[mikesbike]

I would say the Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 would provide enhanced FL range, along with very high-quality imaging, to what you already have. Very fine edge-to-edge performance. Other than that, a very good macro lens would allow exploration of the mini-world, and bring out the beauty of nature that is close at hand. My favorite is the Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 WR. In many cases, drippy conditions produce some enhancement possibilities for closeup work, so the WR aspect is unique and important.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 10-07-2018 at 05:58 PM.

[jawats]

I would say the Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 would provide enhanced FL range, along with very high-quality imaging, to what you already have. Very fine edge-to-edge performance. Other than that, a very good macro lens would allow exploration of the mini-world, and bring out the beauty of nature that is close at hand. My favorite is the Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 WR. In many cases, drippy conditions produce some enhancement possibilities for closeup work, so the WR aspect is unique and important.

I've been happy with the Tamron 60-300 in terms of its macro performance. For instance, this is a cropped picture taken with the 60-300 in macro mode:

Wild Animals - Jonathan Watson

Perfect? Not really. But I like it. So, I suspect a 12-24 or the 15mm would be a good investment.

[SSGGeezer]

The Rokinon, Bower 8mm F3.5 is fun also!

[kernos]

You never actually stated what you were shooting. You look like you have a nice range for general photography but there are two lenses that could open up some different ideas. Macros are not just for 1to1 microscopy but also do a really nice job of getting closer and filling a frame with subjects like flowers and fruit and the like. They are not cheap but manual focus 90mm's come up at good prices from time to time. Then there is the possible of a portrait lens between 77 and 135mm. The Russian 135mm lenses like the Jupiter 37A can be had for not much money and produce lovely bokeh even at f3.5.

[Adam]

I have a Pentax K-3. Here is my current, and I think stable, complement of lenses.

1. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE

2. Tamron AF 79D 28-105mm F4-5.6

3. Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8

4. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4

5. Tamron Adaptall 2x teleconverter 01F

With the teleconverter, this really gives me decent lens / decent coverage out to 600mm. I'm not even sure what else I would / could add, given that I don't do any sort of photography that might require more. Thoughts about additions / subtractions?

I've also considered branching into film 645 or 6x7, as those seem interesting...

I see two potential upgrade paths: premium lenses, or better zooms. The 18-50 and 28-105mm could be consolidated into the DA 16-85mm, for example, with WR being a bonus on top of the increase in image quality.

If you crave faster AF, the 55-300mm PLM could also be worth going for.

And of course, it's hard to go wrong with Limited primes such as the 15, 31, or 77mm IMO.

[jawats]

I see two potential upgrade paths: premium lenses, or better zooms. The 18-50 and 28-105mm could be consolidated into the DA 16-85mm, for example, with WR being a bonus on top of the increase in image quality.

If you crave faster AF, the 55-300mm PLM could also be worth going for.

And of course, it's hard to go wrong with Limited primes such as the 15, 31, or 77mm IMO.

Since I enjoy my moon photography, I'm increasingly learning towards the 55-300...perhaps also getting the teleconverter. I love landscape and wide-angle too, but unless I truck up to Lake Michigan, landscape here tends to be grass, corn, and / or snow.

[jddwoods]

I see two potential upgrade paths: premium lenses, or better zooms. The 18-50 and 28-105mm could be consolidated into the DA 16-85mm, for example, with WR being a bonus on top of the increase in image quality.

If you crave faster AF, the 55-300mm PLM could also be worth going for.

And of course, it's hard to go wrong with Limited primes such as the 15, 31, or 77mm IMO.

I agree! The 16-85 and 55-300 PLM are game changers for me. My preference was always primes and I still use my DA 21 & 40 Limiteds and my DA*300 but I find myself using the two zooms and the DA 15 limited far more often. These three are my do everything kit. With all of the lenses I have with my K-3 the 16-85 alone gets used about 75% of the time versus 25% for everything else. I had the SMC version of the 55-300 which I sold and replaced with the HD version which I still have but rarely use since I bought the PLM version when it first came out. The better build quality and light years better autofocus make it definitely worth it.

[UncleVanya]

For the moon the slow 400-500mm manual focus primes might be better.

[jawats]

For the moon the slow 400-500mm manual focus primes might be better.

So, you'd say that my 60-300 (Adaptall) with a 2x teleconverter wouldn't be quite as sharp as a 400-500mm manual prime? Do you use any?

I see a few of these are decently well rated - although sometimes only by 1-2 reviewers:

SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6

SMC Pentax 400mm F5.6

SMC Pentax 500mm F4.5

Tele-Takumar/Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1000mm F8

Tamron preset, T-mount ( Nestar ) 400mm f6.9.

Tamron 880 ( Soligor ) preset t-mount 450mm f8

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 500mm f/8 Mirror

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 400mm f/4 LD IF (65B)

Samyang ( Opteka, pro-Optics etc) 500mm F6.3 DX

Tokina ( soligor vivitar etc) RMC tele auto 400mm f6.3

Tokina 400mm f5.6 ATX AF

Tokina SD 400mm f/5.6

Tokyo Koki tele-Tokina, ( Minetar, Mamiya, Prinz- Hanimex et al ) 400mm f6.3 preset

Tokina ( Hoya ) RMC / SL400 400mm F5.6

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 300mm f/4 (shorter, but might have good resolution....?)

Soligor 400mm f5.6

Osawa / Mitakon 400mm F5.6 MC

Soligor 400mm F6.3

Obviously, mirror lenses and Adaptalls are their own unique thing. Have any experience or wisdom regarding these lenses?

[BigMackCam]

So, you'd say that my 60-300 (Adaptall) with a 2x teleconverter wouldn't be quite as sharp as a 400-500mm manual prime? Do you use any?

I'm going out on a limb here, somewhat... but let's try it.

If....

- moon shots are your thing
- you're using an APS-C format camera
- you shoot from a tripod
- you use magnified Live View for focusing
- your budget is modest
- and you can find a good copy...

... then a well-adjusted and maintained Soviet-made M42-mount "ЗМ-5СА" 500mm f/8 catadioptric lens is hard to beat. There are some "dogs" out there; you need to find one that is verifiably "good", serviced so it has a smooth focusing helicoid, and without distortion of the rear mirror (caused by over-tightening of a retaining ring). A good one is anecdotally sharper than most other mirror lenses, and well up to the task of moon photography. It takes a little practice and patience, but it's worth it.

It took me three attempts before I found a really good copy, in mint condition with no mirror distortion. It needed the focusing helicoid cleaning and re-lubricating, but it's actually quite an easy job. I couldn't be happier with it now... it's an awesome lens

[UncleVanya]

So, you'd say that my 60-300 (Adaptall) with a 2x teleconverter wouldn't be quite as sharp as a 400-500mm manual prime? Do you use any?

None right now - but I have used some of these:

SMC Pentax 500mm F4.5
Tele-Takumar/Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1000mm F8
Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 500mm f/8 Mirror
Obviously, mirror lenses and Adaptalls are their own unique thing. Have any experience or wisdom regarding these lenses?

I have used all of the above. The 500 4.5 is hard to focus on moving objects but does a nice job on the moon - it is a bit soft compared to modern lenses. The 1000 f/8 is a massive and expensive lens it requires a massive tripod and technique and honestly it has been so so so long I can't recall how well it did. The Tamron 500 may not have been that one - I think it was. It has good performance but with odd spherical donut highlights.

I've also used the FA 300 f/4.5 with the F 1.7x AF/TC as well as the FA 300 f/4.5 with the HD 1.4 TC, I have even used them stacked. With TC's 2x is almost always a bridge too far but additionally the highest quality image should be what you start with.

[jawats]

I'm going out on a limb here, somewhat... but let's try it.

If....

- moon shots are your thing
- you're using an APS-C format camera
- you shoot from a tripod
- you use magnified Live View for focusing
- your budget is modest
- and you can find a good copy...

... then a well-adjusted and maintained Soviet-made M42-mount "ЗМ-5СА" 500mm f/8 catadioptric lens is hard to beat. There are some "dogs" out there; you need to find one that is verifiably "good", serviced so it has a smooth focusing helicoid, and without distortion of the rear mirror (caused by over-tightening of a retaining ring). A good one is anecdotally sharper than most other mirror lenses, and well up to the task of moon photography. It takes a little practice and patience, but it's worth it.

It took me three attempts before I found a really good copy, in mint condition with no mirror distortion. It needed the focusing helicoid cleaning and re-lubricating, but it's actually quite an easy job. I couldn't be happier with it now... it's an awesome lens

They are few and far between on that well-known auction site.However, I will keep a look out.

---------- Post added 10-08-18 at 05:10 PM ----------

None right now - but I have used some of these:



I have used all of the above. The 500 4.5 is hard to focus on moving objects but does a nice job on the moon - it is a bit soft compared to modern lenses. The 1000 f/8 is a massive and expensive lens it requires a massive tripod and technique and honestly it has been so so so long I can't recall how well it did. The Tamron 500 may not have been that one - I think it was. It has good performance but with odd spherical donut highlights.

I've also used the FA 300 f/4.5 with the F 1.7x AF/TC as well as the FA 300 f/4.5 with the HD 1.4 TC, I have even used them stacked. With TC's 2x is almost always a bridge too far but additionally the highest quality image should be what you start with.

I assume the reason for going prime (as opposed to my Adaptall 60-300) is that prime gives you better quality at the distance than with the extremes on a zoom, assuming all else is the same?

[UncleVanya]

I assume the reason for going prime (as opposed to my Adaptall 60-300) is that prime gives you better quality at the distance than with the extremes on a zoom, assuming all else is the same?

Typically the primes are faster. The complexity of a teleconverter plus zoom vs prime is also a factor. A really high end zoom could outperform the older primes with a similarly high end teleconverter.

[boriscleto]

Why not the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 300mm F2.8 LD IF? About half the cost of the SP 400 F4 and you already have the 01F...600mm F5.6...

[Adam]

Since I enjoy my moon photography, I'm increasingly learning towards the 55-300...perhaps also getting the teleconverter. I love landscape and wide-angle too, but unless I truck up to Lake Michigan, landscape here tends to be grass, corn, and / or snow.

For that purpose alone, a sharp prime might be better. Generally speaking, primes and premium zooms outperform consumer zoom in this area- even older, manual focus primes. Here's an example of how the DA* 60-250mm edges out the old 55-300mm at the long end, despite being a shorter lens:

HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Review - Sharpness vs DA* 60-250 | PentaxForums.com Reviews


The A 400mm F5.6 would be a solid option if you don't want to spend too much, but still want a good amount of sharpness. The DA* 300mm is also a stellar performer in that regard, as are the Tamron primes mentioned above.