21 mm or 35 mm 'walk around' on aps-c???

sergeremy · 06-15-2018, 12:29 AM

Older fixed lens film cameras often had a 40 or 45 mm lens. But 50 does seem to have been the prevailing "normal".

ChristianRock · 06-15-2018, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by sergeremy

Older fixed lens film cameras often had a 40 or 45 mm lens. But 50 does seem to have been the prevailing "normal".

I think that had to do with the fact that 40mm and 45mm lenses were easier to make in a more compact format, and still have a fast aperture, especially with the shorter registration distances that these fixed lens cameras had.
But I know a few photographers that even in the film days preferred 40mm or 45mm to 50mm, including Mike Johnson of The Online Photographer fame (and the man who made the term bokeh common).

normhead · 06-15-2018, 07:36 AM

I'd want the 35mm macro, because I love finding macro images on hikes, but 35mm isn't a focal length i really appreciate. I used to take the 21 on a K-01 as a landscape body on hikes, and the K-5 with a longer zoom. Since the K-1 has become my landscape body the 21 hasn't seen much use. But on summer caneoe trips it's very likely I'll be going with the 21, 100 macro, and 55-300 as a nice relatively light travel kit for the K-3.

rptdc · 06-15-2018, 08:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rptdc

Darn you all for giving me one more lens the think about! The 20-40 mm.

I now am figuring out how to afford it if I go in that direction. Skip my life sustaining medications? My son's college education is way overrated. Do we really need 2 cars in the Midwest, or can I ride my bike to work year round, as it only hits -20 degrees F for a few weeks?

Seriously, functionally the only negative for me would be the loss of the smaller size of, say, the 21mm. It is somewhat lighter than the 55-300 that I typically carry along. Also, as pointed out by others, it covers 2 lens' that I was considering, the 21 or the 35. I originally intended to go primes only. :-( My collection would then be my current DA 15mm F4; the possible DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited; and my current DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE. The coverage makes sense.

I now have on order the HD 20-40mm. $$ My son's college education does not resume for a couple of months. I will figure out something regarding that by then. $$

Though I started this thread asking opinion regarding primes 21mm vs 35mm on an APS-C and ended up with the 20-40 zoom, I still am a prime fan and will likely add more primes in the future. I shoot almost always outdoors, so the direction of some contributors toward the light/compact (for a zoom) 20-40 makes sense.

ChristianRock · 06-15-2018, 09:04 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rptdc

I now have on order the HD 20-40mm. $$ My son's college education does not resume for a couple of months. I will figure out something regarding that by then. $$

Though I started this thread asking opinion regarding primes 21mm vs 35mm on an APS-C and ended up with the 20-40 zoom, I still am a prime fan and will likely add more primes in the future. I shoot almost always outdoors, so the direction of some contributors toward the light/compact (for a zoom) 20-40 makes sense.

I think that was a very good idea because you had a big gap and now you are covering the most of it - enough that you probably don't need more lenses unless there's different things you'd be after (like the speed of a 30mm f/1.4 lens).

The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm, the DA 35 2.8 Limited isn't so fast that you'll be regretting not having it during your walkarounds. And hopefully you didn't pay an arm and a leg for the 20-40!

Honestly, the 2x is a very short zoom range, so short that it allows for brilliant image quality, and makes it feel like a prime with a little room to breathe

rptdc · 06-15-2018, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

I think that was a very good idea because you had a big gap and now you are covering the most of it - enough that you probably don't need more lenses unless there's different things you'd be after (like the speed of a 30mm f/1.4 lens).

The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm, the DA 35 2.8 Limited isn't so fast that you'll be regretting not having it during your walkarounds. And hopefully you didn't pay an arm and a leg for the 20-40!

Honestly, the 2x is a very short zoom range, so short that it allows for brilliant image quality, and makes it feel like a prime with a little room to breathe

Your eloquent justification is chipping away at my post purchase guilt.

Thank you.

normhead · 06-15-2018, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm,

Uh huh..... do we have images?

It best to show a few images and let people make up their own minds. Different people have different values about what they like in photograph.

**pres589** · 06-15-2018, 10:46 AM

I could see the DA 21 and HD 20-40 performing pretty similarly at 21mm if they're both stopped down to f11...

normhead · 06-15-2018, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by pres589

I could see the DA 21 and HD 20-40 performing pretty similarly at 21mm if they're both stopped down to f11...

I'd want to compare them for bokeh, rendition and transitions.

**pres589** · 06-15-2018, 11:07 AM

Sounds like a fun test! "Which ~21mm option do you prefer at f11; a blind taste test, by normhead".

normhead · 06-15-2018, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by pres589

Sounds like a fun test! "Which ~21mm option do you prefer at f11; a blind taste test, by normhead".

Leets se, I could do the 21 ltd. the 18-135, The Tamron 17-50, would the K-1 and 28-105 at 30mm count? OH ya, and the FAJ 18-35, however I don't have a 20-40, and I don't know anyone who does. And I probably wouldn't shoot at ƒ11. ƒ8 is all I've ever needed on APS_c without shooting macro.

**aslyfox** · 06-15-2018, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Leets se, I could do the 21 ltd. the 18-135, The Tamron 17-50, would the K-1 and 28-105 at 30mm count? OH ya, and the FAJ 18-35, however I don't have a 20-40, and I don't know anyone who does. And I probably wouldn't shoot at ƒ11. ƒ8 is all I've ever needed on APS_c without shooting macro.

In the interests of the forum and knowledge

someone quickly loan him what he is missing - the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR

[ BTW, I don't have that lens so I don't have to volunteer one of mine ]

ChristianRock · 06-15-2018, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Uh huh..... do we have images?

It best to show a few images and let people make up their own minds. Different people have different values about what they like in photograph.

I did qualify it with "I think"

I like the rendering and contrast of the zoom better, and it looks slightly sharper to me, but I haven't been able to afford one yet.

LensBeginner · 06-15-2018, 12:23 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by chickentender

No lecture here.

They're very different focal lenghts. I might suggest you consider picking up an older manual 28mm like the common M28/2.8 thereby splitting the difference as it were. Walk around with it and get a feeling for whether it feels too cramped or too spacious for your specific wants. Plus, they're very inexpensive and it's possible you might enjoy it enough to keep around. I like 35mm on 35mm as a walk-around, but a 28 on APSC feels about right. YMMV, as is always the case.

I was about to suggest the same thing.
I routinely use the M28/3.5 as a walkaround lens... I even brought it with me as my sole lens when visiting towns I've never been to before.
FoV is the same of a 42mm on 35mm format, so a short-ish normal.
Pleasure of use is absolute: metal barrel, positive clicks for the aperture ring, compact construction.
Convenience is absolute as well: ring is perfectly dampened for manual focus - unlike modern AF lenses - and the lens has a red "8" marking at f/8 for "snapshot" setting, best compromise between light gathering ability, sharpness and DoF.

ChristianRock · 06-15-2018, 12:24 PM

Well I mostly shoot in the f4-5.6 range when I'm not shooting wide open, so a comparison at f8, while it does have value and is very helpful showing a lens usually at its best, isn't how I would probably use the lenses. But I'm not a landscape shooter usually - if I do, my DA 16-45 is actually pretty good considering my limited skills of course.

---------- Post added 06-15-18 at 03:27 PM ----------

Originally posted by LensBeginner

I was about to suggest the same thing.
I routinely use the M28/3.5 as a walkaround lens... I even brought it with me as my sole lens when visiting towns I've never been to before.
FoV is the same of a 42mm on 35mm format, so a short-ish normal.
Pleasure of use is absolute: metal barrel, positive clicks for the aperture ring, compact construction.
Convenience is absolute as well: ring is perfectly dampened for manual focus - unlike modern AF lenses - and the lens has a red "8" marking at f/8 for "snapshot" setting, best compromise between light gathering ability, sharpness and DoF.

That is a great walkaround lens. And it's one lens that does make me want to shoot at f8 or even smaller, because with it you want to have as much of the scene in focus as possible. I find the colors gorgeous, it's sharp as tack and the long MFD is actually a blessing in disguise

(*)

I think if I had to suggest a manual focus lens for street photography, that would be at the top of the list along with the SMC Pentax-A 24 2.8 of course.

(* because we all know how bad its bokeh can be...)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	11-10-2016 06:50 PM
For Sale - Sold: 3 ZK Lenses: Zeiss 35 mm F2, Zeiss 50 mm F2 Makro, and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 Planar	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	10	08-31-2016 08:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New FA 31 mm, FA 77 mm, DA* 60-250 mm, DA* 300 mm	ppkkcao	Sold Items	14	11-02-2014 08:42 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tak 35 mm F3.5, SMC Tak 55 mm F1.8, and Helios 44K-4 58 mm F2 lenses	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	6	04-15-2014 03:03 PM

06-15-2018, 12:29 AM	#61
sergeremy Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Périgueux Posts: 733	Older fixed lens film cameras often had a 40 or 45 mm lens. But 50 does seem to have been the prevailing "normal".

06-15-2018, 07:30 AM	#62
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by sergeremy Older fixed lens film cameras often had a 40 or 45 mm lens. But 50 does seem to have been the prevailing "normal". I think that had to do with the fact that 40mm and 45mm lenses were easier to make in a more compact format, and still have a fast aperture, especially with the shorter registration distances that these fixed lens cameras had. But I know a few photographers that even in the film days preferred 40mm or 45mm to 50mm, including Mike Johnson of The Online Photographer fame (and the man who made the term bokeh common).

06-15-2018, 07:36 AM	#63
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I'd want the 35mm macro, because I love finding macro images on hikes, but 35mm isn't a focal length i really appreciate. I used to take the 21 on a K-01 as a landscape body on hikes, and the K-5 with a longer zoom. Since the K-1 has become my landscape body the 21 hasn't seen much use. But on summer caneoe trips it's very likely I'll be going with the 21, 100 macro, and 55-300 as a nice relatively light travel kit for the K-3.

06-15-2018, 08:57 AM - 1 Like	#64
rptdc Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 49 Original Poster	Originally posted by rptdc Darn you all for giving me one more lens the think about! The 20-40 mm. I now am figuring out how to afford it if I go in that direction. Skip my life sustaining medications? My son's college education is way overrated. Do we really need 2 cars in the Midwest, or can I ride my bike to work year round, as it only hits -20 degrees F for a few weeks? Seriously, functionally the only negative for me would be the loss of the smaller size of, say, the 21mm. It is somewhat lighter than the 55-300 that I typically carry along. Also, as pointed out by others, it covers 2 lens' that I was considering, the 21 or the 35. I originally intended to go primes only. :-( My collection would then be my current DA 15mm F4; the possible DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited; and my current DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE. The coverage makes sense. I now have on order the HD 20-40mm. $$ My son's college education does not resume for a couple of months. I will figure out something regarding that by then. $$ Though I started this thread asking opinion regarding primes 21mm vs 35mm on an APS-C and ended up with the 20-40 zoom, I still am a prime fan and will likely add more primes in the future. I shoot almost always outdoors, so the direction of some contributors toward the light/compact (for a zoom) 20-40 makes sense.

06-15-2018, 09:04 AM - 1 Like	#65
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by rptdc I now have on order the HD 20-40mm. $$ My son's college education does not resume for a couple of months. I will figure out something regarding that by then. $$ Though I started this thread asking opinion regarding primes 21mm vs 35mm on an APS-C and ended up with the 20-40 zoom, I still am a prime fan and will likely add more primes in the future. I shoot almost always outdoors, so the direction of some contributors toward the light/compact (for a zoom) 20-40 makes sense. I think that was a very good idea because you had a big gap and now you are covering the most of it - enough that you probably don't need more lenses unless there's different things you'd be after (like the speed of a 30mm f/1.4 lens). The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm, the DA 35 2.8 Limited isn't so fast that you'll be regretting not having it during your walkarounds. And hopefully you didn't pay an arm and a leg for the 20-40! Honestly, the 2x is a very short zoom range, so short that it allows for brilliant image quality, and makes it feel like a prime with a little room to breathe

06-15-2018, 09:38 AM	#66
rptdc Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 49 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChristianRock I think that was a very good idea because you had a big gap and now you are covering the most of it - enough that you probably don't need more lenses unless there's different things you'd be after (like the speed of a 30mm f/1.4 lens). The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm, the DA 35 2.8 Limited isn't so fast that you'll be regretting not having it during your walkarounds. And hopefully you didn't pay an arm and a leg for the 20-40! Honestly, the 2x is a very short zoom range, so short that it allows for brilliant image quality, and makes it feel like a prime with a little room to breathe Your eloquent justification is chipping away at my post purchase guilt. Thank you.

06-15-2018, 10:39 AM	#67
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ChristianRock The 20-40, I think, is a better lens than the DA 21mm at 21mm, Uh huh..... do we have images? It best to show a few images and let people make up their own minds. Different people have different values about what they like in photograph.

06-15-2018, 10:46 AM	#68
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	I could see the DA 21 and HD 20-40 performing pretty similarly at 21mm if they're both stopped down to f11...

06-15-2018, 11:05 AM	#69
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pres589 I could see the DA 21 and HD 20-40 performing pretty similarly at 21mm if they're both stopped down to f11... I'd want to compare them for bokeh, rendition and transitions.

06-15-2018, 11:07 AM	#70
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Sounds like a fun test! "Which ~21mm option do you prefer at f11; a blind taste test, by normhead".

06-15-2018, 11:56 AM	#71
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pres589 Sounds like a fun test! "Which ~21mm option do you prefer at f11; a blind taste test, by normhead". Leets se, I could do the 21 ltd. the 18-135, The Tamron 17-50, would the K-1 and 28-105 at 30mm count? OH ya, and the FAJ 18-35, however I don't have a 20-40, and I don't know anyone who does. And I probably wouldn't shoot at ƒ11. ƒ8 is all I've ever needed on APS_c without shooting macro.

06-15-2018, 12:12 PM	#72
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581	Originally posted by normhead Leets se, I could do the 21 ltd. the 18-135, The Tamron 17-50, would the K-1 and 28-105 at 30mm count? OH ya, and the FAJ 18-35, however I don't have a 20-40, and I don't know anyone who does. And I probably wouldn't shoot at ƒ11. ƒ8 is all I've ever needed on APS_c without shooting macro. In the interests of the forum and knowledge someone quickly loan him what he is missing - the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR [ BTW, I don't have that lens so I don't have to volunteer one of mine ]

06-15-2018, 12:18 PM	#73
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by normhead Uh huh..... do we have images? It best to show a few images and let people make up their own minds. Different people have different values about what they like in photograph. I did qualify it with "I think" I like the rendering and contrast of the zoom better, and it looks slightly sharper to me, but I haven't been able to afford one yet.

06-15-2018, 12:23 PM - 1 Like	#74
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by chickentender No lecture here. They're very different focal lenghts. I might suggest you consider picking up an older manual 28mm like the common M28/2.8 thereby splitting the difference as it were. Walk around with it and get a feeling for whether it feels too cramped or too spacious for your specific wants. Plus, they're very inexpensive and it's possible you might enjoy it enough to keep around. I like 35mm on 35mm as a walk-around, but a 28 on APSC feels about right. YMMV, as is always the case. I was about to suggest the same thing. I routinely use the M28/3.5 as a walkaround lens... I even brought it with me as my sole lens when visiting towns I've never been to before. FoV is the same of a 42mm on 35mm format, so a short-ish normal. Pleasure of use is absolute: metal barrel, positive clicks for the aperture ring, compact construction. Convenience is absolute as well: ring is perfectly dampened for manual focus - unlike modern AF lenses - and the lens has a red "8" marking at f/8 for "snapshot" setting, best compromise between light gathering ability, sharpness and DoF.

06-15-2018, 12:24 PM	#75
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Well I mostly shoot in the f4-5.6 range when I'm not shooting wide open, so a comparison at f8, while it does have value and is very helpful showing a lens usually at its best, isn't how I would probably use the lenses. But I'm not a landscape shooter usually - if I do, my DA 16-45 is actually pretty good considering my limited skills of course. ---------- Post added 06-15-18 at 03:27 PM ---------- Originally posted by LensBeginner I was about to suggest the same thing. I routinely use the M28/3.5 as a walkaround lens... I even brought it with me as my sole lens when visiting towns I've never been to before. FoV is the same of a 42mm on 35mm format, so a short-ish normal. Pleasure of use is absolute: metal barrel, positive clicks for the aperture ring, compact construction. Convenience is absolute as well: ring is perfectly dampened for manual focus - unlike modern AF lenses - and the lens has a red "8" marking at f/8 for "snapshot" setting, best compromise between light gathering ability, sharpness and DoF. That is a great walkaround lens. And it's one lens that does make me want to shoot at f8 or even smaller, because with it you want to have as much of the scene in focus as possible. I find the colors gorgeous, it's sharp as tack and the long MFD is actually a blessing in disguise () I think if I had to suggest a manual focus lens for street photography, that would be at the top of the list along with the SMC Pentax-A 24 2.8 of course. ( because we all know how bad its bokeh can be...)