[mikeSF]

I'll pile on too and say I really like the 21ltd. Very sharp and great contrast and flare resistance. Also, the same 14 pt sun stars as its wider brother, the 15, even slightly faster. You can't go wrong with this little gem. I now use it more than my very well loved DA15.

[Miguel]

While the 21mm is very good (I constantly am amazed at its form factor for that focal length), for your wedding shooting needs the Tamron will serve you better. You don't want to mess much with changing lenses while stuff is happening all around you. That and the DA * 50-135mm should get you good, plus a really excellent flash.

M

[Nuff]

I also like 21mm lens, this days it's my most used lens when I'm on the street. If I ever walk around with one lens, it will be 21ltd.

I like it just as much as 31ltd on FF, after all the focal length of 21mm on crop sensor is 31mm. I also find my copy very sharp.

[Apapukas]

While the 21mm is very good (I constantly am amazed at its form factor for that focal length), for your wedding shooting needs the Tamron will serve you better. You don't want to mess much with changing lenses while stuff is happening all around you. That and the DA * 50-135mm should get you good, plus a really excellent flash.

M

I was almost taking my wallet out to buy DA* 50-135, but after a good talk with one great photographer, I changed my mind. He said that a good weddings photograher stays close to his subjects, to the moment (inside this "madness" ). Otherwise, your photographs will look distant (I don't know if that's the word, but I hope you can understand).
I plan to use K-5IIs + K-01 and 3 lenses (31mm, 70mm and Tamron 17-50). I think that is a very capable kit As for a flash I am leaning to Metz. Of course, I would like Pentax more, but I don't think I can wait for Pentax 360II (June?), I have to practise.

[ivanvernon]

Yes, the 31 ltd, the Tamron 17-50, and the 70 or 77 ltd make a fantastic trio for weddings. I guess you are looking at a few bucks below $2,000 (unless you are willing to take the risk of buying used and save maybe $300-500). I would even undertake a wedding with two camera bodies and the Tamron and 77 limited lens hanging around my neck. (You could stick the wider angle 31 mm or something in that range in your pocket for possible use for group photos, but you should not be too surprised if you wind up leaving it in your pocket!) Make sure you have battery grips on the cameras or extra batteries in your pocket. SPF (sudden power failure) is a very dangerous disease to catch at weddings. For enhanced low-light coverage, I would put the Tamron on the K-5II and the longer range on any other K body, even a K-10 or K-20 that you can pick up for $150 to $400.

By the way, looking for the little red lens mounting dot while you are in low light, in a hurry-up photo situation, or in a bustling crowd at the reception can induce panic. You may wish to consider defacing your "switch lens" with a spot of white fingernail polish on the outside of the lens to speed up the lens change . . . just a thought, and I will say in advance to those who own and/or worship the 31 ltd that I would not necessarily to this myself if I expected at some point to sell the lens!

Another point. Shooting weddings is the single best way to get jobs shooting weddings, so bring along half-dozen business cards to pass out when asked.

Happy hunting!

[JonPB]

If I were to buy the 21, it wouldn't be because it is exciting. "Reliable" would be the word. It would be the lens that I put on my camera when I don't expect to take pictures, so it would be there when I need it. Small and light. Wide enough to get most any ordinary image. Sharp enough to allow substantial crops for snapshots. Image quality that needs no apologies. Complements the 15 (which requires careful composition because it is so wide), and the narrower 40 and 70 (which often disallow the full context of a scene from being in the image). Easier to carry than even the kit zoom, not to mention f/2.8 zooms. Probably not a lens you'd look at a scene and think, "now, what this picture calls for is the 21." But you'd look at pictures taken with the 21 and think, "I'm sure glad I had that kit with me."

Exciting, no. But if I owned all of the Limited lenses, I'd bet that my 21 would have the most wear marks on it. And that'd be a mark of pride.

I should get one.

[ivanvernon]

If I were to buy the 21, it wouldn't be because it is exciting. "Reliable" would be the word. It would be the lens that I put on my camera when I don't expect to take pictures, so it would be there when I need it. Small and light. Wide enough to get most any ordinary image. Sharp enough to allow substantial crops for snapshots. Image quality that needs no apologies. Complements the 15 (which requires careful composition because it is so wide), and the narrower 40 and 70 (which often disallow the full context of a scene from being in the image). Easier to carry than even the kit zoom, not to mention f/2.8 zooms. Probably not a lens you'd look at a scene and think, "now, what this picture calls for is the 21." But you'd look at pictures taken with the 21 and think, "I'm sure glad I had that kit with me."

Exciting, no. But if I owned all of the Limited lenses, I'd bet that my 21 would have the most wear marks on it. And that'd be a mark of pride.

I should get one.

I almost forgot to mention something. The 31 mm ltd is a very expensive lens. However, there is an alternative, the Sigma 30 mm f 1.4. This lens is seriously fast for low-light situations, with excellent image quality. I bought my copy new, on sale, from B&H, and have not regretted it at all. I purchased this lens, frankly, to see if I could reduce my LBA which was directed at the 31 mm ltd, and to some extent it has done that. You can likely find copies in the range of $375 to $500 depending on whether you are buying new or used. The lens constantly surprises in low-light situations, and when hitched to the 5II would no doubt do even better.

Attached are four images, taken just today in Green Mode, using the Sigma 30 mm f 1.4. (Yes, I know I am the only person who admits using Green Mode!) All were ambient light, and the shot of my son-in-law watching Jacky Chan movie is low light. Obviously, a competent photographer could have done much better! CORRECTION: I just checked the EXIF data, and the third photo with mother and daughter was taken with flash, with some blown highlights on face.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[twitch]

DA21 is small and flare resistant. But it's not cheap, not fast, not super sharp, and not appreciably better than (cheaper) f/2.8 zooms in the range. I sold mine because the cons outweighed the pros for me.

[bossa]

I love my 21 mm - I can't think of any lens for a pentax that will match it a round that focal length. I think one of the most stunning photos i took with it was quite accidental in that it was the only lens I had with me. I found a green cameleon and didn't have my macros. The colours and detail of the full image is breathtaking. Bottom line is that my clients love my work ie the quality of my images and much of it is taken with the 21Ltd.

Attachment 163697

Attachment 163699

Isn't the Zeiss 21/2.8 available for Pentax? I have one in my D800E and it's a wonderful lens albeit expensive.

[goubejp]

Isn't the Zeiss 21/2.8 available for Pentax? I have on in my D800E and it's a wonderful lens albeit expensive.

It was available in the past but now it is discontinued... and impossible to find.

[Jonathan Mac]

I have only had the 21mm for a few months but have had very good results from it. So far my use has been indoors with flash bounced off the ceiling, for pics of christmas, parties and my niece. I was really missing a small, sharp prime for this use and the 21mm is perfect in both regards. It also has extremely high build quality, as you'd expect, even better than my 35 ltd. Though I also have the Tamron 17-50, it's much bigger and focus can be hit-and-miss, the ltd is more reliable. However, for weddings and events, I'd go with the Tamron - not because it's a bad lens (it certainly isn't), but because it's the wrong lens for that job. You will need a zoom for that kind of use.

I have always believed that the 21mm is too slow for it's price, it should be at least f/2.8, and I still believe that.

My other intended use for the 21mm - landscapes and cityscapes - will be tested in the next few weeks with trips to London and New York.

[kh1234567890]

DA21 is small and flare resistant.

Except for the occasional green blob when the sun hits it at one particular angle.

[Blue]

To me it was the 40 ltd although a very good lens. I also have the 15, 21, and 35. I use the 35 more than I did the 40 with a couple of exceptions.

[mikemike]

I am selling my DA 21 right now, but the main reason why is a bit of spousal spending subterfuge. My wife has been nagging me because she doesn't like prime lenses because they can't zoom and I only have primes. So I have already bought a 16-45 to please her but haven't told her that I have it yet, I am going to sell my DA 21 and want to buy a FA 77 then say that I got the zoom lens that she wants and a prime lens that I want as part of a trade which should go over more smoothly than if I just bought 1 lens. I intend to eventually reacquire the 21 mm because it is a great lens, but it is just in the right price point that if my wife did have any idea exactly how much specific lenses were worth that I could get away without ire over spending hundreds of dollars.

[mikeSF]

here are a few of mine shot with the DA21:
Lens: DA21 Limited - a set on Flickr