Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Jean Poitiers · 11-09-2014, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Get anything interesting?

Yep ... in a junk bin, a Leitz Wetzlar Dimaron 100/2.8 projector lens for ONE EURO ... great shape.

An aus Jena MC Pancolar 50/1.8 attached to a Praktica LTL 3 for 8 euros ... the aperture is stuck wide open, but it should be an easy fix.

And I splurged on a very minty Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 with a Pentax EOM MIJ M42 to PK adapter ... 40 euros for both ... plus then found a matching case with a receipt for 2€ ... and more

**wtlwdwgn** · 11-09-2014, 03:01 PM

Pretty good haul especially if you total the cost and divide by the number of items.

FantasticMrFox · 11-09-2014, 03:02 PM

This is hilarious - people having over 50 lenses at times, others writing that they have 'only 9'.

And here I am, counting exactly three lenses (have another DA L 18-55 non-WR kit from my K-r, doesn't count):

Pentax DA L 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 WR
Pentax SMC A 50 f/1.7
Pentax DA 35 f/2.4

I can't even afford an LBA, but I doubt I'd ever need more than 5-10 lenses. Currently trying to figure out whether I should save up for the HD 55-300 WR, the future HD 16-85 WR or a Sigma 35 f/1.4 'Art'.

Sucks to be on a student budget ...

**Hattifnatt** · 11-09-2014, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Currently trying to figure out whether I should save up for the HD 55-300 WR, the future HD 16-85 WR or a Sigma 35 f/1.4 'Art'.

Careful with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. From my experience it's a bit of a tricky lens, sometimes it gets amazing results, sometimes it severely underperforms. My copy also tends to backfocus quite a bit. I got a lot more keepers from the cheap DA35mm f2.4. Consider you might need to calibrate it, or better yet, test it for focus issues when you buy it. That being said, when it gets a good shot it's well above the DA35, as it should be, considering the price. But if I'm not satisfied after the calibration, I will try to sell it and go for the FA 31

FantasticMrFox · 11-09-2014, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

Careful with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. From my experience it's a bit of a tricky lens, sometimes it gets amazing results, sometimes it severely underperforms. My copy also tends to backfocus quite a bit. I got a lot more keepers from the cheap DA35mm f2.4. Consider you might need to calibrate it, or better yet, test it for focus issues when you buy it. That being said, when it gets a good shot it's well above the DA35, as it should be, considering the price. But if I'm not satisfied after the calibration, I will try to sell it and go for the FA 31

Technically a 35 mm prime isn't even a priority for me, the DA 35 f/2.4 is my strongest lens and the last one I would have to update - I just read rave reviews about the Sigma and I love this focal length, the DA 35 is my favourite walk-around lens. Realistically though I will go for the 16-85 (provided reviews show that IQ and sharpness is significantly better than my kit) as it offers so much over the kit - 16 mm over 18 mm for landscapes and architecture, a bit more tele, silent internal DC focussing (hopefully also faster). Would be the perfect walk-around for mountaineering.

**dadipentak** · 11-09-2014, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Sucks to be on a student budget ...

Well, it keeps one's lba in check. But I when you do scare up the scratch, I'd advocate for the HD 55-300 WR--the longer focal lengths will open up new possibilities.

JimmyDranox · 11-09-2014, 04:35 PM

Mr FantastikMrFox. I have a friend. He owns an amateur astronomical telescope store. And he tell me that he has some costumers, which have bought small telescopes, and with it, they are making a lot of observations. And other costumers, with big and expensive telescopes, that didn't make more than 1 or 2 observations a year.

For you, I think that a 50-300mm WR, or even a cheap 70-300mm from Tamron or Sigma will be good for the time being.

FantasticMrFox · 11-09-2014, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by JimmyDranox

Mr FantastikMrFox. I have a friend. He owns an amateur astronomical telescope store. And he tell me that he has some costumers, which have bought small telescopes, and with it, they are making a lot of observations. And other costumers, with big and expensive telescopes, that didn't make more than 1 or 2 observations a year.

For you, I think that a 50-300mm WR, or even a cheap 70-300mm from Tamron or Sigma will be good for the time being.

I am aware of people buying tons of expensive equipment and hardly using it, and other people doing the same and expecting money to buy them great pictures, but I don't quite understand how that relates to me

I am not a professional photographer, but I'm not a novice either. I recently acquired a K3 and I think that the sensor's outstanding image quality is wasted on cheap glass like a Tamron 70-300 or similar. I realised the importance of good glass when I purchased my first prime (the SMC A 50 f/1.7) and now prefer to save up on some high quality lenses instead of buying something that doesn't offer good image quality.

Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack the thread for some lens buying advice - back to how many lenses everybody owns

JimmyDranox · 11-09-2014, 05:51 PM

What I wanted to say is that not always a lot of equipment is needed to make good photography. Not related to you.

Mr Bassie · 11-09-2014, 05:54 PM

I don't know how many lenses I have. I buy old lenses when I find good deals on them. I rarely buy anything new.

FantasticMrFox · 11-09-2014, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by JimmyDranox

What I wanted to say is that not always a lot of equipment is needed to make good photography.

This is absolutely true! Good equipment, however, makes it a lot easier and some pictures of a certain standard are almost impossible to take without the right equipment. Some examples are sports photography where you will have a very hard time getting consistent, satisfactory results without a camera and lenses with a very fast AF and decent AF.C, street photography at night where a fast prime lens is vital or wildlife photography where you'll have a hard time sneaking up to some animals if you don't own a tele

There is a reason pros invest thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars into certain gear.

So yes, it is absolutely possible to take great pictures with very basic equipment, but on the other hand it can be outrightly impossible to take certain other pictures without the right equipment

This obviously doesn't really relate much to me right now as I don't shoot sports or much wildlife - I just currently consider my kit lens a bit of a bottleneck on the very large bottle that is my K3

Jonathan Mac · 11-10-2014, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Mr Bassie

I don't know how many lenses I have. I buy old lenses when I find good deals on them. I rarely buy anything new.

Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking

Jean Poitiers · 11-10-2014, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by wtlwdwgn

Pretty good haul especially if you total the cost and divide by the number of items.

Yeah, true ... ha!

Well, there's one I left out (actually more) ... Again in a "junk bin" in front of and below the stand.

A very nice Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander Icarex 35 S (TM - M42) camera with a nice working Zenith Helios 44M-6. Both for 10€ and I really bought it for the lens. Went home and popped a battery in and "Bingo" ... the light meter works and all ... even nicer. I took a small risk on the body being non-tested.

So, mark each of these up at 5€ a piece ...

Mr Bassie · 11-10-2014, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking

That's right. My best deal was a Spotmatic with a trio of Takumars for $15. I already had another version of the camera and all the lenses but for that price I couldn't resist.

Jean Poitiers · 11-10-2014, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking

Very true ... and many come when you never expect them to ...

15€ at a boot sale about 8 miles from my house. Like brand new ... and that's an AF 50/1.7 to go along with the rest of my Minolta gear.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How many memory cards do you have?	slackercruster	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	48	08-27-2016 04:50 PM
How Many Of You ... Have Ordered HD lenses?	tabl10s	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	10-28-2013 05:45 PM
How many cameras do you have Adam? (Site Webmaster)	Pentaxguy22	General Talk	3	01-14-2013 06:42 PM
How many photo books do you have?	slackercruster	General Talk	4	07-18-2012 08:48 AM
How many lenses do you own?	slackercruster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	153	07-16-2012 01:47 PM

11-09-2014, 02:02 PM	#781
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Get anything interesting? Yep ... in a junk bin, a Leitz Wetzlar Dimaron 100/2.8 projector lens for ONE EURO ... great shape. An aus Jena MC Pancolar 50/1.8 attached to a Praktica LTL 3 for 8 euros ... the aperture is stuck wide open, but it should be an easy fix. And I splurged on a very minty Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 with a Pentax EOM MIJ M42 to PK adapter ... 40 euros for both ... plus then found a matching case with a receipt for 2€ ... and more

11-09-2014, 03:01 PM	#782
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,853	Pretty good haul especially if you total the cost and divide by the number of items.

11-09-2014, 03:02 PM	#783
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	This is hilarious - people having over 50 lenses at times, others writing that they have 'only 9'. And here I am, counting exactly three lenses (have another DA L 18-55 non-WR kit from my K-r, doesn't count): Pentax DA L 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 WR Pentax SMC A 50 f/1.7 Pentax DA 35 f/2.4 I can't even afford an LBA, but I doubt I'd ever need more than 5-10 lenses. Currently trying to figure out whether I should save up for the HD 55-300 WR, the future HD 16-85 WR or a Sigma 35 f/1.4 'Art'. Sucks to be on a student budget ...

11-09-2014, 04:04 PM	#784
Hattifnatt Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bucharest Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,626	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Currently trying to figure out whether I should save up for the HD 55-300 WR, the future HD 16-85 WR or a Sigma 35 f/1.4 'Art'. Careful with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. From my experience it's a bit of a tricky lens, sometimes it gets amazing results, sometimes it severely underperforms. My copy also tends to backfocus quite a bit. I got a lot more keepers from the cheap DA35mm f2.4. Consider you might need to calibrate it, or better yet, test it for focus issues when you buy it. That being said, when it gets a good shot it's well above the DA35, as it should be, considering the price. But if I'm not satisfied after the calibration, I will try to sell it and go for the FA 31

11-09-2014, 04:14 PM	#785
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by Hattifnatt Careful with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. From my experience it's a bit of a tricky lens, sometimes it gets amazing results, sometimes it severely underperforms. My copy also tends to backfocus quite a bit. I got a lot more keepers from the cheap DA35mm f2.4. Consider you might need to calibrate it, or better yet, test it for focus issues when you buy it. That being said, when it gets a good shot it's well above the DA35, as it should be, considering the price. But if I'm not satisfied after the calibration, I will try to sell it and go for the FA 31 Technically a 35 mm prime isn't even a priority for me, the DA 35 f/2.4 is my strongest lens and the last one I would have to update - I just read rave reviews about the Sigma and I love this focal length, the DA 35 is my favourite walk-around lens. Realistically though I will go for the 16-85 (provided reviews show that IQ and sharpness is significantly better than my kit) as it offers so much over the kit - 16 mm over 18 mm for landscapes and architecture, a bit more tele, silent internal DC focussing (hopefully also faster). Would be the perfect walk-around for mountaineering.

11-09-2014, 04:14 PM	#786
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Sucks to be on a student budget ... Well, it keeps one's lba in check. But I when you do scare up the scratch, I'd advocate for the HD 55-300 WR--the longer focal lengths will open up new possibilities.

11-09-2014, 04:35 PM	#787
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	Mr FantastikMrFox. I have a friend. He owns an amateur astronomical telescope store. And he tell me that he has some costumers, which have bought small telescopes, and with it, they are making a lot of observations. And other costumers, with big and expensive telescopes, that didn't make more than 1 or 2 observations a year. For you, I think that a 50-300mm WR, or even a cheap 70-300mm from Tamron or Sigma will be good for the time being.

11-09-2014, 05:34 PM	#788
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by JimmyDranox Mr FantastikMrFox. I have a friend. He owns an amateur astronomical telescope store. And he tell me that he has some costumers, which have bought small telescopes, and with it, they are making a lot of observations. And other costumers, with big and expensive telescopes, that didn't make more than 1 or 2 observations a year. For you, I think that a 50-300mm WR, or even a cheap 70-300mm from Tamron or Sigma will be good for the time being. I am aware of people buying tons of expensive equipment and hardly using it, and other people doing the same and expecting money to buy them great pictures, but I don't quite understand how that relates to me I am not a professional photographer, but I'm not a novice either. I recently acquired a K3 and I think that the sensor's outstanding image quality is wasted on cheap glass like a Tamron 70-300 or similar. I realised the importance of good glass when I purchased my first prime (the SMC A 50 f/1.7) and now prefer to save up on some high quality lenses instead of buying something that doesn't offer good image quality. Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack the thread for some lens buying advice - back to how many lenses everybody owns

11-09-2014, 05:51 PM	#789
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	What I wanted to say is that not always a lot of equipment is needed to make good photography. Not related to you.

11-09-2014, 05:54 PM	#790
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	I don't know how many lenses I have. I buy old lenses when I find good deals on them. I rarely buy anything new.

11-09-2014, 06:04 PM	#791
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by JimmyDranox What I wanted to say is that not always a lot of equipment is needed to make good photography. This is absolutely true! Good equipment, however, makes it a lot easier and some pictures of a certain standard are almost impossible to take without the right equipment. Some examples are sports photography where you will have a very hard time getting consistent, satisfactory results without a camera and lenses with a very fast AF and decent AF.C, street photography at night where a fast prime lens is vital or wildlife photography where you'll have a hard time sneaking up to some animals if you don't own a tele There is a reason pros invest thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars into certain gear. So yes, it is absolutely possible to take great pictures with very basic equipment, but on the other hand it can be outrightly impossible to take certain other pictures without the right equipment This obviously doesn't really relate much to me right now as I don't shoot sports or much wildlife - I just currently consider my kit lens a bit of a bottleneck on the very large bottle that is my K3

11-10-2014, 04:18 AM	#792
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,911	Originally posted by Mr Bassie I don't know how many lenses I have. I buy old lenses when I find good deals on them. I rarely buy anything new. Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking

11-10-2014, 06:14 AM	#793
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by wtlwdwgn Pretty good haul especially if you total the cost and divide by the number of items. Yeah, true ... ha! Well, there's one I left out (actually more) ... Again in a "junk bin" in front of and below the stand. A very nice Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander Icarex 35 S (TM - M42) camera with a nice working Zenith Helios 44M-6. Both for 10€ and I really bought it for the lens. Went home and popped a battery in and "Bingo" ... the light meter works and all ... even nicer. I took a small risk on the body being non-tested. So, mark each of these up at 5€ a piece ...

11-10-2014, 07:46 AM	#794
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking That's right. My best deal was a Spotmatic with a trio of Takumars for $15. I already had another version of the camera and all the lenses but for that price I couldn't resist.

11-10-2014, 07:57 AM	#795
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Me too, but it's amazing how many good deals you can find when you spend a lot of time looking Very true ... and many come when you never expect them to ... 15€ at a boot sale about 8 miles from my house. Like brand new ... and that's an AF 50/1.7 to go along with the rest of my Minolta gear.

How many lenses do you have?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!