[clackers]

And then there's the Industars. Have you noticed that practically all the e-bay Industar 50mm f/3.5s in M42 mount are either in Russia or the Ukraine? My pet theory is that Putin actually owns all the Russian ones and invaded Ukraine to corner the market.

Very dangerous.

These surplus Industars can no longer be maintained or accounted for and may end up in the hands of 35mm film insurgents all over the world.

[pathdoc]

Stepless Av-mode shutter, stepless aperture ring... the possibilities are direful. Just let one ignorant user take a picture requiring f/13 at 1/666 of a second and it's all over for humanity.

[reeftool]

Well these are test shots with no attempt at artistry, but they might be informative.
Don't get me wrong; it's far more fun as a fisheye

At the wide end: Sigma 8-16 vs DA10-17



DA15 vs DA10-17@17

If you're happy with the results, that's fine. Many people aren't. I bought mine several years ago from a forum member in the Marketplace who bought one as a cheaper alternative to the DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. Yes, you can sometimes get some good wide results by fiddling with a shot in PP. All of us who own the lens do. The problem arises when the suggestion is made to buy the 10-17 as a cheaper alternative to one of the rectilinear wide zooms, which usually ends in disappointment. There are multiple threads with complaints about the various PP tools to "defish" the shots. You can use the lens successfully by proper framing and shooting position and come out with shots that don't look distorted. At 17mm, the distortion in minimal.

I love the fisheye but I also own the DA 15, another wonderful lens. When I'm thinking of a more "normal" look to a wide shot, I take out the 15. They both get equal use.

The Sigma 17-70C is faster than either the DA 18-135 or 16-85 but I didn't buy it for that reason. I bought it as a walk around because having more reach than the kit lens was more useful for me. Being faster (and pretty good wide open, too) is an added benefit. At the time, my decision was mainly based on price as all the DA lenses were being sold near the full list price at the time.

[boriscleto]

And then there's the Industars. Have you noticed that practically all the e-bay Industar 50mm f/3.5s in M42 mount are either in Russia or the Ukraine? My pet theory is that Putin actually owns all the Russian ones and invaded Ukraine to corner the market.

Mine came from Moldova

[boriscleto]

If you're happy with the results, that's fine. Many people aren't. I bought mine several years ago from a forum member in the Marketplace who bought one as a cheaper alternative to the DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. Yes, you can sometimes get some good wide results by fiddling with a shot in PP. All of us who own the lens do. The problem arises when the suggestion is made to buy the 10-17 as a cheaper alternative to one of the rectilinear wide zooms, which usually ends in disappointment. There are multiple threads with complaints about the various PP tools to "defish" the shots. You can use the lens successfully by proper framing and shooting position and come out with shots that don't look distorted. At 17mm, the distortion in minimal.

I love the fisheye but I also own the DA 15, another wonderful lens. When I'm thinking of a more "normal" look to a wide shot, I take out the 15. They both get equal use.

My need for an UWA is based on my interest in getting into real estate photography. So I really need a 10-12mm rectilinear, a fish-eye isn't really appropriate, and the 15 isn't wide enough.

[filoxophy]

My need for an UWA is based on my interest in getting into real estate photography. So I really need a 10-12mm rectilinear, a fish-eye isn't really appropriate, and the 15 isn't wide enough.

If it's something you think you can realistically make some money on, just get what is needed for the job. Which sounds like in this case the 8-16. Seems like you'll regret anything else.

[boriscleto]

If it's something you think you can realistically make some money on, just get what is needed for the job. Which sounds like in this case the 8-16. Seems like you'll regret anything else.

If I can make some money on it then I'll be able to afford an 8-16 down the road. What I can afford in the short term is a 10-20 or 10-24. It's not like they are goimg to lose resale value.

I have 2 aunts and an uncle who sell real estate. So I have a family connection and I'm sure I can get plenty of practice...

[normhead]

The Sigma 8-16 is completely rectilinear until 12mm, I don't think you are going to find better than that.

[IchabodCrane]

The 18-135 actually fits my requirements better. It isn't any wider than my 18-55 but it's better. Since I'm pairing this lens with my 150-500 the 135 has less of a gap.

With your K-3, you don't need to worry about bridging gaps in your lens focal lengths. The minimal amount of cropping needed for those gaps is almost inconsequential on a 24 MP camera.

[boriscleto]

With your K-3, you don't need to worry about bridging gaps in your lens focal lengths. The minimal amount of cropping needed for those gaps is almost inconsequential on a 24 MP camera.

Take a look at my new thread and keep in mind that 90% are shot with a 150-500 and heavily cropped...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/310544-nature-year-photography.html

[normhead]

With your K-3, you don't need to worry about bridging gaps in your lens focal lengths. The minimal amount of cropping needed for those gaps is almost inconsequential on a 24 MP camera.

That depends completely on whether you want the best image your camera can produce or not. If you're always pushing for that highest resolution image, then that's way too much gap. 85 to 150 is a 65mm gap, which is a 75% in crease over 85mm. The increase in resolution K-5 to k-3 is 2200 to 2700 or 500/2200, less than a 25% increase, from about 110mm to 150 mm, you'll be getting less than K-5 IQ on your K-3. Did you really buy a K-3 to get less than K-5 resolution images?

[boriscleto]

Did you really buy a K-3 to get less than K-5 resolution images?

Like I said, take a look through the Year of Photography thread. The best ones are the ones I didn't have to crop, or crop all that much...though my favorite of the year is one I cropped to 3.2 MP.

[MPrince]

The Tamron and Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 are running ~$300 used. I only need to sell a few lenses for that. I don't need it till Spring anyway...

If you decide you want a Tamron 10-24 PM me. We can definitely do business.

[normhead]

Like I said, take a look through the Year of Photography thread. The best ones are the ones I didn't have to crop, or crop all that much...though my favorite of the year is one I cropped to 3.2 MP.

Yes often subject matter trumps all… but I always end up thinking, what if i could have filled the frame with that one.

Unfortunately I'm at the point now where a longer zoom, means too heavy to hand hold, and you can miss a lot of shots setting up a tripod. I also prefer shots taken on a triode, matter, but once again subject matter trumps all. A 3 MP image of a compelling subject is better than a 24 MP image of a subject that isn't compelling.

[Nicolas06]

My 2 cents:

- The 18-135 is fantastic for the price and if you have no choice, you have no choice !

- Depending of case real estate depend also on fish eyes (for virtual visits for example) as well as recti linear, but that depend of what you plan to do with it. I don't think it need much quality through so a cheap 10-20 or 10-24 would do just fine. I don't think you will sell more thanks to a 8-16.

- Gaps in focal range are totally acceptable in general. many of us use primes, most people use phones with 1 single focal length (including many real estate agents). Some well known photographers used only 50mm as focal length for their whole carrier. On the opposite you could also want lot of overlap to avoid to change lenses. This is all dependant of intended use.

For the 85mm - 150mm range to be a problem you'll have to be somebody that shoot a lot in the 85-150mm range because that's what you are after and really the 18-135 would not be the best lens then because it is weak in that range. This would be a job for a 60-250, 50-135 or 55-300 and the big asset to me of a 16-85 would be great performance from 16 to 85mm and avoiding to get a UWA, at least on some occasions so you save one lens... Like the 18-135 is saving you to get one lens if 135mm is going to be the longest you are going to need, at leat on some outings.