Owners of 12-24 + 50-135 but no zoom in between.

augustmoon · 09-23-2008, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Hmm, except that I think it would be easier to move forward a couple feet than to change to a 3rd zoom that covers the mid 24 - 50 range. This is why 'zooming with the feet' also can apply to zooms - I use that concept whenever I'm out with my 12-24 and want to get a bit closer.

Even with a tripod, I think changing lenses isn't any easier than just moving the tripod a little bit, IMO anyway.

.

WHAT?

Don't even know where to begin here...

You seriously think it's easier to move a tripod, recompose, refocus, adjust Ped, adjust Pan, and adjust Tilt, and take a shot than it is to zoom in.

I think you failed to get the point here. What I was saying is that I would prefer to have a zoom that encompassed my need of focal range, rather than switch lenses. Now, a second reply telling me to "zoom with my feet" or move the tripod?

No disrespect, but I think I know what I want!!!

And you do realize, don't you that when you alter the subject to Focal Plane (FP) distance, that you also alter the relationship of the subject to background and alter the perspective? So if I'm going to use a zoom instead of a prime, and sacrifice all that I need to in order to use a zoom, then it's because I want the one and only benefit that a zoom affords, and that is to maintain the same FP to subject distance and have different framing and crop options and to do so quickly. So the "zoom with your feet" (God, I hate that phrase) is not always a good answer or even a remotely appropriate answer.

As far as the move in a few feet rather than move back suggestion, I think you are suggesting that I use the 16-50 not only for a full length shot, but also to walk up to within inches of her and take a tight head or detail shot? Really?? Seriously???

AgentFixer · 09-23-2008, 07:03 PM

wow...i think the attempt at some humor went and backfired. The whole zoom with the feet thing is funny to me. We all know that shooting the same scene at, lets say, 17mm will come out completely different if you backed up and shot it at lets say, 135mm.

Let's take what people say with a grain of salt shall we?

Oh, and I'd probably go for the Sigma 24-60 and the gap filler....hey at $200 constant f/2.8, that's a deal.

jsherman999 · 09-23-2008, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by augustmoon

WHAT?

Don't even know where to begin here...

You seriously think it's easier to move a tripod, recompose, refocus, adjust Ped, adjust Pan, and adjust Tilt, and take a shot than it is to zoom in.

I think you failed to get the point here. What I was saying is that I would prefer to have a zoom that encompassed my need of focal range, rather than switch lenses. Now, a second reply telling me to "zoom with my feet" or move the tripod?

No disrespect, but I think I know what I want!!!

And you do realize, don't you that when you alter the subject to Focal Plane (FP) distance, that you also alter the relationship of the subject to background and alter the perspective? So if I'm going to use a zoom instead of a prime, and sacrifice all that I need to in order to use a zoom, then it's because I want the one and only benefit that a zoom affords, and that is to maintain the same FP to subject distance and have different framing and crop options and to do so quickly. So the "zoom with your feet" (God, I hate that phrase) is not always a good answer or even a remotely appropriate answer.

As far as the move in a few feet rather than move back suggestion, I think you are suggesting that I use the 16-50 not only for a full length shot, but also to walk up to within inches of her and take a tight head or detail shot? Really?? Seriously???

Brian,

First, calm down.

Now. What I was saying was that to depend on a third zoom to cover the FL between the 12-24 and 50-135 isn't any easier, IMO, than moving forward a bit with the 12-24. Of course, having one zoom that goes out to 50mm would be easiest of all, but the OP was originally asking if they should find something additional to cover the 24-50mm range.

(And you notice that I've been stating IMO throughout - do you know what that acronym stands for?)

Wow. You never know what will set people off around here!

.

morfic · 09-23-2008, 07:28 PM

Should i cancel my order of running shoes? If i cancel it, which faction will i piss off?? ;P

leeak · 09-23-2008, 09:11 PM

Hey Daniel, I have a few of the lens mentioned here n this post: DA12-24, S24-60/2.8, DA50-135 and FA35/2. I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty. With my DA12-24 and DA50-135, I usually bring the FA35/2 along because it smaller, lighter, and faster. With this three lenses kit you'll have a great range and picture quality and low-light capability in case you need it. But for a smaller kit, I like my S24-60/2.8 with my DA70/2.4. Hope this helps.

superfuzzy · 09-24-2008, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by leeak

I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty...

the Sigma 24-60mm is a sharp lens! Check out:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/807/1_IMGP1880.jpg

Center sharpness is excellent, but I still have to do some testing.

roentarre · 09-24-2008, 02:40 PM

Bridge it with a Tamron zoom as Marc mentioned for the time being. Sometimes filling the gap is more urgent on people's mind to start with.

morfic · 09-24-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by leeak

Hey Daniel, I have a few of the lens mentioned here n this post: DA12-24, S24-60/2.8, DA50-135 and FA35/2. I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty. With my DA12-24 and DA50-135, I usually bring the FA35/2 along because it smaller, lighter, and faster. With this three lenses kit you'll have a great range and picture quality and low-light capability in case you need it. But for a smaller kit, I like my S24-60/2.8 with my DA70/2.4. Hope this helps.

Just ordered the 12-24, so my kit will be 12-24, 28/2.8 (part of a trade, doubt i keep it unless i fall in love with it) and 50-135.

Which breaks down to:

12-24 *scape lens and for interesting angles (interesting is something i need to work on)
28/2.8 well i still wish it was a 35/2 for covering my low light needs and a nice focal length on crop, don't be surprised to see a sale for this one soon (cheap)
50-135 for tele and nice bokeh portrait shots.
Tamron 90/2.5 adaptall for 1:2 macro.

Pretty excited about this set, the 16-50 although great was neither wide nor long enough, and i may enjoy the gap for now, if i fill it later with a 17-70 i will find out, f/2.8 will not be a mark of a gap filler *if* i ever get one, it was not something that ended up important in the 16-50 range.

Thanks for the many 24-60 suggestions, i wasn't really looking for a gap filler right now, more of a "did this setup work for you?'

The 24-60 i always hoped would be like my 24-70 EX DG was (had it on 30D), i ran it against the CZ 35-70/3.4 and OM 35-70/3.6

and i ended up selling my CZ 35-70 afterwards, despite it's nice close up and great resolution.

Image Gallery

Guess which is which zoom

35, 50 and 70mm test in f/3.x, f/5.6 f/8 and f/11

Thanks for all the input,

Daniel

leeak · 09-24-2008, 07:52 PM

Actually now that I think about it, I say skip the FA35/2 and just go for the real thing: FA31/1.8. That'll complement well with the DA12-24 and DA50-135 .... = )

morfic · 09-24-2008, 07:56 PM

And if i had a spare 830, i would have kept the 16-50 as a rarely used bridge zoom and the Nokton traded for 50/1.4 for low light

Ok, $1500, since i want the 12-24 too.

suro · 09-25-2008, 02:48 AM

Pentax 16-50* /2.8

oliver · 09-25-2008, 03:48 AM

Well I'm very happy with my budget and compact set-up of sigma 10-20 (Landscapes, architecture, interiors etc) + FA 35/2 (general walk around, low light, bokeh, super sharp) and DA 50-200 + raynox 150 (head-shots, macro, close-ups).
I find that this covers everything I need with 3 lenses that are not too big or expensive. The exception would be a wedding when you need the flexibility of a mid-range zoom.
While I've often thought of adding a 18-55, 16-45 or 17-70 I really don't want to carry another lens.

Oliver

09-23-2008, 09:11 PM	#20
leeak Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 245	My vote goes to FA35/2 Hey Daniel, I have a few of the lens mentioned here n this post: DA12-24, S24-60/2.8, DA50-135 and FA35/2. I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty. With my DA12-24 and DA50-135, I usually bring the FA35/2 along because it smaller, lighter, and faster. With this three lenses kit you'll have a great range and picture quality and low-light capability in case you need it. But for a smaller kit, I like my S24-60/2.8 with my DA70/2.4. Hope this helps.

09-24-2008, 07:56 PM	#25
morfic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 428 Original Poster	And if i had a spare 830, i would have kept the 16-50 as a rarely used bridge zoom and the Nokton traded for 50/1.4 for low light Ok, $1500, since i want the 12-24 too. Last edited by morfic; 09-24-2008 at 08:12 PM. Reason: Realized it's $1500 ;P

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question for K-5 owners: LV zoom-in quality?	photogerald	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	23	10-30-2010 03:53 PM
Former DA* zoom owners	ryno	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-02-2008 11:20 AM
Old Sigma f/3.5 35-135 zoom?	zoltan1983snapper	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	07-17-2008 09:29 AM
Pentax SMC a 28 - 135 Zoom	David	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-18-2007 10:01 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS- Sigma 135-400 AF zoom	rfortson	Sold Items	3	03-15-2007 08:50 AM

09-23-2008, 06:29 PM	#16
augustmoon Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle Posts: 455	Originally posted by jsherman999 Hmm, except that I think it would be easier to move forward a couple feet than to change to a 3rd zoom that covers the mid 24 - 50 range. This is why 'zooming with the feet' also can apply to zooms - I use that concept whenever I'm out with my 12-24 and want to get a bit closer. Even with a tripod, I think changing lenses isn't any easier than just moving the tripod a little bit, IMO anyway. . WHAT? Don't even know where to begin here... You seriously think it's easier to move a tripod, recompose, refocus, adjust Ped, adjust Pan, and adjust Tilt, and take a shot than it is to zoom in. I think you failed to get the point here. What I was saying is that I would prefer to have a zoom that encompassed my need of focal range, rather than switch lenses. Now, a second reply telling me to "zoom with my feet" or move the tripod? No disrespect, but I think I know what I want!!! And you do realize, don't you that when you alter the subject to Focal Plane (FP) distance, that you also alter the relationship of the subject to background and alter the perspective? So if I'm going to use a zoom instead of a prime, and sacrifice all that I need to in order to use a zoom, then it's because I want the one and only benefit that a zoom affords, and that is to maintain the same FP to subject distance and have different framing and crop options and to do so quickly. So the "zoom with your feet" (God, I hate that phrase) is not always a good answer or even a remotely appropriate answer. As far as the move in a few feet rather than move back suggestion, I think you are suggesting that I use the 16-50 not only for a full length shot, but also to walk up to within inches of her and take a tight head or detail shot? Really?? Seriously???

09-23-2008, 07:03 PM	#17
AgentFixer Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 33	wow...i think the attempt at some humor went and backfired. The whole zoom with the feet thing is funny to me. We all know that shooting the same scene at, lets say, 17mm will come out completely different if you backed up and shot it at lets say, 135mm. Let's take what people say with a grain of salt shall we? Oh, and I'd probably go for the Sigma 24-60 and the gap filler....hey at $200 constant f/2.8, that's a deal.

09-23-2008, 07:05 PM	#18
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by augustmoon WHAT? Don't even know where to begin here... You seriously think it's easier to move a tripod, recompose, refocus, adjust Ped, adjust Pan, and adjust Tilt, and take a shot than it is to zoom in. I think you failed to get the point here. What I was saying is that I would prefer to have a zoom that encompassed my need of focal range, rather than switch lenses. Now, a second reply telling me to "zoom with my feet" or move the tripod? No disrespect, but I think I know what I want!!! And you do realize, don't you that when you alter the subject to Focal Plane (FP) distance, that you also alter the relationship of the subject to background and alter the perspective? So if I'm going to use a zoom instead of a prime, and sacrifice all that I need to in order to use a zoom, then it's because I want the one and only benefit that a zoom affords, and that is to maintain the same FP to subject distance and have different framing and crop options and to do so quickly. So the "zoom with your feet" (God, I hate that phrase) is not always a good answer or even a remotely appropriate answer. As far as the move in a few feet rather than move back suggestion, I think you are suggesting that I use the 16-50 not only for a full length shot, but also to walk up to within inches of her and take a tight head or detail shot? Really?? Seriously??? Brian, First, calm down. Now. What I was saying was that to depend on a third zoom to cover the FL between the 12-24 and 50-135 isn't any easier, IMO, than moving forward a bit with the 12-24. Of course, having one zoom that goes out to 50mm would be easiest of all, but the OP was originally asking if they should find something additional to cover the 24-50mm range. (And you notice that I've been stating IMO throughout - do you know what that acronym stands for?) Wow. You never know what will set people off around here! .

09-23-2008, 07:28 PM	#19
morfic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 428 Original Poster	Should i cancel my order of running shoes? If i cancel it, which faction will i piss off?? ;P

09-24-2008, 12:32 PM	#21
superfuzzy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NJ, USA (close to NYC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 278	Originally posted by leeak I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty... the Sigma 24-60mm is a sharp lens! Check out: https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/807/1_IMGP1880.jpg Center sharpness is excellent, but I still have to do some testing.

09-24-2008, 02:40 PM	#22
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Bridge it with a Tamron zoom as Marc mentioned for the time being. Sometimes filling the gap is more urgent on people's mind to start with.

09-24-2008, 06:26 PM	#23
morfic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 428 Original Poster	Originally posted by leeak Hey Daniel, I have a few of the lens mentioned here n this post: DA12-24, S24-60/2.8, DA50-135 and FA35/2. I like the S24-60/2.8 a lot. It's sharp, contrasty, and gives great brokeh, but it's also pretty weighty. With my DA12-24 and DA50-135, I usually bring the FA35/2 along because it smaller, lighter, and faster. With this three lenses kit you'll have a great range and picture quality and low-light capability in case you need it. But for a smaller kit, I like my S24-60/2.8 with my DA70/2.4. Hope this helps. Just ordered the 12-24, so my kit will be 12-24, 28/2.8 (part of a trade, doubt i keep it unless i fall in love with it) and 50-135. Which breaks down to: 12-24 scape lens and for interesting angles (interesting is something i need to work on) 28/2.8 well i still wish it was a 35/2 for covering my low light needs and a nice focal length on crop, don't be surprised to see a sale for this one soon (cheap) 50-135 for tele and nice bokeh portrait shots. Tamron 90/2.5 adaptall for 1:2 macro. Pretty excited about this set, the 16-50 although great was neither wide nor long enough, and i may enjoy the gap for now, if i fill it later with a 17-70 i will find out, f/2.8 will not be a mark of a gap filler if* i ever get one, it was not something that ended up important in the 16-50 range. Thanks for the many 24-60 suggestions, i wasn't really looking for a gap filler right now, more of a "did this setup work for you?' The 24-60 i always hoped would be like my 24-70 EX DG was (had it on 30D), i ran it against the CZ 35-70/3.4 and OM 35-70/3.6 and i ended up selling my CZ 35-70 afterwards, despite it's nice close up and great resolution. Image Gallery Guess which is which zoom 35, 50 and 70mm test in f/3.x, f/5.6 f/8 and f/11 Thanks for all the input, Daniel

09-24-2008, 07:52 PM	#24
leeak Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 245	Actually now that I think about it, I say skip the FA35/2 and just go for the real thing: FA31/1.8. That'll complement well with the DA12-24 and DA50-135 .... = )

09-25-2008, 02:48 AM	#26
suro Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ekaterinburg Posts: 344	Pentax 16-50* /2.8

09-25-2008, 03:48 AM	#27
oliver Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Tokyo Posts: 16	Well I'm very happy with my budget and compact set-up of sigma 10-20 (Landscapes, architecture, interiors etc) + FA 35/2 (general walk around, low light, bokeh, super sharp) and DA 50-200 + raynox 150 (head-shots, macro, close-ups). I find that this covers everything I need with 3 lenses that are not too big or expensive. The exception would be a wedding when you need the flexibility of a mid-range zoom. While I've often thought of adding a 18-55, 16-45 or 17-70 I really don't want to carry another lens. Oliver