Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2008, 03:28 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nodeland
Posts: 28
DA40 Ltd. + DA* 16-50 ... A Good choice?

The topic really says it all, I'm considering buying these two lenses for my K10D along with some other stuff, grip, flash, etc.

I prefer using primes and usually the FA 50 is stuck on my camera but the crop makes it a 75 and that is a bit annoying at times. I've used the 18-55 at times but I find it to be, well, boring. Flat colours, unsharp images and the blender is a sad story in itself, thats why Im going for the 16-50 as well even though the area it covers will be mainly the same as the 40mm ... My view is that the 40mm will be used when Im in a situation where i control the surroundings and the 16-50 for general "random hiking" photography.

But i'm not sure, should i go for the 50-135 instead of the 16-50 ? I have the fa 50 wich is a 75mm and a 100mm M lens thats a 150 mm so that area is pretty well covered, what do you think?

Would really appreciate answers from people who own the lenses themselves, "I think"-answers without any first han knowledge really isn't necessary..

- Per


Last edited by per; 09-08-2008 at 05:20 PM.
08-05-2008, 03:36 AM   #2
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Da* 16-50 is definitely convinient and will be used 90% of the time with distant travel. Da 40 ltd is no doubt an amazing tiny prime but I doubt this alone will satisfy your insatiable desire in photography.
08-05-2008, 04:07 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 419
Based on what you said you already have, I'd probably recommend the 16-50 or the 50-135 over the DA40. That said, I have the DA40 and I absolutely LOVE that lens. I actually use it more than my FA50 1.4 now unless I'm shooting in a completely dark room. The DA40 is a fabulous lens, but it's so close in focal length to the 50 that it only makes sense if you have the rest of the focal lengths covered.

I have everything covered from 8mm fisheye out to 500mm, so adding the DA40 made sense for me when I found a good deal. However, it wouldn't have made much sense if I didn't have something for a good wide angle and good telephoto.
08-05-2008, 06:02 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,188
QuoteOriginally posted by per Quote
The topic really says it all, I'm considering buying these two lenses for my K10D along with some other stuff, grip, flash, etc.

I prefer using primes and usually the FA 50 is stuck on my camera but the crop makes it a 75 and that is a bit annoying at times. I've used the 18-55 at times but I find it to be, well, boring. Flat colours, unsharp images and the blender is a sad story in itself, thats why Im going for the 16-50 as well even though the area it covers will be mainly the same as the 40mm ... My view is that the 40mm will be used when Im in a situation where i control the surroundings and the 16-50 for general "random hiking" photography.

But i'm not sure, should i go for the 50-135 instead of the 16-50 ? I have the fa 50 wich is a 75mm and a 100mm M lens thats a 150 mm so that area is pretty well covered, what do you think?

Would really appreciate answers from people who own the lenses themselves, "I think"-answers without any first han knowledge really isn't necessary..

- Per
Whatever you decide to do, nothing in the world can make your 50mm lens into a 75mm lens, or your 100mm into a 150mm unless it contains some refractive glass.
Focal length is focal length, and is independent of format.
You will be far better off to drop the mushy thinking and start thinking in terms of the format you are shooting rather than a format you may have never shot, or may have shot at one time and will never shoot again.
The 16-50 is a very different lens from the 50-135, and have very different photographic purposes. Do you need a wide angle to short tele or a short tele to medium tele?
Answer that and you've told yourself which lens to buy.
I can't see any point in owning both the 16-50 and 40/2.8. The 40 has no speed advantage, very little optical performance advantage, and is very close to the same angle of view as your 50. It is, however, cheap, so you aren't planning on making an expensive mistake, but an inexpensive mistake is still a mistake.
If you are going to buy a prime in the same focal length range as the 16-50 (along with buying the 16-50), to me it makes more sense to buy something with a speed advantage, and a focal length different enough from your other prime to be useful.
I'd look at the 31mm as my next prime lens in your situation.

08-05-2008, 06:17 AM   #5
Veteran Member
fearview's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,067
no! *LOL*

if you already have 16-50 you will hardly use da 40. because, 16-50 already have 2.8 fixed aperture. and to get the capability of the da 40 you only have to twist the 16-50 zoom ring. you dont have to unscrew the lens.

i have 16-45 f/4 and even that, its very rare for me to use the da 40 limited sometime.



if you want some prime i suggest you to get da 70 limited *logically* or fa 77 limited.

---







but you still have to buy that da 40 later time if the u have more money.


its for show of.


08-05-2008, 06:49 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 123
Simillar

But I went for 16-50mm as allround lens and bought 43mm for its specific soul. Cant wait for them to arrive.
08-05-2008, 06:55 AM   #7
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
And I got the DA16-45 at the same time as the DA43 Limited. The speed of the latter marks it in a different category.
08-05-2008, 07:32 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 419
QuoteOriginally posted by fearview Quote
no! *LOL*

if you already have 16-50 you will hardly use da 40. because, 16-50 already have 2.8 fixed aperture. and to get the capability of the da 40 you only have to twist the 16-50 zoom ring. you dont have to unscrew the lens.
Really?

You'll have to show me how you manage to make a zoom lens with a depth of 98.5mm match the physical dimensions of a prime lens with a depth of 15mm. Sometimes the physical size of your camera/lens matters ... and bigger isn't always better.

The DA40 also manages almost zero distortion and is sharp across the frame from center to extreme edge with a resolution of almost 2000 LW/PH wide open at f/2.8 over the ENTIRE frame.

The 16-50 has some very minor pincushion at 40mm and isn't as sharp at the edges.

Yes, the 16-50 gives you the versatility of a zoom, but primes still have their place in a photographer's kit. I have 2.8 zooms that cover every focal length from 18mm to 200mm ... but I still have primes that cover those same focal lengths.

Of course, I'm a working photographer and use my cameras and lenses for work, so the typical enthusiast photographer might not need that much glass.

08-05-2008, 08:09 AM   #9
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 681
If you're thinking of adding a prime and the zoom, I'd suggest the DA21. You already have the 50mm so you could conceivably be quite happy on a prime-only shoot with just those two lenses. The DA40 is probably a little too close in usage to your 50.
08-05-2008, 09:17 AM   #10
per
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nodeland
Posts: 28
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JJJPhoto Quote
Really?

You'll have to show me how you manage to make a zoom lens with a depth of 98.5mm match the physical dimensions of a prime lens with a depth of 15mm. Sometimes the physical size of your camera/lens matters ... and bigger isn't always better.

The DA40 also manages almost zero distortion and is sharp across the frame from center to extreme edge with a resolution of almost 2000 LW/PH wide open at f/2.8 over the ENTIRE frame.
This is exactly the reason I consider buying the da 40 ltd, a zoom never beats a prime but I want it both, the 40ltd is so cheap so for me in my situation it's really not that big a deal, but some of the other lenses suggested are very expensive in comparison.

and a 50mm turns into a 75mm on a K10D because of the 1,5 crop ratio.

But thanks, I'm going for the 40 and the 16-50, the size game also is an important factor, not always fun lugging around on a 0,6 kg lens...

Last edited by per; 09-08-2008 at 05:19 PM.
08-05-2008, 09:59 AM   #11
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,059
I myself have both the DA 40 Ltd and the DA* 16-50. I like both and find that both have their own little quirks (I find the DA 40 a touch better in overall image quality, especially at F2.8). I'm also in a bit of a weird bind as I'm considering going the DA* 50-135 route, but getting the rest of the DA primes (70 and 21mm) seems like an idea too. Oi... the budgeting decisions!

The main reason I'd get the DA 40 Ltd is for it's compactness and it's "prime-ness". I consider my DA 40 + K100D setup my "large compact camera" setup. It's really light and convenient, and I find I can take a lot of 'walk around' shots with it. I'd say if you get the DA 40, you should also get the DA 21 or DA 70 to go with it (or another complimenting prime) so you have options when you go hiking/travelling.

It's a tough call, but I think it comes down to what you want to do with your lenses... something I definitely have to think about myself.
08-05-2008, 10:09 AM   #12
Forum Member
ariahspam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lima, Peru
Posts: 69
I had the DA40 and went for the DA*50-135. Since I got it, I've never used the DA40 (but it's been only 2 weeks since). The optical capability of the DA* is so good (with a good filter) that I would only use the DA40 if I really need to go light.

My first lens was the DA40 and I used it for 3-4 months exclusively, and well it suited me. If you know the DA40 will suit you, then go for it. Its perspective is not much different from 50, so ask yourself if you would like your fa50 to be smaller (and 2 stops slower).

Have you considered the possibility of DA21+DA*50-135? The DA21 is so small you could take it with you when you take the 50-135.

From the gear I've got, it might not be convincing, but I'll tell you I also ordered a DA12-24 but it never arrived, so I recently made a trip wide-less. During the trip I never considered (size aside) the DA40's perspective to be enough different from my 50-135 at 50mm to change glass, so I never used the DA40 during the trip.
08-05-2008, 11:44 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,188
QuoteOriginally posted by per Quote


and a 50mm turns into a 75mm on a K10D because of the 1,5 crop ratio.

It doesn't really, but think what you will.
08-05-2008, 04:23 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
i think the better choice would be the FA43 which is a stop faster and gives more possibilities and it is also quite small as well
08-06-2008, 11:10 AM   #15
per
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nodeland
Posts: 28
Original Poster
Well, the 40mm limited is going to be bought no matter what, the question is if i should go for the 50-135 instead of the 16-50

But im sold i think, i want both the 16-50 and the 50-135 but since i have better coverage from 50+ than 50- I will go for the 16-50 in this round..

The 43 ltd is a different ballgame with twice the price, it's not really a realistic option..

Last edited by per; 09-08-2008 at 05:19 PM.
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!
40mm, fa, im, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, times
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good choice of bags K-x plus Tamron 70-200? kace Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-10-2010 08:40 PM
K-x a good choice ? m.genna Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 01-17-2010 01:29 AM
Is the K-7 a good choice for my first dslr? Mike829 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 08-03-2009 07:58 PM
Is DA 50-200 a good choice .... stsong Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 04-08-2009 06:05 PM
DA 50-200m good choice? skydragoness Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 11-16-2006 01:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 AM. | 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