[Dan Rentea]

I also don't think that if I don't have a 24-70mm f2.8 or a 70-200mm f2.8 it means that I want to go cheap. I didn't bought 70-200mm f2.8 or the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 because I don't need very often f2.8 and I don't like to hold an 1.6kg lens for 2-4 hours. I bought instead of these 2 big lenses a 16-35mm f4L, a 70-200mm f4L IS, a 35mm f2 IS, the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm f2L.

I organised the viking shooting session a month ago and I chosed to shoot with the 85mm lens because one of the participants believed that he will get better images if I give him my 135mm lens. He didn't get better images because, if I learned something during these years of going out and shoot side by side with other people, is that I don't have to compete with others. So, instead of competing with him in which lens is sharper, faster to focus, with better rendering (I knew that my 135mm lens will blow the 85mm f1.8 at any aspect), I let him trying to show me what he can do with my 135mm lens and I focused on the 3 most important things that could improved my images:
- the subject (the model was amazing)
- the background (shooting in a wood, in a cold day, with no snow and no leaves on the trees is challenging)
- the light (I've used natural light, flashes, anything that I knew it will help me to make the subject look good).

If these 3 aspects are well combined, I don't care if the guy who is shooting next to me is using a medium format camera. It's enough that I got the shot I wanted. There will always be a better/more expensive camera in the hands of someone shooting next to me. As long as my camera does the things that I bought it for, I smile to them and continue to enjoy shooting.

@builttospill, you like the FA77 and I understand the reason (its rendering). It's enough as a reason to opt for this lens. I sold the 77mm and bought the 70mm limited because I wanted something else from a portrait lens back then. There will be a market for any lens that Ricoh will produce, cheap or expensive.

By the way, thank you for your king words regarding the image with the viking woman. The other images from that session can be found here ( http://danr.ro/lupi-sange-si-vikingi/ ). All the images were taken with the cheap 85mm f1.8 lens, except the behind the scenes images that were provided by the participants, most of them).

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 01-31-2018 at 12:49 PM.

[normhead]

See, and I've not heard of the 8-16 being used that way much. Definitely less than the Sy 14 f2.8, which seems to be the go-to for a lot of folks for astro and general ultra-wideness. I've got a vision for a camping & travel two lens kit, and while I love my DA 15 and will miss its small size and general convenience, I wanted something faster than f4. My 18-135 will handle everything else.

I would have loved to get the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 instead, but, it's not available for k-mount, and I'm not switching systems for that lens. The 11-18 should help.

---------- Post added 01-30-18 at 10:21 AM ----------

See, and I've not heard of the 8-16 being used that way much. Definitely less than the Sy 14 f2.8, which seems to be the go-to for a lot of folks for astro and general ultra-wideness. I've got a vision for a camping & travel two lens kit, and while I love my DA 15 and will miss its small size and general convenience, I wanted something faster than f4. My 18-135 will handle everything else.

I would have loved to get the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 instead, but, it's not available for k-mount, and I'm not switching systems for that lens. The 11-18 should help.

One man's point of view...
Best Lenses for Milky Way Photography: Canon Astrophotographers – Lonely Speck

With the Rokinon's being better than anything Canon has to offer, what are the odds Pentax would produce something better?
Pentax K Lenses made by Rokinon

That's a pretty good selection.
But my guess is being a DA* the 11-18 will be awesome.

That being said, that Samyang 14 2.8 looks really awesome, like the Tamron 90 of wide angles. I'm going to talk to the wife. Thanks for the tip.

[pres589]

That's kind of a weird competition to get into; "if Canon cannot do better than Samyang's ultra-wide options, then Pentax can't beat Samyang either". It's like some kind of strange take on the old "is the enemy of my enemy my friend, or is he my enemy?" question.

My plan is to take a couple months next summer, say May and June of 2019, and head out on a motorcycle. Hopefully not wrecking my career in the process, but really, I think by then I'll be ready for some serious time away from a desk. Long story.

[normhead]

That's kind of a weird competition to get into; "if Canon cannot do better than Samyang's ultra-wide options, then Pentax can't beat Samyang either". It's like some kind of strange take on the old "is the enemy of my enemy my friend, or is he my enemy?" question.

My plan is to take a couple months next summer, say May and June of 2019, and head out on a motorcycle. Hopefully not wrecking my career in the process, but really, I think by then I'll be ready for some serious time away from a desk. Long story.

Just looking at what people say about that Samyang across all brands, one site rated it an 9.8 out fo 10, another rated it as the best astrophography lens for Canon, just saying, just because others try to make a lens that good doesn't mean they'll succeed, or every one would make one. Better to go with a known front runner than wait for a lens that might but probably won't be better.

[pres589]

Agreed. I looked at what's available for the system I have, and one of the best lenses for the purpose is there for me, so I took it.

[Dan Rentea]

That's kind of a weird competition to get into; "if Canon cannot do better than Samyang's ultra-wide options, then Pentax can't beat Samyang either". It's like some kind of strange take on the old "is the enemy of my enemy my friend, or is he my enemy?" question.

My plan is to take a couple months next summer, say May and June of 2019, and head out on a motorcycle. Hopefully not wrecking my career in the process, but really, I think by then I'll be ready for some serious time away from a desk. Long story.

Samyang lenses are very good and cheap. You have to make some tests to find out where the lens focuses at infinity (usually it's not where the infinity symbol is) and mark the spot on the lens scale and you are good to go.

[Wheatfield]

With 75 votes om 60% are K-1 users. Where are all the APS_c shooters?

Enjoying their relatively full lens line up.

[zzeitg]

Well, the sales of that have probably been so low it may not ever be replaced.

The question is (and honestly I don't know the answer), how many DA560 (i.e. "expensive") lenses Pentax has to sell to pay the development and start earning money.


I can admit that possibly there are not so many wildlife or specifically birding users (but then again, who knows...?). In this case Pentax/Ricoh should make a deal with Sigma and persuade them to offer at least their telephoto primes in K-mount.
In the end it might be win-win strategy for both brands.

[Gimbeley]

Cheap is the only positive here though.
They are plastic build (poor). They are substantially larger (poor). They suffer from even more purple fringing and CA than the old 77 or the old Sigma 85/1.4. The 85/1.8s are real purple monsters.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Image Quality
Basically they represent DA 50/1.8 with less image quality and longer focal length.

Since the vast majority here doesn't want this type of cheap lenses but premium ones and a 85/1.4 is in the pipeline I don't think Pentax will consider a cheapo 85 in the next 10 years. And quite rightfully so.

To me, this is really a question of mid range lenses for full frame. Nobody is talking about "cheapo" lenses. The $550 range is the realm of mid range glass - lenses that would be a huge step up for hobbyists, while not paying extra for features or attributes that only a professional could truly take advantage of. There's usually a big quality gain from the $100 lens to the $400 lens, but only an incremental quality gain from the $400 lens to the $1400 lens. This is why mid range lenses sell so well, and why I think Pentax/Ricoh are stupid for virtually ignoring this whole class of lenses. I also don't agree with your statement "the vast majority here doesn't want this type of [lens]," since the 85mm f/1.8 $550 lens option was the second most wished for lens in the survey, out of about 50 other choices.

On Canon, the EF 85mm f/1.8 is a $369 lens, brand new. It's a fast lens at f/1.8, it's very usable wide open and sharp when stopped down, it has a metal mount, and it has Canon's fast, quiet and "quick shift capable" USM focus motor, same as what they put into their premium "L" lenses. You mention the DA50/1.8, and although the optics of a lens like this could probably be compared directly with Canon's mid range lenses, the build quality is significantly inferior to a true mid range lens.

Personally, I also don't see the need for an 85/1.8 on Pentax APS-C, since the DA*55/1.4 and DA70/2.4 are fantastic portrait lenses and both are priced very reasonably, IMO. However, for full frame, I can understand the desire for a good mid range portrait lens.

As for resistance to purple fringing, that's very overrated, IMO. It doesn't affect every photo, and it can also be corrected in post to a degree. If a hobbyist doesn't want to be restricted to, for example, no portraiture against a bright sky background without color fringing, then they can always cough up the $1000+ for the pro glass. It's not a deal killer for most people who would buy a mid range portrait lens.

[clackers]

The question is (and honestly I don't know the answer), how many DA560 (i.e. "expensive") lenses Pentax has to sell to pay the development and start earning money.


I can admit that possibly there are not so many wildlife or specifically birding users (but then again, who knows...?). In this case Pentax/Ricoh should make a deal with Sigma and persuade them to offer at least their telephoto primes in K-mount.
In the end it might be win-win strategy for both brands.

I suspect the effort's not worth it financially for either Ricoh or Sigma, Zzeitg.

The number of such shooters is almost negligible, even in the Canikon world, where consumer 100-400 or 150-600 zooms rule, etc.

[Gedeon]

..Guys, just look at how many pictures of birds there are on this forum ... I mean, it's not like we rarely find pictures of birds squirrels or other small wildlife subjects ! who would dare to say here, that there's no interest for a new long prime tele....

[clackers]

..Guys, just look at how many pictures of birds there are on this forum ... I mean, it's not like we rarely find pictures of birds squirrels or other small wildlife subjects ! who would dare to say here, that there's no interest for a new long prime tele....

And very few of them taken with professional lenses, Gedeon.

That's cost, not desire.

I want a 600mm f4, nobody will give me one!

[normhead]

I want a 600mm f4, nobody will give me one!

I was shooting next to a Nikon shooter with one yesterday. He had a 1.4 on it too. Imagine 840 ƒ5.6. I was shooting 420 ƒ4. I was at a distinct disadvantage in this particular situation. He was also really quick picking out the birds, he was taking a couple shots then stopping to point out for me where they were, nice guy. When you're shooting at a site with big feeders and you are interested in 4 birds out of hundreds, that's an important skill,

[Fcsnt54]

Survey is only for k mount and no options for 645?

[BrianR]

I tried, but I couldn't come up with 3 lenses on your list that I wanted so I couldn't complete the survey.

I really only want one more prime at this point (200mm f/4 macro) which isn't on your list. I managed to force myself to want two others, but two wasn't enough. The survey won't accept less than three...

I guess I don't have LBA. I must need help