Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2016, 12:14 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,507
This is kind of a weird thread, right? I mean, we don't have tons of info, so it seems like spit balling at the target.

How about a light & small prime collection backed by a couple zooms to give some weather resistant options. Here goes;

DA 15mm Limited
24mm Sigma Super-Wide II AF *OR* Pentax F 28mm 2.8
DA 40mm XS
FA 50mm 1.4
18-135 WR
50-200 WR

05-04-2016, 03:00 AM   #17
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,776
So what was your previous setup?
I used to run with a sigma 17-70 for zoom convenience then 14, 21, 43, 100 for IQ/fun and it worked very well(although i needed something at 70) Since I replaced the sigma with the Da* 16-50 and 50-135 the primes get a lot less use.
If you go down the prime route i would definitely want something like 18-135 or 16-85 for convenience/wr. You probably don't need both the 35 and 40(or 43) and the 55 and 70 also do a similar roll. There should also be some good deals on the marketplace for da limiteds with the K1 release. I would definitely consider the FA limiteds in the mix since their small size fits nicely with Aps-c cameras.
05-04-2016, 06:53 AM   #18
Pentaxian
ChatMechant's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Matsuyama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,284
The only thing I'm going to miss about moving to FF is my 16-50. It is ridiculously good. Small, light, tough, WR and sharp. that, the 50-135 and the 300. then sprinkle the primes in to taste. Makes me almost not want to get the K1. J/K
05-04-2016, 09:30 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,172
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
So what sayest though, Pentaxians of the world?

Cambo,


It would be useful to know what aspects of your previous (terrific) kit you didn't like. Apart from the lenses not being designed specifically for APS-C, what capabilities or characteristics were you missing? What types of subjects were you not able to capture well? Was the kit too heavy?


Are you open to considering other brands? Mirrorless?


Otherwise, here's my four-lens suggestion: DA 15 Ltd; DA 35 Macro Ltd; DA* 50-135 and DA* 300.


- Craig

05-04-2016, 02:01 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,016
Original Poster
When you're my age you'll understand...

Too old to carry around massive lenses/ and massive cameras. You guys can keep all that extra size and weight (and price) for the 5% extra performance you'll get on 30" x 50" prints. Or when you take pictures of bats in dark closets.

But thank you everybody. I think I've made up my mind with the 12-24, 16-85 and the 60-250 for travelling, then start on a collection of limited primes/pancakes.

...all in a nice Billingham bag.

Cheers,
Cameron


QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
Well, you certainly do march to a different drummer Cameron. Pentax is just starting to ship the K-1 - a camera that the forum members have been waiting/pining for and here you are, deliberately choosing to concentrate on APS-C format, which by the way, none of us had any choice in the matter until now. I just find your choice flabbergasting - a "doh!" moment if ever there was one.

Your choice of K-3II is a great choice, and the camera I am most likely to upgrade to before I upgrade to the K-1(if ever) but still, I'd like to keep my options open.
05-04-2016, 02:09 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,172
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
When you're my age you'll understand...
I know what you mean. I recently got a K-3 II. The weight of a K-1 plus the long focal-length lenses that I would need - and the relatively high prices here in Canada - were deciding factors for me.

- Craig
05-04-2016, 03:39 PM   #22
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by ChatMechant Quote
The only thing I'm going to miss about moving to FF is my 16-50. It is ridiculously good. Small, light, tough, WR and sharp. that, the 50-135 and the 300. then sprinkle the primes in to taste. Makes me almost not want to get the K1. J/K

You can still use it for its beautiful rendering, ChatMerchant, you'll just be discarding more than half the pixels.

05-04-2016, 03:48 PM - 1 Like   #23
sbh
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sbh's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 848
Nice move.

From my experience, having no specific genre or focus, all you need is the 35 macro and the *55. That's what I use 90%. They are the best Of what I have used so far.

A convenient zoom-alternative is the lovely 17-70 which I have experienced much better than what I have read here.

The 60-250 is also a marvel but so bulky. Only useful if you really need the 200mm area for something specific.

So my vote would be the 35 macro + *55. And maybe the 21 and 100 macro of you need more weight in your bag. Save the rest of the money - or even better - travel and bring home some great photos. : )
05-04-2016, 04:22 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,669
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
Too old to carry around massive lenses/ and massive cameras. You guys can keep all that extra size and weight (and price) for the 5% extra performance you'll get on 30" x 50" prints. Or when you take pictures of bats in dark closets.

But thank you everybody. I think I've made up my mind with the 12-24, 16-85 and the 60-250 for travelling, then start on a collection of limited primes/pancakes.

...all in a nice Billingham bag.

Cheers,
Cameron
Good choice. But might I suggest the Billingham Hadley Pro bag instead. Although a bit smaller, a joy to use and easy to carry. Look for reviews on it here in the Pentax Forums camera bag reviews.
05-05-2016, 06:34 AM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
I would not go for the DA* 16-50/2.8 as it is too prone to flare...

...but how about the DA 15, DA 20-40 and the 50-135?
05-05-2016, 11:07 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,016
Original Poster
Answers...

QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
Good choice. But might I suggest the Billingham Hadley Pro bag instead. Although a bit smaller, a joy to use and easy to carry. Look for reviews on it here in the Pentax Forums camera bag reviews.
Yes, I was JUST looking at that yesterday in a shop. Gorgeous. And fairly small, and it looks the wrong shape to be cameras, but it is, and VERY comfortable at your side! Thanks for the suggestion.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I would not go for the DA* 16-50/2.8 as it is too prone to flare...

...but how about the DA 15, DA 20-40 and the 50-135?
Thanks, Pål. I always value your input. I'm thinking for travel just the three zooms - 12-24, 16-85 which seems to get RAVE reviews, and I value it's added reach, and the 60-250. My sweetie gets impatient with me photographing everything - if I was stopping to change primes, and backing up and moving around...well, I wouldn't put her through that, it would be unfair. I did sell a 300, which I used quite a bit for nature and pet shots, so I need some reach. But I really lust after the 21, 35 or 40, 70 combo of limited primes. Do you have the 20-40? Do you like it? And if I got the 50-135, I'd still need to get something longer, so I'd wind up with two big lenses, which my aging back and shoulders are complaining about. I wish Pentax made like a 100-400 F4 for APSC, then I MIGHT do the 50-135, which I understand people are saying is one of the best lenses ever.

Still got a week or so before the money is released from PayPal, so please keep the good suggestions coming. Thanks, everybody, and thanks, Adam, for a great place for Pentax geeks to hang out.

Cheers,
Cameron
05-05-2016, 11:17 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Dr_who's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 777
You should go the zoom route, mainly cause I'm trying to get rid of mine :P
05-05-2016, 11:20 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
Yes, I was JUST looking at that yesterday in a shop. Gorgeous. And fairly small, and it looks the wrong shape to be cameras, but it is, and VERY comfortable at your side! Thanks for the suggestion.



Thanks, Pål. I always value your input. I'm thinking for travel just the three zooms - 12-24, 16-85 which seems to get RAVE reviews, and I value it's added reach, and the 60-250. My sweetie gets impatient with me photographing everything - if I was stopping to change primes, and backing up and moving around...well, I wouldn't put her through that, it would be unfair. I did sell a 300, which I used quite a bit for nature and pet shots, so I need some reach. But I really lust after the 21, 35 or 40, 70 combo of limited primes. Do you have the 20-40? Do you like it? And if I got the 50-135, I'd still need to get something longer, so I'd wind up with two big lenses, which my aging back and shoulders are complaining about. I wish Pentax made like a 100-400 F4 for APSC, then I MIGHT do the 50-135, which I understand people are saying is one of the best lenses ever.

Still got a week or so before the money is released from PayPal, so please keep the good suggestions coming. Thanks, everybody, and thanks, Adam, for a great place for Pentax geeks to hang out.

Cheers,
Cameron
Respectfully... I have the 50-135 and the 60-250. There are lots of times the 60-250 will be longer and help. However if you couple the 50-135 with the 1.4x TC - you end up with a 70-190 f/4. This is not the same as the 60-250 - but at closer than 30' it will give far better image magnification (even without the TC it will be similar) and while the IQ may drop slightly it will be lighter and smaller. Replace that insane hood with a metal 67mm tele hood and the 50-135 gets even more svelte.

You will lack a tripod foot - which could be useful sometimes but it is so easy to hand hold I doubt you will miss it. You can always add a long lens support bracket if needed.

If you do this you end up with:
12-24 f/4
16-85 f/3.5 - 5.6
50-135 f/2.8
70-190 f/4

You have reasonable overlap on all zooms so changing lenses isn't always required. The 50-135 offers f/2.8 for lower light options, but you can add a low light lens later if you need something wider. If you carry the 60-250 f/4 instead then you lack anything faster than f/3.5 and have added considerable bulk and weight to the kit for very little gain in the < 30 feet range.

Don't get me wrong the 60-250 has more reach when you are talking > 30' if that's your need and you don't like the TC idea then go for it. I routinely use mine at rocket launches where the rockets may be as far as 100' or more from me and I can shoot those plus people shots at the short end of the range. I prefer that over the 50-135 plus TC because of the extra reach and I even sometimes bring the TC to get even more reach but an f/5.6 lens starts to be a bit slow unless the sunlight is just brutal because these rockets require very high shutter speeds to freeze them in place during liftoff.
05-05-2016, 11:20 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,016
Original Poster
Answers...

QuoteOriginally posted by robjmitchell Quote
So what was your previous setup?
I used to run with a sigma 17-70 for zoom convenience then 14, 21, 43, 100 for IQ/fun and it worked very well(although i needed something at 70) Since I replaced the sigma with the Da* 16-50 and 50-135 the primes get a lot less use.
If you go down the prime route i would definitely want something like 18-135 or 16-85 for convenience/wr. You probably don't need both the 35 and 40(or 43) and the 55 and 70 also do a similar roll. There should also be some good deals on the marketplace for da limiteds with the K1 release. I would definitely consider the FA limiteds in the mix since their small size fits nicely with Aps-c cameras.
I had the DA14, the FA* 24, the FA* 28-70, FA* 85, F* 300, and a big, BIG gap in my system, which was filled in by the surprisingly good 50-200 el cheapo zoom.

Cheers,
Cameron

---------- Post added 05-05-2016 at 11:25 AM ----------

the 60-250 doesn't focus closer than 30'? Really? Or just not very good at under 30'?

Cheers,
Cameron


QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Respectfully... I have the 50-135 and the 60-250. There are lots of times the 60-250 will be longer and help. However if you couple the 50-135 with the 1.4x TC - you end up with a 70-190 f/4. This is not the same as the 60-250 - but at closer than 30' it will give far better image magnification (even without the TC it will be similar) and while the IQ may drop slightly it will be lighter and smaller. Replace that insane hood with a metal 67mm tele hood and the 50-135 gets even more svelte.

You will lack a tripod foot - which could be useful sometimes but it is so easy to hand hold I doubt you will miss it. You can always add a long lens support bracket if needed.

If you do this you end up with:
12-24 f/4
16-85 f/3.5 - 5.6
50-135 f/2.8
70-190 f/4

You have reasonable overlap on all zooms so changing lenses isn't always required. The 50-135 offers f/2.8 for lower light options, but you can add a low light lens later if you need something wider. If you carry the 60-250 f/4 instead then you lack anything faster than f/3.5 and have added considerable bulk and weight to the kit for very little gain in the < 30 feet range.

Don't get me wrong the 60-250 has more reach when you are talking > 30' if that's your need and you don't like the TC idea then go for it. I routinely use mine at rocket launches where the rockets may be as far as 100' or more from me and I can shoot those plus people shots at the short end of the range. I prefer that over the 50-135 plus TC because of the extra reach and I even sometimes bring the TC to get even more reach but an f/5.6 lens starts to be a bit slow unless the sunlight is just brutal because these rockets require very high shutter speeds to freeze them in place during liftoff.
05-05-2016, 11:37 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
No - it focuses closer than 30 FEET but below 30 feet / 10 meters the magnification offered by the lens is LESS than or similar to that offered by the 50-135. The property called focus breathing robs the 60-250 of short range magnification. I have to search around but I did a comparison a while back showing that at 30 feet my 60-250 and my 50-135 were nearly the same in image size and then as you focused farther away the greater focal length was realized as tighter field of view at a distance. So depending on your needs - the 60-250 may not give you much benefit over the 50-135. Once you add the TC to the 50-135 then things get even more complicated because now at < 30 feet it easily provides tighter shots with greater magnification than the 60-250 at the same f/stop.

It is much easier to see when you have both lenses in hand. I'm afraid my 50-135 is 250 miles away in my Dad's house while I borrow his 12-24 - we swap lenses a lot. I may be able to use the Takumar Bayonet 135 f/2.5 to show this however - I will look. I recall the long end of the 50-135 being around the same as the Takumar - focal length is not that simple - for example as I stated before the 18-135 also focus breathes and at shorter distances the Takumar offers much larger images than the 18-135.

---------- Post added 05-05-16 at 02:40 PM ----------

Oh and to be clear - the 60-250 is a scalpel. Despite losing some magnification under 30 feet it is sharp as a tack and lovely. The 50-135 is also - only because the 50-135 exists are we having this conversation. I love both lenses but if I had to have only one - it would be the 50-135 I suspect. Luckily I don't have to make that choice. The 60-250 as mentioned is my rocket launch lens - and without it I'd be sporting a 300mm and another lens to get crowd plus rockets - the one lens covers my needs. Since an away pad may be 1500 feet or so from me the TC is sometimes needed even with the 60-250.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
apsc, cameron, cheers, da, f/2.8, f/3.5, f/4, fa*, focus, gear, hood, k-mount, lens, lenses, light, love, pentax, pentax lens, range, rockets, size, slr lens, stuff, system, takumar, tc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature New to telephoto, but I feel like I got lucky. Trees Post Your Photos! 14 08-05-2018 11:05 AM
Misc I think I'm getting better with this whole lighting thing... Julie Post Your Photos! 2 01-29-2013 09:48 PM
Why I'm glad I have a Pentax System MikeAusP Pentax K-01 21 06-26-2012 06:37 PM
I'm the new guy.... JFN Welcomes and Introductions 6 12-21-2011 01:34 AM
Hello from a lucky guy mand Welcomes and Introductions 7 02-17-2011 03:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top