Why 28 and not 24?

D1N0 · 05-10-2017, 02:33 AM

But then again the D FA 28-105 is 73 x 86.5 mm (2.9 x 3.4 in.) 440 g (15.5 oz.) and the FA 28-105 F4-5.6 is 72 x 96 mm (2.8 x 3.8 in.) 515 g (18.1 oz.)
It is a more compact and lighter lens yet it outperforms the FA by a margin especially in the corners.

normhead · 05-10-2017, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

But then again the D FA 28-105 is 73 x 86.5 mm (2.9 x 3.4 in.) 440 g (15.5 oz.) and the FA 28-105 F4-5.6 is 72 x 96 mm (2.8 x 3.8 in.) 515 g (18.1 oz.)
It is a more compact and lighter lens yet it outperforms the FA by a margin especially in the corners.

Exactly, all we are asking for here is an 18-28 equivalent of the 28-105.

I understand people are free to think that's not possible.... and that we never landed on the moon, that Obama is a member of ISIS and that there's a captured UFO in a hanger in Nevada. The fact that someone believes something doesn't make it true.

Weighing in at 385 grams....

This Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G is a magnificently sharp and high performance lightweight ultrawide zoom for FX and 35mm cameras.

Who said Pentax couldn't do it under 600 grams? How about under 400? People just don't seem to understand the cost and weight savings you can achieve with a lens going variable aperture and less weight.

**pres589** · 05-10-2017, 06:22 AM

I vote normhead in this election.

normhead · 05-10-2017, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by pres589

I vote normhead in this election.

I'll keep this in mind when I appoint my cabinet.

Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2017 at 06:40 AM.

danielchtong · 05-12-2017, 05:16 AM

This is from FA28mm wide open at F:2.8

Photographers can easily zoom with our feet to bridge the difference between 24mm and 28mm.
I am old style shooter and zooming in or out with my feet does not bother me

timb64 · 05-12-2017, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by danielchtong

This is from FA28mm wide open at F:2.8

Photographers can easily zoom with our feet to bridge the difference between 24mm and 28mm.
I am old style shooter and zooming in or out with my feet does not bother me

I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option and the equivalent 24-28 gap did make a difference,depends what and where you're shooting

danielchtong · 05-12-2017, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by timb64

I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option

Okei...fair enough. Agreed. A lens of 24mm is absolutely required over that of a 28mm when you are shooting from a cliff.

starbase218 · 05-13-2017, 03:13 AM - **1 Like**

Maybe I have different feet than other people, but mine don't provide any more depth to the image.

Nicolas06 · 05-14-2017, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by timb64

I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option and the equivalent 24-28 gap did make a difference,depends what and where you're shooting

I still think that if 28mm is really too narrow to work well for your subject, 24mm is likely to be still a bit too narrow or still not enough. Likely the composition will lack a bit of breath and so on.

To be honest, being primarily a prime guy, I do not care of a few % difference in focal length. If I really need wider than 28 and I have a 28, I'll buy maybe a 16mm, but not a 24mm. If I am to buy the 24mm, I'll sell the 28.

Currently in APSC, I use mostly DA15, FA31, FA77. That's 22, 46 and 115mm FF equiv. And I don't have that much issues. And I don't think you'd be doomed on an FF with a 24-70 with obviously more limited range than what I enjoy on my APSC camera and typical bag with my 22-115mm equiv !

Worse, I manage to shot subjects just fine near cliffs or for event photography where supposedly zoom are mandatory, and if I had not tried it, I would continue to think that no it is not possible without a zoom. Still in practice, well there no problem.

**Kerrowdown** · 05-14-2017, 10:22 AM

Remember folks if your thinking of going maybe prime route (usually faster/smaller), with WA nearly everything from a few feet to infinity is usually of an acceptable level of focus due to just DOF, hence autofocus may not be quite so important.

So please allow me to present my solution with some "Ladies" who fulfil my needs in this direction.... the "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift), the "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8), the “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8), the "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8) and last but not least my “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5).

Most of my bases are pretty well covered, with these Gals, but there is also a whole load of other manual lenses out there which may fit your bill, at not a lot of expenditure.

timb64 · 05-14-2017, 05:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Nicolas06

I still think that if 28mm is really too narrow to work well for your subject, 24mm is likely to be still a bit too narrow or still not enough. Likely the composition will lack a bit of breath and so on.

To be honest, being primarily a prime guy, I do not care of a few % difference in focal length. If I really need wider than 28 and I have a 28, I'll buy maybe a 16mm, but not a 24mm. If I am to buy the 24mm, I'll sell the 28.

Currently in APSC, I use mostly DA15, FA31, FA77. That's 22, 46 and 115mm FF equiv. And I don't have that much issues. And I don't think you'd be doomed on an FF with a 24-70 with obviously more limited range than what I enjoy on my APSC camera and typical bag with my 22-115mm equiv !

Worse, I manage to shot subjects just fine near cliffs or for event photography where supposedly zoom are mandatory, and if I had not tried it, I would continue to think that no it is not possible without a zoom. Still in practice, well there no problem.

I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures

**pres589** · 05-14-2017, 05:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by timb64

I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures

Oh snap!

**jatrax** · 05-15-2017, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

So please allow me to present my solution with some "Ladies" who fulfil my needs in this direction.... the "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift), the "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8), the “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8), the "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8) and last but not least my “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5).

Gotta smile every time I see this.

---------- Post added 05-15-17 at 10:19 PM ----------

Originally posted by timb64

I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures

Pictures are always good.

Tatouzou · 05-15-2017, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by timb64

I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures

Here is a link to nicolas06 flickr gallery (he is my son):
Nicolas | Flickr

**Kerrowdown** · 05-16-2017, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Gotta smile every time I see this

Something I said?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pntax 24-90, 28-105, 100-300/4.7..., Tamron 28-300, Sigma 70-300...and new 15-30	jeffreybehr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	10-19-2016 04:26 AM
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob.	LeDave	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	05-16-2016 03:40 AM
What different between SMC K 24/2.8, SMC K 24/3.5 and Takumar SMC 24/3.5	mdmitriy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	07-18-2009 02:02 PM

05-10-2017, 02:33 AM	#61
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	But then again the D FA 28-105 is 73 x 86.5 mm (2.9 x 3.4 in.) 440 g (15.5 oz.) and the FA 28-105 F4-5.6 is 72 x 96 mm (2.8 x 3.8 in.) 515 g (18.1 oz.) It is a more compact and lighter lens yet it outperforms the FA by a margin especially in the corners.

05-10-2017, 06:11 AM	#62
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by D1N0 But then again the D FA 28-105 is 73 x 86.5 mm (2.9 x 3.4 in.) 440 g (15.5 oz.) and the FA 28-105 F4-5.6 is 72 x 96 mm (2.8 x 3.8 in.) 515 g (18.1 oz.) It is a more compact and lighter lens yet it outperforms the FA by a margin especially in the corners. Exactly, all we are asking for here is an 18-28 equivalent of the 28-105. I understand people are free to think that's not possible.... and that we never landed on the moon, that Obama is a member of ISIS and that there's a captured UFO in a hanger in Nevada. The fact that someone believes something doesn't make it true. Weighing in at 385 grams.... This Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G is a magnificently sharp and high performance lightweight ultrawide zoom for FX and 35mm cameras. Who said Pentax couldn't do it under 600 grams? How about under 400? People just don't seem to understand the cost and weight savings you can achieve with a lens going variable aperture and less weight.

05-10-2017, 06:22 AM	#63
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	I vote normhead in this election.

05-10-2017, 06:34 AM	#64
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pres589 I vote normhead in this election. I'll keep this in mind when I appoint my cabinet. Last edited by normhead; 05-10-2017 at 06:40 AM.

05-12-2017, 05:16 AM	#65
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	This is from FA28mm wide open at F:2.8 Photographers can easily zoom with our feet to bridge the difference between 24mm and 28mm. I am old style shooter and zooming in or out with my feet does not bother me

05-12-2017, 05:31 AM	#66
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by danielchtong This is from FA28mm wide open at F:2.8 Photographers can easily zoom with our feet to bridge the difference between 24mm and 28mm. I am old style shooter and zooming in or out with my feet does not bother me I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option and the equivalent 24-28 gap did make a difference,depends what and where you're shooting

05-12-2017, 02:13 PM	#67
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by timb64 I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option Okei...fair enough. Agreed. A lens of 24mm is absolutely required over that of a 28mm when you are shooting from a cliff.

05-13-2017, 03:13 AM - 1 Like	#68
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Maybe I have different feet than other people, but mine don't provide any more depth to the image.

05-14-2017, 08:58 AM	#69
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by timb64 I've posted several photos taken from a narrow coastal cliff path recently where zooming with the feet wasn't an option and the equivalent 24-28 gap did make a difference,depends what and where you're shooting I still think that if 28mm is really too narrow to work well for your subject, 24mm is likely to be still a bit too narrow or still not enough. Likely the composition will lack a bit of breath and so on. To be honest, being primarily a prime guy, I do not care of a few % difference in focal length. If I really need wider than 28 and I have a 28, I'll buy maybe a 16mm, but not a 24mm. If I am to buy the 24mm, I'll sell the 28. Currently in APSC, I use mostly DA15, FA31, FA77. That's 22, 46 and 115mm FF equiv. And I don't have that much issues. And I don't think you'd be doomed on an FF with a 24-70 with obviously more limited range than what I enjoy on my APSC camera and typical bag with my 22-115mm equiv ! Worse, I manage to shot subjects just fine near cliffs or for event photography where supposedly zoom are mandatory, and if I had not tried it, I would continue to think that no it is not possible without a zoom. Still in practice, well there no problem.

05-14-2017, 10:22 AM	#70
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Remember folks if your thinking of going maybe prime route (usually faster/smaller), with WA nearly everything from a few feet to infinity is usually of an acceptable level of focus due to just DOF, hence autofocus may not be quite so important. So please allow me to present my solution with some "Ladies" who fulfil my needs in this direction.... the "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift), the "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8), the “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8), the "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8) and last but not least my “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5). Most of my bases are pretty well covered, with these Gals, but there is also a whole load of other manual lenses out there which may fit your bill, at not a lot of expenditure.

05-14-2017, 05:22 PM - 1 Like	#71
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by Nicolas06 I still think that if 28mm is really too narrow to work well for your subject, 24mm is likely to be still a bit too narrow or still not enough. Likely the composition will lack a bit of breath and so on. To be honest, being primarily a prime guy, I do not care of a few % difference in focal length. If I really need wider than 28 and I have a 28, I'll buy maybe a 16mm, but not a 24mm. If I am to buy the 24mm, I'll sell the 28. Currently in APSC, I use mostly DA15, FA31, FA77. That's 22, 46 and 115mm FF equiv. And I don't have that much issues. And I don't think you'd be doomed on an FF with a 24-70 with obviously more limited range than what I enjoy on my APSC camera and typical bag with my 22-115mm equiv ! Worse, I manage to shot subjects just fine near cliffs or for event photography where supposedly zoom are mandatory, and if I had not tried it, I would continue to think that no it is not possible without a zoom. Still in practice, well there no problem. I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures

05-14-2017, 05:34 PM - 1 Like	#72
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Originally posted by timb64 I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures Oh snap!

05-15-2017, 10:18 PM	#73
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Kerrowdown So please allow me to present my solution with some "Ladies" who fulfil my needs in this direction.... the "Deviate Lady" (Pentax 28mm F3.5 Shift), the "Street Lady" (Pentax-A 28mm F2.8), the “Friendly Lady” (Pentax-A 24mm F2.8), the "Good Lady” (Pentax-A 20mm F2.8) and last but not least my “Mistress" (Pentax-A 15mm F3.5). Gotta smile every time I see this. ---------- Post added 05-15-17 at 10:19 PM ---------- Originally posted by timb64 I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures Pictures are always good.

05-15-2017, 11:46 PM	#74
Tatouzou Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 175	Originally posted by timb64 I read lots of words but don't see too many pictures Here is a link to nicolas06 flickr gallery (he is my son): Nicolas \| Flickr

05-16-2017, 01:01 AM	#75
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by jatrax Gotta smile every time I see this Something I said?