Primes and Zooms... where do Pentaxians stand in 2018?

timw4mail · 06-05-2018, 10:53 AM

Just to be contrarian:

For digital, a zoom, like my Tamron 28-300mm (A06).

For film, a prime, because slow film is better, and primes are faster.

normhead · 06-05-2018, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

Zooms are like minivans. Generalist at everything, specialist at nothing. Incredibly convenient, but bulky, clumsy, awkward, and for
me, indecisive. I actually find it more difficult to frame a subject with a zoom than with a prime.

An interesting and different perspective. But you've never owned quality zoom, so understandable.

mikeSF · 06-05-2018, 11:20 AM

so many great Pentax primes.
I like FA31, FA77, and 645 DFA90 macro. Stellar glass!

tvdtvdtvd · 06-05-2018, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by normhead

An interesting and different perspective. But you've never owned quality zoom, so understandable.

Perhaps not. I have no doubt a quality zoom can take a good picture; that was never my objection. The 'best' zoom I've ever owned was
the SMC-A 70-210. Beautiful glass, took very nice photos. Beastly heavy and annoyingly bulky. I would often smack the lens into
corners and branches as I panned to get a shot, forgetting I had 6+" of soda can protruding from my camera.

On the other hand I have driven several quality minivans. They are alluring in their ability to do everything. But I'd still rather own a small,
nimble hatchback as a daily driver.

angerdan · 06-05-2018, 11:26 AM

What Pentax users want is also shown in this survey:
https://www.murvey.com/s?5a70133e6cdc1be004eea3c9

**FozzFoster** · 06-05-2018, 11:28 AM - **2 Likes**

Out of the lenses I own right now... my 55-300mm PLM on my K-S2 would be my 'need-to-have'.
I'm looking to replace my kit lens with something faster... once I do I bet that will take my PLM's place as 'king of the castle'.

normhead · 06-05-2018, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by timw4mail

Just to be contrarian:

For digital, a zoom, like my Tamron 28-300mm (A06).

For film, a prime, because slow film is better, and primes are faster.

Many people (like my step daughter in law) love those zooms. All she wants is pictures of her dogs to turn into screen savers on her desktop. There are many people interested in high end glass, that have very low end applications that don't require a lot of resolution. For those people, those lenses are just amazing. As amazing as a 2:1 1.8 or 2.8 zoom is for the people who want them.

**onlineflyer** · 06-05-2018, 11:32 AM - **1 Like**

I love primes but I shoot a lot of wildlife, nature and some landscapes. I couldn't do everything I like with one prime, so I voted for a zoom. Most likely the DA 60-250mm. Although I don't own one, nor used one, everything I've read about it points me to that conclusion..

bertwert · 06-05-2018, 11:37 AM

It would have to be a zoom. I haven't found a prime that does it all yet.

SSGGeezer · 06-05-2018, 11:42 AM

I have to say it is a zoom lens, even though I love my DA 15 and FA 77. My DA*50-135 has such wonderful IQ on my KP I have just been leaving it on most of the time of late. My SIgma 120-400 would be my second choice, DA 20-40 as my third selection if I could have nothing else.

normhead · 06-05-2018, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

the SMC-A 70-210. Beautiful glass, took very nice photos. Beastly heavy and annoyingly bulky. I would often smack the lens into

OK, that's just weird. I have an F 70-210 and I take it sometimes because it's more compact than my DA*200. You just aren't used to using long glass. Before getting the 55-300 palm the 70-210 was my "portable" option.

swanlefitte · 06-05-2018, 11:45 AM

If i could only use one lens i wouldn't bother with an slr. I would sell my system for a fixed lens camera. That camera would be a zoom.
If i need something of extremely high quality i would have to hire someone. If they also only had one lens i would hire someone with a prime with the framing i wanted.

timw4mail · 06-05-2018, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Many people (like my step daughter in law) love those zooms. All she wants is pictures of her dogs to turn into screen savers on her desktop. There are many people interested in high end glass, that have very low end applications that don't require a lot of resolution. For those people, those lenses are just amazing. As amazing as a 2:1 1.8 or 2.8 zoom is for the people who want them.

Besides the fact that it's a rather slow zoom, I've nearly always been impressed with the results from the lens.

**AstroDave** · 06-05-2018, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Living without my 18-135 (K-3) or 28-105 (K-1), that's just not going to happen.
If it was one lens for both bodies, it would be the 28-105.

I'm with Norm. (Depends on whether I get to keep more than one camera, too - I have both K-3 and K-1, and the usual lenses thereon are these two.)

normhead · 06-05-2018, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by timw4mail

Besides the fact that it's a rather slow zoom, I've nearly always been impressed with the results from the lens.

We once compared the results of an Eastern Red Wolf shot side by side with my 3x as expensive as my DA*60-250 with our departed Sigma 18-250. The results were almost identical. The 60-250 had slightly better bokeh. $800 is a lot to pay for slightly better bokeh. There are many situations where you have a better lens, but it doesn't produce better results, because the "weaker" lens is good enough for the subject.

If I was trying to count the threads on a lumber jars jacket, maybe the 60-250 would have been better. But the red wolf fur was course enough it made absolutely no difference. We offered both to park staff for use in their presentations and they selected the 18-250 image. Much of the time It only makes a difference if you know exactly what to look for.

View Poll Results: If you could only have one lens today, would it be a prime or a zoom?
It would be a prime lens	63	40.65%
It would be a zoom lens	79	50.97%
I plead the fifth! (for non-americans that means "I couldn't possibly answer!")	13	8.39%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for a light stand bag that is not a light stand bag	bladerunner6	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	10	03-09-2018 06:03 PM
maximum available apeture of zooms at variable focal lengths of zooms	aslyfox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-23-2017 07:44 AM
Wide astro FF zooms and primes - got your eye on anything?	Conqueror	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	22	11-30-2016 05:12 PM
Regular boom stand or C stand w/ boom?	gsrokmix	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	12-05-2010 04:44 PM

06-05-2018, 10:53 AM	#16
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Just to be contrarian: For digital, a zoom, like my Tamron 28-300mm (A06). For film, a prime, because slow film is better, and primes are faster.

06-05-2018, 11:09 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd Zooms are like minivans. Generalist at everything, specialist at nothing. Incredibly convenient, but bulky, clumsy, awkward, and for me, indecisive. I actually find it more difficult to frame a subject with a zoom than with a prime. An interesting and different perspective. But you've never owned quality zoom, so understandable.

06-05-2018, 11:20 AM	#18
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	so many great Pentax primes. I like FA31, FA77, and 645 DFA90 macro. Stellar glass!

06-05-2018, 11:24 AM	#19
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by normhead An interesting and different perspective. But you've never owned quality zoom, so understandable. Perhaps not. I have no doubt a quality zoom can take a good picture; that was never my objection. The 'best' zoom I've ever owned was the SMC-A 70-210. Beautiful glass, took very nice photos. Beastly heavy and annoyingly bulky. I would often smack the lens into corners and branches as I panned to get a shot, forgetting I had 6+" of soda can protruding from my camera. On the other hand I have driven several quality minivans. They are alluring in their ability to do everything. But I'd still rather own a small, nimble hatchback as a daily driver.

06-05-2018, 11:26 AM	#20
angerdan Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,639	What Pentax users want is also shown in this survey: https://www.murvey.com/s?5a70133e6cdc1be004eea3c9

06-05-2018, 11:28 AM - 2 Likes	#21
FozzFoster Custom User Title Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Alberta Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Out of the lenses I own right now... my 55-300mm PLM on my K-S2 would be my 'need-to-have'. I'm looking to replace my kit lens with something faster... once I do I bet that will take my PLM's place as 'king of the castle'.

06-05-2018, 11:29 AM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by timw4mail Just to be contrarian: For digital, a zoom, like my Tamron 28-300mm (A06). For film, a prime, because slow film is better, and primes are faster. Many people (like my step daughter in law) love those zooms. All she wants is pictures of her dogs to turn into screen savers on her desktop. There are many people interested in high end glass, that have very low end applications that don't require a lot of resolution. For those people, those lenses are just amazing. As amazing as a 2:1 1.8 or 2.8 zoom is for the people who want them.

06-05-2018, 11:32 AM - 1 Like	#23
onlineflyer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: NW Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,091	I love primes but I shoot a lot of wildlife, nature and some landscapes. I couldn't do everything I like with one prime, so I voted for a zoom. Most likely the DA 60-250mm. Although I don't own one, nor used one, everything I've read about it points me to that conclusion..

06-05-2018, 11:37 AM	#24
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	It would have to be a zoom. I haven't found a prime that does it all yet.

06-05-2018, 11:42 AM	#25
SSGGeezer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,845	I have to say it is a zoom lens, even though I love my DA 15 and FA 77. My DA*50-135 has such wonderful IQ on my KP I have just been leaving it on most of the time of late. My SIgma 120-400 would be my second choice, DA 20-40 as my third selection if I could have nothing else.

06-05-2018, 11:42 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd the SMC-A 70-210. Beautiful glass, took very nice photos. Beastly heavy and annoyingly bulky. I would often smack the lens into OK, that's just weird. I have an F 70-210 and I take it sometimes because it's more compact than my DA*200. You just aren't used to using long glass. Before getting the 55-300 palm the 70-210 was my "portable" option.

06-05-2018, 11:45 AM	#27
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	If i could only use one lens i wouldn't bother with an slr. I would sell my system for a fixed lens camera. That camera would be a zoom. If i need something of extremely high quality i would have to hire someone. If they also only had one lens i would hire someone with a prime with the framing i wanted.

06-05-2018, 11:47 AM	#28
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Originally posted by normhead Many people (like my step daughter in law) love those zooms. All she wants is pictures of her dogs to turn into screen savers on her desktop. There are many people interested in high end glass, that have very low end applications that don't require a lot of resolution. For those people, those lenses are just amazing. As amazing as a 2:1 1.8 or 2.8 zoom is for the people who want them. Besides the fact that it's a rather slow zoom, I've nearly always been impressed with the results from the lens.

06-05-2018, 11:49 AM	#29
AstroDave Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 1,637	Originally posted by normhead Living without my 18-135 (K-3) or 28-105 (K-1), that's just not going to happen. If it was one lens for both bodies, it would be the 28-105. I'm with Norm. (Depends on whether I get to keep more than one camera, too - I have both K-3 and K-1, and the usual lenses thereon are these two.)

06-05-2018, 11:50 AM	#30
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by timw4mail Besides the fact that it's a rather slow zoom, I've nearly always been impressed with the results from the lens. We once compared the results of an Eastern Red Wolf shot side by side with my 3x as expensive as my DA*60-250 with our departed Sigma 18-250. The results were almost identical. The 60-250 had slightly better bokeh. $800 is a lot to pay for slightly better bokeh. There are many situations where you have a better lens, but it doesn't produce better results, because the "weaker" lens is good enough for the subject. If I was trying to count the threads on a lumber jars jacket, maybe the 60-250 would have been better. But the red wolf fur was course enough it made absolutely no difference. We offered both to park staff for use in their presentations and they selected the 18-250 image. Much of the time It only makes a difference if you know exactly what to look for.