[pathdoc]

After much thought, and driven by size considerations as much as anything else, I am leaning more and more towards that 21mm Limited. The only question now is whether it's worth picking up the red-ring version or whether the older SMC is good enough.

The impression I get is that the older version has been performing well enough for many years now and the extra hundreds of dollars I'd have to spend for the HD version aren't worth it - there are other lenses I could be buying with that money.

[clackers]

Also consider the older Sigma 24mm f1.8 and f2.8 lenses, Pathdoc - I have the former.


They won't come close to the DA21 for size, though.

[clackers]

except when it doesn't nail it, as shown by the k3 autofocus failure in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/270...n-d750-32.html

both normhead and parallax claimed that the normhead dog running sequence was in focus, but you see how that worked out later in the thread.

both myself and edgar are offering you alternatives, if you don't want to listen, that's fine.

Why would Pathdoc turn their future DA21, FA31 or whatever purchase into manual focus by buying an A7, Osv?


And Edgar's suggestion was for a second-hand $200-300 mirrorless that won't have phase detection!


Again, you're grinding your usual axe when unwanted, ignoring the thread title.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

And Edgar's suggestion was for a second-hand $200-300 mirrorless that won't have phase detection!

Ha. As far as I'm concerned, that's one of the best things mirrorless has going for it. Some implementations of contrast AF have gotten very good in recent years.With AF performed directly on the image sensor, there's no need to fiddle with micro adjustments. And face detect is also a godsend for those who do a lot of people photography.

And we are talking about a 28mm lens. Not a 200mm sport lens. I'm pretty sure it'll be okay even if the AF is, say, a tenth of second slower.

And Edgar's suggestion was for a second-hand $200-300 mirrorless

Without second-hand gear, I wouldn't have much of a photography kit. But I'm certainly glad there are always people willing to pay full price for something that loses a big chunk of its value as soon as you open box!

---

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 05-27-2015 at 06:22 PM.

[clackers]

Some implementations of contrast AF have gotten very good in recent years.

Each to their own, Edgar,


I have an A7 (as well as a NEX-7) and will happily use it for some static shots, but I proudly turn to my Pentax K-30 or K-S1 when it comes to action.

Without second-hand gear, I wouldn't have much of a photography kit. But I'm certainly glad there are always people willing to pay full price for something that loses a big chunk of its value as soon as you open box!.

To be fair, you were asking Pathdoc to pay money for another camera when he already has one!


If he buys a DA 20-40 or whatever, he can do it secondhand.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I have an A7 (as well as a NEX-7) and will happily use it for some static shots, but I proudly turn to my Pentax K-30 or K-S1 when it comes to action.

Again, we were talking about 28mm. Usually not a focal length where a lot of "action" lives. My suggestions were in that context.

To be fair, you were asking Pathdoc to pay money for another camera when he already has one!

True, it would be another camera. And?

I was proposing a camera/lens solution that comes in much less than the price of many of the lenses that are being discussed. Besides the 20mm 1.7 being a wonderful, and tiny, lens, it would also give him the ability to experiment with some other cool lenses.

Like I said before, it's his money and it's not my concern how he spends it. I thought my suggestion was a compelling one. You apparently thought it was nonsense, but that's fine also.

[clackers]

Besides the 20mm 1.7 being a wonderful, and tiny, lens, it would also give him the ability to experiment with some other cool lenses.

No doubt, Edgar.

Last year, I recommended a friend get an Olympus E-PL5.

Suited them, less so for Pathdoc and his situation.

Rather than go to a smaller format, he said he may one day go to FF and that he's coveting the FA31.

---

Last edited by clackers; 05-27-2015 at 08:46 PM.

[pathdoc]

I'm not sure where I gave anyone the idea I'd be moving to full-frame - all I said was...

The fact that either could be used on a FF or film camera doesn't hurt them at all in my estimation, even though I fully expect I'll be staying with crop for the foreseeable future.

Keeping my options open.

Besides the 20mm 1.7 being a wonderful, and tiny, lens, it would also give him the ability to experiment with some other cool lenses.

I know! And the thought is a good one and the Olympus system looks great, BUT... now that I have full-blown Pentax LBA, does anyone here think for one minute I'd be able to stop at just one if I got into Micro 4/3? Granted, one could always buy a K-mount to M4/3 adapter and at least not have to double up on a complete range of lenses, but still... no. Not right now.

Also consider the older Sigma 24mm f1.8 and f2.8 lenses, Pathdoc - I have the former.

I certainly will consider. If they're from after the watershed when Sigma became a decent company producing good glass, rather than a company whose lenses brought the owner expressions of condolence or pity, I'm all for it. (Were they ever really that bad? Or were they simply good enough but not as good as the main players?)

[clackers]

I certainly will consider. If they're from after the watershed when Sigma became a decent company producing good glass, rather than a company whose lenses brought the owner expressions of condolence or pity, I'm all for it.

Well, they're from the film era, as I understand it.

I have the 24, and it's not as sharp away from the centre as my Samyang f1.4, but it is AF. :-)

[osv]

Why would Pathdoc turn their future DA21, FA31 or whatever purchase into manual focus by buying an A7, Osv?.

you quoted the answer, then followed with a question that you already answered in the quote.

hilarious

---------- Post added 05-28-15 at 09:27 AM ----------

Also consider the older Sigma 24mm f1.8.

screw-drive af with marginal picture quality, probably not a good choice, especially if ff is a possibility: Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 EX DG (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

---------- Post added 05-28-15 at 09:46 AM ----------

Again, we were talking about 28mm. Usually not a focal length where a lot of "action" lives. My suggestions were in that context.

well, the thread title does say "28mm f/2.8", and you were thinking 28mm, but clackers ignored the thread title, and told him to get a 24mm lens

i like 28mm on ff a lot more than 28mm on crop.

[pathdoc]

Oh for God's sake, people!

I'm asking for recommendations for a lens for a Pentax camera, NOT for a second camera.

I'm canvassing opinions at the wide end. Sure, a direct 28mm AF for 28mm MF replacement is the ideal, but as Pentax don't actually make an autofocus prime in that FL any more, I thought I should find out from your collective experience what my third-party (or used OEM) options might be. And given that I myself raised the option of 21mm early in the piece, clackers' suggestion of a 24mm lens (an example of which he owns and seems satisfied with) is hardly inappropriate.

screw-drive af

I couldn't give a damn whether the thing is auto-focused by screw-drive, HSM, USM, DC, black magic, or screaming Irish pixies cavorting inside the freaking lens case. All I care is that it WORKS. And as for image quality, I made my stance on that one fairly obvious in the original post too. No charts and no pixel peeping; if I can't find the imperfections on a 5 x 7 glossy or a PC's full-screen view, as far as I'm concerned they aren't there.

I've had some reasonable-sounding options recommended and I'll take them all on board (with thanks) and do the appropriate reading around. The first Pentax-compatible 20-30mm, f/2.8-or-faster AF lens I find among them that's at a price I'm prepared to pay will get the ticket. End of story.

[bdery]

The first thing that comes to mind is the 21mm DA limited, which I'd be happy to have in the original SMC version in the name of low cost

And the starbursts!

I am aware this will be significantly wider and is also a little over a half stop (2.8 vs. 3.2) slower. The small size is, however, a strong attractant.

The aperture isn't that different. The field of view is near enough, I personally find 21 more comfortable.

The rationale behind the 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited Zoom at last makes itself clear, BUT... at what point does the shift from f/2.8 to f/3.5 or f/4.0 occur?

If you're considering the 21 f3.2, the variable aperture shouldn't be a problem either.

As far as IQ specifications go, I'm not the sort to pixel-peep. If it can turn out desktop-size screen images on large laptops or 5 x 7 glossies as well as a Limited prime can, that's fine by me.

Without pixel peeping, many things will still be visible on a computer screen. Colours, contrast, bokeh, pixie dust.

But are there any contemporary AF offerings from reliable third parties that might fall into consideration?

Others have mentionned them, but the F and FA 28mm are excellent choices too. Not as magical as the limiteds, but pretty darn good, and cheaper used. There's a F28 on the marketplace right now.

DA21. It kicks the crap out of the FA28. The FA28 is sharp, but it's focal length is a bit bland on apsc, it's build quality is a bit meh, and the bokeh is a bit meh as well. The only reason why you'd get it is for FF.

I wouldn't say it kicks it, but its rendering is clearly something special. The 28s are more anonymous, not bland but with less personality.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Oh for God's sake, people!

You really opened a can of worms here with your provocative question! I hope you're proud of yourself!

[pepperberry farm]

...... or screaming Irish pixies cavorting inside the freaking lens case.......

oh sure, now you call in the Irish....

[ChristianRock]

Pathdoc, get the Pentax-F 28mm f2.8 that is on sale at the marketplace here at PF. Its a rare lens and all you need.