
Please let us know if SP coating is impervious to cat spit.

02-19-2013, 10:30 AM   #24
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
The 15 and 70 are the two lenses I am thinking of acquiring in the mid term future. My wife has a Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 90 2.8 so no rush or real need for either. I was never a real wide angle person but find I use her 10-20 a lot and the more I use it the more I find myself looking at scenes with wide angle in mind. That is with shooting landscapes for 4 decades, lots of landscapes can and should be shot with normal or long lenses. The only real reasons for me wanting to buy either of the two lenses are 1) the small size and 2) my wife is not fond of me taking lenses off her camera while she is shooting.

There are just some lenses that one does not feel right for themselves and yet lenses longer and shorter are right. I found that with the Hasselblad in that I did not like the 50mm, the most widely used wide angle but love the 60mm. However my wife bought the super wide which is 38mm (around 21mm on 35mm) and I really love the field of vidw I get from that one. Why 38 and 60 but not 50? That can be for you too with the 35 2.4 as well that the 50 and 28 are better for you and even longer and wider work but not the 35. That lens is by the way the one I use the most on my Pentax followed by a 50 and then either the 10-20 or 70-200 2.8.

Maybe the 55-300 is too big physically for you to feel comfortable shooting for now, to aware of walking around with a big lens. That will not happen with the 70 DA. In your shoes I would most likely buy the 15 first and try to use the long zoom more. But the other choice is not a bad one either. Are there any times that the 24 is just not wide enough? One way to help you decide is walk around all day with just the 24 and write down all the times that this lens was too long. If the 50 is too long do the same with it and write down all the times you wished you had a longer lens. Maybe neither is for you now and just bank the funds until you can make a decision based on needs rather than desires, not that they are wrong either .
02-19-2013, 12:37 PM   #25
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
The 15 and 70 are the two lenses I am thinking of acquiring in the mid term future. My wife has a Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 90 2.8 so no rush or real need for either. I was never a real wide angle person but find I use her 10-20 a lot and the more I use it the more I find myself looking at scenes with wide angle in mind. That is with shooting landscapes for 4 decades, lots of landscapes can and should be shot with normal or long lenses. The only real reasons for me wanting to buy either of the two lenses are 1) the small size and 2) my wife is not fond of me taking lenses off her camera while she is shooting.

There are just some lenses that one does not feel right for themselves and yet lenses longer and shorter are right. I found that with the Hasselblad in that I did not like the 50mm, the most widely used wide angle but love the 60mm. However my wife bought the super wide which is 38mm (around 21mm on 35mm) and I really love the field of vidw I get from that one. Why 38 and 60 but not 50? That can be for you too with the 35 2.4 as well that the 50 and 28 are better for you and even longer and wider work but not the 35. That lens is by the way the one I use the most on my Pentax followed by a 50 and then either the 10-20 or 70-200 2.8.

Maybe the 55-300 is too big physically for you to feel comfortable shooting for now, to aware of walking around with a big lens. That will not happen with the 70 DA. In your shoes I would most likely buy the 15 first and try to use the long zoom more. But the other choice is not a bad one either. Are there any times that the 24 is just not wide enough? One way to help you decide is walk around all day with just the 24 and write down all the times that this lens was too long. If the 50 is too long do the same with it and write down all the times you wished you had a longer lens. Maybe neither is for you now and just bank the funds until you can make a decision based on needs rather than desires, not that they are wrong either .
I'm pretty sure you nailed it with why I don't really like the 35. It isn't a bad lens, it takes good pictures and is optically sound. It just frustrates me, since it isn't wide enough, or long enough. Oddly, the 40mm limited feels just right, even if it is only 5mm longer. I never could really figure out why I didn't like it. Perhaps its a bit too in the middle for me.

After last weekend, I'm going to use the 55-300 more, that is for sure. I don't know why I stopped using it much, but I'm guessing it was because it was my second lens outside of the kit (the first being a $10 A 50 2.0), so I conflated my own short comings to the lens. After using it again, after not touching it for almost a year it, it was a completely different experience. I think the length, and my novice hands (was shooting like it was a point and shoot) soured it. That and I didn't have a sling strap yet, meaning it pretty much butchered my neck during a 5 hour hike.

I already sprang for the 15mm, so banking my money is futile. The 24 is plenty wide, though to be honest I like it more for its rendering than its length, it has an immediate charm like the 50 1.7 has for me. The reason I'm thinking of the 15mm is because on my last big trip, I brought the 18-55 and shot almost exclusively at 18mm. I don't know why, but it seemed to be more natural to me, perhaps I like the perspective distortion as a way of highlighting subjects, or just more picture in my pictures. As for picking, all I really had was looking at the lens clubs here, in the limited club the 15 stood out to me the most, both in quality and in the array of subjects. Scrolling through, and ignoring all the words, just looking at the pictures, the 15mm made me stop and go "Wow" more than the others. This might be a horrible way of choosing, but it works.

You mind me asking what you use the Hasselblad for, thats quite a bit of machinery there.
02-19-2013, 01:28 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,793
I just picked up the 15 at Christmas, and no time for photos in January, so basically I've just started using it. What others have said is true, it is very difficult to get used to composing with it, but it is like magic when you get it right. My first photos with it, everything was tiny because I was too far away. You have to get down on your belly, and up on top of things sometimes to get close enough. I'm still not there with it yet, but improving.


This one is my favorite so far:






So, stay patient and get to know it.
02-19-2013, 01:47 PM   #27
Veteran Member
NitroDC's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 342
QuoteOriginally posted by Kozlok Quote
I just picked up the 15 at Christmas, and no time for photos in January, so basically I've just started using it. What others have said is true, it is very difficult to get used to composing with it, but it is like magic when you get it right. My first photos with it, everything was tiny because I was too far away. You have to get down on your belly, and up on top of things sometimes to get close enough. I'm still not there with it yet, but improving.


This one is my favorite so far:






So, stay patient and get to know it.
This is so true. The 15mm really forces you to think about your composition, to walk around and pick the best angle possible.
02-19-2013, 02:32 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,099
You mention the 55-300 . It's one of my favourite lenses. It's just a consumer lens....but in the past I've been quite taken with it's quality when racked out to 300mm....with good light...it's very good.

At 55-300 it's also very versatile and I find it light for such a sizable zoom range. A good lens to have in your arsenal and I find for outdoor activities or wildlife shooting it's very good.

My 55-300 was one of the very first on the market...got it back in June of 2008, right after it's introduction.
02-19-2013, 03:16 PM   #29
Senior Member
Omestes's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 207
Original Poster
Kozlok, I've noticed in your pics, and in many of the ones posted here, that shots from the 15mm can look rather cold and sparse. Not in a bad way. Is that from how wide it is, that it highlights empty space more? Poking on your Flickr stream, it looks like you got some good ones, though I can see how tough composition would be. I can't wait for it to come, this is going to be fun.

Lesmore, I feel pretty bad for ignoring the 55-300, it is actually a pretty good lens. And at 300, it is still surprisingly good. I got some fantastic pics of birds with it the other day, and pretty sharp, all things considered. I think when I get the 15mm, and it isn't supposed to rain, I might take it and the 55-300 for a nice walk in the local mountain park. Perhaps spy on some squirrels. The 15mm for the big picture, and the 55-300 for the details.
02-19-2013, 04:09 PM   #30
Veteran Member
NitroDC's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 342
QuoteOriginally posted by Omestes Quote
Kozlok, I've noticed in your pics, and in many of the ones posted here, that shots from the 15mm can look rather cold and sparse. Not in a bad way. Is that from how wide it is, that it highlights empty space more? Poking on your Flickr stream, it looks like you got some good ones, though I can see how tough composition would be. I can't wait for it to come, this is going to be fun.

Lesmore, I feel pretty bad for ignoring the 55-300, it is actually a pretty good lens. And at 300, it is still surprisingly good. I got some fantastic pics of birds with it the other day, and pretty sharp, all things considered. I think when I get the 15mm, and it isn't supposed to rain, I might take it and the 55-300 for a nice walk in the local mountain park. Perhaps spy on some squirrels. The 15mm for the big picture, and the 55-300 for the details.
The 15mm definitely magnifies empty space, which is normal for wide angle lenses. After all you are depicting more than there actually is, in a way. (more FOV than human eyes)
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!
bit, da, k-mount, length, lengths, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, times, whites
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 15mm Limited or 16-45/17-70? NitroDC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 01-17-2013 07:03 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-5 + 18-55 + Batt Grip/3 batts, 31mm Limited, 15mm Limited, 70mm Limited Sperdynamite Sold Items 7 02-24-2012 12:07 AM
DA* 50-135 or 70mm limited and 40mm limited freewheelin25 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 11-08-2011 03:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA Limited 15mm, 35mm, 40mm, 70mm Aegon Sold Items 29 04-23-2010 09:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 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