[UserAccessDenied]

Actually I have a Tamron 1.4TC too. I've even stacked both with really good results on good glass like the *200. FWIW other than the weatherproofing I think you'd probably get the same image quality with the Tammy as you would with the Pentax HD 1.4 and autofocus works even with SDM's. Worth watching for IMO as it's much less expensive. I think mine was around $150 and the 1.7 was less than $200 IIRC, and both appeared mint copies.

Interesting!

Which version of the Tamron 1.4, aren't there multiple iterations?

I actually ran into a guy at Assateague Island one day who was shooting with a K-7 + DA*300 + Tamron 1.4Z (I think it was called that?).
He said he loved the combo, but AF was a bit hit or miss.

That could have been the K-7 or just shooting at 5.6 wide open, regardless his shots were sharp it seemed (inspecting from the rear screen at the least.)

[gatorguy]

Interesting!

Which version of the Tamron 1.4, aren't there multiple iterations?

I actually ran into a guy at Assateague Island one day who was shooting with a K-7 + DA*300 + Tamron 1.4Z (I think it was called that?).
He said he loved the combo, but AF was a bit hit or miss.

That could have been the K-7 or just shooting at 5.6 wide open, regardless his shots were sharp it seemed (inspecting from the rear screen at the least.)

The one to watch for is the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF. I think you are correct there's at least one other Tamron 1.4 and it's not compatible with SDM.

EDIT: Looking at the forum's lens guide the other 1.4 Tamron they list is Adaptall specific, so maybe there isn't another version of this one.

[UserAccessDenied]

The one to watch for is the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF. I think you are correct there's at least one other Tamron 1.4 and it's not compatible with SDM.

thanks!
I'll keep my watch for it...

I've never seen on on the Marketplace, or atleast never noticed it if it was up there.

Don't see any on eBay either.

If I find one under $200 maybe I'll check it out.

I was offered the new Pentax HD 1.4xtC for $340 the other day.
Great price, I just don't see that much need for it yet.
I could get that DFA100 brand new for nearly the same price!

[Driline]

I was offered the new Pentax HD 1.4xtC for $340 the other day.

That's a good price. I've got the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF and paid $122 for it off eBay in "like new" condition. It's an excellent teleconverter for my F*300, but tends to hunt more on auto focus while using my DA*200 lens. So if you are using legacy glass it will be OK, but if you're using the newer SDM lenses I'd opt for the new and improved Pentax HD 1.4 as it was designed for the new SDM lenses and from what I've heard doesnt hunt for focus on them.

[nomadkng]

Knowing she'll never let me buy a Sigma 500 f4.5 anyways... I don't have to worry about asking her to carry my big lenses! ()

Figure out a way to get her interested in shooting WITH you.

I got my GF hooked and when I bought my Sigma 500 f4.5, the first thing she said was "Where's MINE?!?"

[UserAccessDenied]

That's a good price. I've got the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF and paid $122 for it off eBay in "like new" condition. It's an excellent teleconverter for my F*300, but tends to hunt more on auto focus while using my DA*200 lens. So if you are using legacy glass it will be OK, but if you're using the newer SDM lenses I'd opt for the new and improved Pentax HD 1.4 as it was designed for the new SDM lenses and from what I've heard doesnt hunt for focus on them.

right, plus having the whole rig WR is a plus!

I'm in no rush for the reach. I'll likely wait for the new HD 1.4xtC to drop in price.

---------- Post added 05-11-16 at 11:25 AM ----------

Figure out a way to get her interested in shooting WITH you.

I got my GF hooked and when I bought my Sigma 500 f4.5, the first thing she said was "Where's MINE?!?"

hahha that would be incredible!

end goal: Get her a K-5iis and give her the DA*300.
Buy myself the Sigma 500 f4.5.

She'll be happy with the smaller WR kit and I'll be able to use the K-5iis whenever I want!

Now, to fund this...

[goatsNdonkey]

UserAccessDenied, I realize your ideas for how to compose a 3-prime lens set have evolved, but I want to go back to what you said at the beginning: "15/4, 35/2.8, 300/4...Am I crazy?"

I thought that original scheme was fascinating. It seems to say what you SEE, or it says something about the WAY YOU SEE. Who says a photographer has to cover a certain focal length range? Who says you can't have a big gap between lenses in your set? And who do they think they are?

Maybe, for the kinds of subjects you are drawn to, you tend to find that you either want a wide view or a narrow view, and maybe the middling view is just too danged boring for you, too everyday. Maybe these focal lengths help you find a kind of freshness you want to have in your vision? Besides, there have always been a few people who preferred the 35mm as a "normal" lens -- I believe at least a few 35mm rangefinders came with a 35mm lens. Just because the majority have considered 40-58mm as "normal," doesn't make it a requirement.

Then, too, if you just wanted to be prepared for the odd occasion when you needed something longer or with more macro capability than your particular 15, 35, and 300, a tiny kit of accessories could easily stretch what they could do. A 1.4x tele-converter has already been recommended, I would second that. I would also recommend at least one short extension tube, maybe about 20mm, and a reversing adapter that fits the filter threads of at least one of those lenses. If you reverse that 300, you probably could look at the belly button on a house fly! If you reversed the 35 on the front of the 300, you could also achieve some amazing macro capability.

Now let me say, for context, that I'm one of those who tries to cover the focal length range, but I just don't think somebody else shouldn't be able to have gaps if they want or need to. Maybe you'd be a hundred times better photographer than I will ever be, even if you only had one lens and I had a hundred of them, so number of lenses or number of focal lengths can't seriously be the goal...if art is what matters. Also, keep in mind that some of us on the forum with LHTS (lens hoarder tendency syndrome) wouldn't want our significant others to ever hear that some other photographer could get by with only 3 lenses, and consequently we react in horror to see someone post about doing such a thing. It's our problem, not yours.

[UserAccessDenied]

UserAccessDenied, I realize your ideas for how to compose a 3-prime lens set have evolved, but I want to go back to what you said at the beginning: "15/4, 35/2.8, 300/4...Am I crazy?"

I thought that original scheme was fascinating. It seems to say what you SEE, or it says something about the WAY YOU SEE. Who says a photographer has to cover a certain focal length range? Who says you can't have a big gap between lenses in your set? And who do they think they are?

Maybe, for the kinds of subjects you are drawn to, you tend to find that you either want a wide view or a narrow view, and maybe the middling view is just too danged boring for you, too everyday. Maybe these focal lengths help you find a kind of freshness you want to have in your vision? Besides, there have always been a few people who preferred the 35mm as a "normal" lens -- I believe at least a few 35mm rangefinders came with a 35mm lens. Just because the majority have considered 40-58mm as "normal," doesn't make it a requirement.

Then, too, if you just wanted to be prepared for the odd occasion when you needed something longer or with more macro capability than your particular 15, 35, and 300, a tiny kit of accessories could easily stretch what they could do. A 1.4x tele-converter has already been recommended, I would second that. I would also recommend at least one short extension tube, maybe about 20mm, and a reversing adapter that fits the filter threads of at least one of those lenses. If you reverse that 300, you probably could look at the belly button on a house fly! If you reversed the 35 on the front of the 300, you could also achieve some amazing macro capability.

Now let me say, for context, that I'm one of those who tries to cover the focal length range, but I just don't think somebody else shouldn't be able to have gaps if they want or need to. Maybe you'd be a hundred times better photographer than I will ever be, even if you only had one lens and I had a hundred of them, so number of lenses or number of focal lengths can't seriously be the goal...if art is what matters. Also, keep in mind that some of us on the forum with LHTS (lens hoarder tendency syndrome) wouldn't want our significant others to ever hear that some other photographer could get by with only 3 lenses, and consequently we react in horror to see someone post about doing such a thing. It's our problem, not yours.

Hahah that was great!
I wish I could give two likes for it...

I couldn't agree with you more; and I still stand by the original post in this thread.
I've since replaced the 35mm macro with a DA70 so my kit for the rest of 2016 will be 15/70/300.

Still some big gaps there.

And I do recall a photographer in the 60's by the name of Henri Cartier-Bresson - He shot almost entirely with a 50mm f1.2 Noctilux

I do not see photography in a "normal" view.
I see stories to tell at very wide fields of view, or very narrow fields of view.

Two of my favorite quotes below:

"Photography is a form of hunting where that which is shot, lives forever" ~Muhammad Mahdi

"..amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light; I just take pictures... " ~ Vernon Trent

I do not see myself as an amateur, a pro, a master...
I try not to worry about equipment, (This thread contradicts that statement )
I try not to worry about money, (My life contradicts this statement )
And I try not to worry about light, (Giving up on macro photography contradicts this statement )
Still, at the end of the day I'm just telling a story. As I'm a huge fan of wildlife photography, I want these stories I tell to live forever.


Sorry for the rant.

[UncleVanya]

Hahah that was great!
I wish I could give two likes for it...

I couldn't agree with you more; and I still stand by the original post in this thread.
I've since replaced the 35mm macro with a DA70 so my kit for the rest of 2016 will be 15/70/300.

Still some big gaps there.

And I do recall a photographer in the 60's by the name of Henri Cartier-Bresson - He shot almost entirely with a 50mm f1.2 Noctilux

I do not see photography in a "normal" view.
I see stories to tell at very wide fields of view, or very narrow fields of view.

Two of my favorite quotes below:

"Photography is a form of hunting where that which is shot, lives forever" ~Muhammad Mahdi

"..amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light; I just take pictures... " ~ Vernon Trent

I do not see myself as an amateur, a pro, a master...
I try not to worry about equipment, (This thread contradicts that statement )
I try not to worry about money, (My life contradicts this statement )
And I try not to worry about light, (Giving up on macro photography contradicts this statement )
Still, at the end of the day I'm just telling a story. As I'm a huge fan of wildlife photography, I want these stories I tell to live forever.


Sorry for the rant.

Actually 15, 70, 300 is quite continuous; 70/15 = 4.66, 300/70 = 4.29; essentially 70 is your midpoint and the other two are just about that wide from it. I would strongly recommend that if Macro is not a big thing for you to try grabbing a Raynox DCR-150 and/or DCR-250 to test out with that DA 70 - it may be all the macro you need. Stacking the DA15 in front of the 70 or the 70 in front of the 300 is another approach - not sure how well that will work but it's something you can try.

[goatsNdonkey]

Thanks for the double-liking--ha, ha! 15-70-300 is also an interesting group. The 15 seems to say, if you're going to go wide-angle, don't pussy-foot around and go really-wide. Similarly, the 300 seems to be more truly a telephoto than the nowadays rather ubiquitous 200 end of so many common zoom lenses. The 70 is the unusual (but perhaps brilliant in the right hands) compromise--longish for a normal lens and shortish for a portrait lens.

All this does kind of make me wonder whether I should, for some period of months, I restrict myself to my Fish-eye, my 500mm mirror, and perhaps a 135. What kinds of discoveries could come out of those limited choices? It would have to include a lot of pictures I would have never taken otherwise.

[gatorguy]

Well "back in the day" I did well with K1000 and stock 50mm loaded with a roll of 36 shot 200. When you're down to two shots left and not another canister to load you get darn selective. it was months before I added a Sears 200mm I just HAD to have...
... and then seldom used.

Know what? I still have that Sears lens too! When I came across it, safely packed away with some old gear from the 70's, I couldn't even remember what it was, asking here if anyone recognized it. I may strap it the KS later now that you've reminded me. I think it may actually still be a decent tele.

[goatsNdonkey]

gatorguy--there is, if you haven't noticed, a long and active Sears Lens Club discussion thread here on the forum.

[UserAccessDenied]

Thanks for the double-liking--ha, ha! 15-70-300 is also an interesting group. The 15 seems to say, if you're going to go wide-angle, don't pussy-foot around and go really-wide. Similarly, the 300 seems to be more truly a telephoto than the nowadays rather ubiquitous 200 end of so many common zoom lenses. The 70 is the unusual (but perhaps brilliant in the right hands) compromise--longish for a normal lens and shortish for a portrait lens.

All this does kind of make me wonder whether I should, for some period of months, I restrict myself to my Fish-eye, my 500mm mirror, and perhaps a 135. What kinds of discoveries could come out of those limited choices? It would have to include a lot of pictures I would have never taken otherwise.

It's funny because when I first bought my K-30, the 18-135mm WR was my first lens.
Don't get me wrong, I learned so much from that lens!
But most of all, I learned "where" I liked to shoot...
90% of my shots were at 18 or 135. And any zoom, the two extremes are likely the worst of the range.

So I went out and bought a Rokinon 16mm and an A 135mm f2.8.
I've since sold those two lenses (partly because I wanted AF), but it helped me realize that I didn't need that entire 18-135mm range.
I was happy at 16mm, and happy and 135mm. And not once did I say, "I wish I had a 50!"

Granted, I'm now going 1mm wider, and splitting that 135mm in half. But that has nothing to do with 70mm; I just want to find out if my photography can benefit from that FL, and that lens in particular.

I think this stage of my photography is about discovering who I am as a photographer rather than teaching myself to work in a particular realm.
Sure, I was happy with the 135mm. I could have learned to love the lens and shoot every day with it!
But I think I need to find a lens that speaks to me. Still have yet to find it.
The DA*300 is the closest thing that speaks to me, but it's a telephoto and I love wildlife photography... I think if you game me any decent lens above 300mm it would speak to me! haha

Hopefully I'm making the right move this time.
Good thing is, the marketplace of used lenses tend to hold their value.
If anything, I get to test out a DA15 and a DA70 and if they don't fit my style I can sell them here and almost get my money back (minus shipping).

I think I've said this a few times already, but I could go another year with just a DA*300 and nothing else.
The DA15 and the DA70 are now for discovery purposes.
I'm curious to see what I find!

[BrianR]

By next week I should be at 15/70/300
Still feel like there's a big gap (maybe two big gaps?).
I'll shoot for a bit and see how it feels, if I need to fill between 15 and 70 I'll check out the DA40, but probably will just get another 35mm macro...
If I feel a gap between 70 and 300 I'll check out the 100mm macro...

The gaps wouldn't bother me at all, just the loss of a 1:1 macro, but ymmv.

My primary kit is a da14mm, dfa100mm macro and a da*300mm, whose use fall into "up close with slow or patient stuff and show environment", "up closer with relatively patient or slow stuff", and "up close with stuff that won't like me being close". That covers 99% of the use I care about. I usually have an FA50mm with me but it's almost never used anymore (mostly for things I don't care about, eg. when I'm told to take picture of people in crappy lighting), and sometimes the da14 gets subbed out for the da10-17mm fisheye, but the general utility is the same (totally different rendering of course). I really don't mind or usually even notice the gaps, but everyone is different.

The Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 does make use of the SDM of the DA*300mm, but on my k5iis it can't lock focus worth a damn even in bright sunlight. It heads towards a lock with confidence but then bounces back and forth (in any focus mode). I haven't gotten around to trying it on my k100d to test it w/ screwdrive. It also won't transfer the proper focal length for SR like the Pentax HD 1.4x does. I'll probably get the Pentax TC at some point, but it's not a priority for me and optically the Tamron is pretty decent in a pinch.

[Gutta Perka]

...(FF) just had a 35mm and a 90mm with their Leicas.

In a way - that covers 90% of all practical photographing.

On my new K1 - that is one lens in the pocket - the others might be ready in the car or stay at home for special occasions.
Think of all other optics as "today I will shoot that other thing".

I'm still looking at those pics - and man - that is what you need.

Find an old photobook from those days - and you will agree.

(Of cause - you must move a bit more yourself instead of lazy-zooming)

I assure You - that You will be a better shooter that way and see things different and better - and get real keepers.
(The risk is though that you will print B/W prints as well.....)

Edit : Today that 90 mm is a macro one.