Which lens are you excited about?

normhead · 05-22-2015, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by bdery

Excited about : the 16-85 which I just got a few weeks ago

What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because.

Ya me, too, I think about that lens all the time... I don't even know why. I guess because I own a DA*60-250, and in my dreams, I can get away hiking with just those two lenses. Although I'd probably take my Sigma 8-16 as well.

If it was an 10 to 50, I'd be sold.

Mothballs · 05-22-2015, 06:26 AM

MTO-11CA

1000mm Soviet lens. I need the reach, and on an APS-C, it has it. Also pretty Sharp.

Alnjpn · 05-22-2015, 06:41 AM

I am saving up for a wide angle and excited about shooting stuff really WIDE. Would love the DA12-24 F4 but will probably have to make do with the Sig 10-20...

normhead · 05-22-2015, 06:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Mothballs

MTO-11CA

1000mm Soviet lens. I need the reach, and on an APS-C, it has it. Also pretty Sharp.

There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of....

**savoche** · 05-22-2015, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Saving up for (and buying soon): HD DA 55-300 WR.

What it will offer: long range, simply put. I am going to Namibia for safari in June/July and don't own a single lens over 55 mm. This lens purchase is as far away from LBA and as close to 'mandatory' as it gets

Ooh, Namibia is beautiful - been there three times

Originally posted by Davidparis

Just a comment on your DA 55-300mm WR for a safari. Although you can spend much more on further-reaching or higher quality lens, I got very satisfactory results with the older version of the 55-300 during my trips to South Africa. It's a nice lens to have, practice a bit with it beforehand to master focussing quirks...
Brgds,

Agreed. Even though I can sometimes wish for something longer/faster/better, the 55-300 has a very useful range shooting from a car (where you often get quite close and need something wider than 300) and is wonderfully small and light when on foot.

Mothballs · 05-22-2015, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by normhead

There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of....

It and its little brother where both award winning lenses, and are what caused the mirror lens explosion in the 60's. Also, you can modify the thing into a 800mm f8 very easily. They're still probably the sharpest mirror lens you can get for a reasonable price.

Dlanor Sekao · 05-22-2015, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by normhead

There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of....

Like a Takumar-Bellows 100mm f4 ?

drypenn · 05-22-2015, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by bdery

What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because.

Same boat.

I've been dilly dallying on the 20-40 for the last few weeks.

The reviews are mixed and that's what makes it all the more interesting. This and the 12- 24.

longbow · 05-22-2015, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Ya me, too, I think about that lens all the time... I don't even know why. I guess because I own a DA*60-250, and in my dreams, I can get away hiking with just those two lenses. Although I'd probably take my Sigma 8-16 as well.

Originally posted by bdery

What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because. Or maybe, some day, an indoors lens to upgrade the Sigma 17-70 which I still love but find lacking in live view AF.

That's interesting, the 20-40 is my least interesting lens right now

Maybe it's just because I've gotten a DA21, FA 31& 43 since I've got the 20-40, but the one that really put it on the shelf was the 16-85. Other than being light & small for a zoom, for me it's just lost it's shine. It's not a bad lens, it just doesn't do enough, well enough to choose it over these other lenses. It's been packaged back up and in closet for now, see if I miss it.

bdery: Agree, the DA16-85 is a exciting lens, it's been a big surprise how well it does.

normhead · 05-22-2015, 10:03 AM

The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4. Coupled with a DA* 60-250 my slowest aperture would be ƒ4. I'm simply not buying anymore lenses that go over ƒ4. I've got lots.

Holding me back would be reviews like this.....
http://www.lenstip.com/396.4-Lens_review-Pentax_HD_DA_20-40_mm_f_2.8-4.0_ED_...esolution.html

That and that I have a 21ltd. a DA 35 2.4 and a 40 XS. I really only need a 31 to make it completely redundant.

longbow · 05-22-2015, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by normhead

The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4

Understandable, that's why I hesitated buying the 16-85 and bought the 20-40 instead. I liked the 20-40, but wanted a WR zoom with more range so I got the 16-85. What I found was I got better images with the 16-85 wider open than I did with the 20-40. I wander in the dark & wet coastal forests here so this was very important & surprising. Now maybe I got a really good 16-85, but I don't think there's anything wrong with 20-40 as it still does well and to be fair, neither are still a match to my DA or FA Limiteds.

That's my experience, though I do admit to still being a newbie at all of this

bdery · 05-22-2015, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by longbow

Maybe it's just because I've gotten a DA21, FA 31& 43 since I've got the 20-40, but the one that really put it on the shelf was the 16-85. Other than being light & small for a zoom, for me it's just lost it's shine. It's not a bad lens, it just doesn't do enough, well enough to choose it over these other lenses. It's been packaged back up and in closet for now, see if I miss it.

I'd like to use the 20-40 in the studio, where I currently use the Sigma 17-70 or DA40 limited. I'd enjoy the 20-40 for the (reported) near-prime IQ, Dc motor, decent aperture, and its killer looks (its main quality IMO). But maybe I'd be better served by something like a 24-70, or just a DA70 to go with my 40.

If the 20-40 produced starbursts like the DA21, I'd have replaced the latter by the former already.

Originally posted by longbow

bdery: Agree, the DA16-85 is a exciting lens, it's been a big surprise how well it does.

It's really an impressive lens.

Originally posted by normhead

The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4. Coupled with a DA* 60-250 my slowest aperture would be ƒ4. I'm simply not buying anymore lenses that go over ƒ4. I've got lots.

I find that the 16-85 and 60-250 pair very well. These are lenses made for outdoors, and they make a killer combo. In fact, the 6-85 has replaced the 60-250 in some situations (though far from all of them).

Originally posted by longbow

What I found was I got better images with the 16-85 wider open than I did with the 20-40.

Yep, the 16-85 is fully usable wide open. It constantly impresses me. A little slow for inside (that's why I keep the Siggy) but as of now, it's my primary lens, the one mounted by default.

**savoche** · 05-22-2015, 01:45 PM

Not really any lens I miss. There are always some "would be nice to have" lenses, like a K50/1.2. Or maybe a DA*60-250, or DA10-17. Or DA*55 or K55/1.8.. But nothing that I need (in the LBA sense of the word).

But then again, the "urge" usually grows stronger in the winter when weather is cold photo light is bad.

6BQ5 · 05-22-2015, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by savoche

Not really any lens I miss. There are always some "would be nice to have" lenses, like a K50/1.2. Or maybe a DA*60-250, or DA10-17. Or DA*55 or K55/1.8.. But nothing that I need (in the LBA sense of the word).

But then again, the "urge" usually grows stronger in the winter when weather is cold photo light is bad.

The winter months can be tough. I shoot a bit less, get plenty more restless, and the deals around Christmas start tugging on me sometimes!

ZoeB · 05-22-2015, 11:48 PM

Speak for yourselves! Between aurora, polar night and ski season, the winter/early spring is photographically my busiest season!

05-22-2015, 10:03 AM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4. Coupled with a DA* 60-250 my slowest aperture would be ƒ4. I'm simply not buying anymore lenses that go over ƒ4. I've got lots. Holding me back would be reviews like this..... http://www.lenstip.com/396.4-Lens_review-Pentax_HD_DA_20-40_mm_f_2.8-4.0_ED_...esolution.html That and that I have a 21ltd. a DA 35 2.4 and a 40 XS. I really only need a 31 to make it completely redundant. Last edited by normhead; 05-22-2015 at 10:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pets Are you coming.... or are you just going to stand there.	normhead	Post Your Photos!	10	06-25-2018 11:21 PM
Not so excited about photography anymore?	GabrielFFontes	General Photography	53	10-02-2015 05:19 PM
which K-x Colour you are?	thealfath	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	02-25-2010 02:15 PM
Which kind of shooter are you?	Jasvox	General Talk	24	01-11-2010 10:11 AM
Quiz: Which famous photographer are you?	heatherslightbox	General Talk	36	07-13-2008 07:02 AM

05-22-2015, 05:34 AM	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bdery Excited about : the 16-85 which I just got a few weeks ago What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because. Ya me, too, I think about that lens all the time... I don't even know why. I guess because I own a DA*60-250, and in my dreams, I can get away hiking with just those two lenses. Although I'd probably take my Sigma 8-16 as well. If it was an 10 to 50, I'd be sold.

05-22-2015, 06:26 AM	#17
Mothballs Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 275	MTO-11CA 1000mm Soviet lens. I need the reach, and on an APS-C, it has it. Also pretty Sharp.

05-22-2015, 06:41 AM	#18
Alnjpn Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: Osaka Posts: 158	I am saving up for a wide angle and excited about shooting stuff really WIDE. Would love the DA12-24 F4 but will probably have to make do with the Sig 10-20...

05-22-2015, 06:42 AM - 1 Like	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Mothballs MTO-11CA 1000mm Soviet lens. I need the reach, and on an APS-C, it has it. Also pretty Sharp. There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of....

05-22-2015, 07:05 AM	#20
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Saving up for (and buying soon): HD DA 55-300 WR. What it will offer: long range, simply put. I am going to Namibia for safari in June/July and don't own a single lens over 55 mm. This lens purchase is as far away from LBA and as close to 'mandatory' as it gets Ooh, Namibia is beautiful - been there three times Originally posted by Davidparis Just a comment on your DA 55-300mm WR for a safari. Although you can spend much more on further-reaching or higher quality lens, I got very satisfactory results with the older version of the 55-300 during my trips to South Africa. It's a nice lens to have, practice a bit with it beforehand to master focussing quirks... Brgds, Agreed. Even though I can sometimes wish for something longer/faster/better, the 55-300 has a very useful range shooting from a car (where you often get quite close and need something wider than 300) and is wonderfully small and light when on foot.

05-22-2015, 07:55 AM	#21
Mothballs Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 275	Originally posted by normhead There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of.... It and its little brother where both award winning lenses, and are what caused the mirror lens explosion in the 60's. Also, you can modify the thing into a 800mm f8 very easily. They're still probably the sharpest mirror lens you can get for a reasonable price.

05-22-2015, 07:58 AM	#22
Dlanor Sekao Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,457	Originally posted by normhead There's always some people who want stuff I've never heard of.... Like a Takumar-Bellows 100mm f4 ?

05-22-2015, 08:29 AM	#23
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	Originally posted by bdery What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because. Same boat. I've been dilly dallying on the 20-40 for the last few weeks. The reviews are mixed and that's what makes it all the more interesting. This and the 12- 24.

05-22-2015, 09:35 AM	#24
longbow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Originally posted by normhead Ya me, too, I think about that lens all the time... I don't even know why. I guess because I own a DA*60-250, and in my dreams, I can get away hiking with just those two lenses. Although I'd probably take my Sigma 8-16 as well. Originally posted by bdery What I'd ALSO like (but can't really justify) is the DA 20-40. I'd love to own it, just because. Or maybe, some day, an indoors lens to upgrade the Sigma 17-70 which I still love but find lacking in live view AF. That's interesting, the 20-40 is my least interesting lens right now Maybe it's just because I've gotten a DA21, FA 31& 43 since I've got the 20-40, but the one that really put it on the shelf was the 16-85. Other than being light & small for a zoom, for me it's just lost it's shine. It's not a bad lens, it just doesn't do enough, well enough to choose it over these other lenses. It's been packaged back up and in closet for now, see if I miss it. bdery: Agree, the DA16-85 is a exciting lens, it's been a big surprise how well it does.

05-22-2015, 10:49 AM	#26
longbow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Originally posted by normhead The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4 Understandable, that's why I hesitated buying the 16-85 and bought the 20-40 instead. I liked the 20-40, but wanted a WR zoom with more range so I got the 16-85. What I found was I got better images with the 16-85 wider open than I did with the 20-40. I wander in the dark & wet coastal forests here so this was very important & surprising. Now maybe I got a really good 16-85, but I don't think there's anything wrong with 20-40 as it still does well and to be fair, neither are still a match to my DA or FA Limiteds. That's my experience, though I do admit to still being a newbie at all of this

05-22-2015, 10:57 AM	#27
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by longbow Maybe it's just because I've gotten a DA21, FA 31& 43 since I've got the 20-40, but the one that really put it on the shelf was the 16-85. Other than being light & small for a zoom, for me it's just lost it's shine. It's not a bad lens, it just doesn't do enough, well enough to choose it over these other lenses. It's been packaged back up and in closet for now, see if I miss it. I'd like to use the 20-40 in the studio, where I currently use the Sigma 17-70 or DA40 limited. I'd enjoy the 20-40 for the (reported) near-prime IQ, Dc motor, decent aperture, and its killer looks (its main quality IMO). But maybe I'd be better served by something like a 24-70, or just a DA70 to go with my 40. If the 20-40 produced starbursts like the DA21, I'd have replaced the latter by the former already. Originally posted by longbow bdery: Agree, the DA16-85 is a exciting lens, it's been a big surprise how well it does. It's really an impressive lens. Originally posted by normhead The only thing I don't like about the 16-85 is the ƒ3.5 to ƒ5.6 as opposed to ƒ2.8 to ƒ4. Coupled with a DA* 60-250 my slowest aperture would be ƒ4. I'm simply not buying anymore lenses that go over ƒ4. I've got lots. I find that the 16-85 and 60-250 pair very well. These are lenses made for outdoors, and they make a killer combo. In fact, the 6-85 has replaced the 60-250 in some situations (though far from all of them). Originally posted by longbow What I found was I got better images with the 16-85 wider open than I did with the 20-40. Yep, the 16-85 is fully usable wide open. It constantly impresses me. A little slow for inside (that's why I keep the Siggy) but as of now, it's my primary lens, the one mounted by default.

05-22-2015, 01:45 PM	#28
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Not really any lens I miss. There are always some "would be nice to have" lenses, like a K50/1.2. Or maybe a DA60-250, or DA10-17. Or DA55 or K55/1.8.. But nothing that I need (in the LBA sense of the word). But then again, the "urge" usually grows stronger in the winter when weather is cold photo light is bad.

05-22-2015, 01:48 PM	#29
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348 Original Poster	Originally posted by savoche Not really any lens I miss. There are always some "would be nice to have" lenses, like a K50/1.2. Or maybe a DA60-250, or DA10-17. Or DA55 or K55/1.8.. But nothing that I need (in the LBA sense of the word). But then again, the "urge" usually grows stronger in the winter when weather is cold photo light is bad. The winter months can be tough. I shoot a bit less, get plenty more restless, and the deals around Christmas start tugging on me sometimes!

05-22-2015, 11:48 PM	#30
ZoeB Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Tromsø, Norway Posts: 886	Speak for yourselves! Between aurora, polar night and ski season, the winter/early spring is photographically my busiest season!