Big glass. Why complain about weight?

Wasp · 12-23-2019, 06:31 AM

When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples.

A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that.

A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8.

A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster.

Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime.

**reh321** · 12-23-2019, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Hythloday

For every picture a photographer has to think about perspective. A zoom lens offers the possibility to zoom out or in so that you get what you wnat in a picture. A prime doesn't offer you that possibility and you get more or less than you want in your picture.

I only take one camera and one lens with me when I go out. Suppose a photographer just uses a 21mm lens on APC. His/Her pictures will be entirely different than when a photographer only uses a 70mm lens on APC. With a zoom you can use both focal lengths. With just one prime you will have to stimulate your creativity to make nice pictures.

Just give it a try and you will see what I mean. It became clear to me when I went on a holiday last year. The weather forecast was very bad and I left my K-3 and DA16-85mm at home. I just took my K-S2 and DA 35mm.

I did use prime lenses - from my photographic beginnings in the 1950's until I got my first standard zoom lens in 1995. Until 1995, I found myself thinking so much about how to get the framing I wanted that I did very little thinking about perspective. Only beginning in 1995, did I do productive thinking about perspective.

**aslyfox** · 12-23-2019, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by reh321

but relates to prime lens leading to better thinking than zoom lens does??

added: I was responding to member Hythloday's comment about thinking in using prime lens. I was saying that zoom lens leads to more productive thinking - of course, I would hope that all photography is done safely.

I know

and agree

I just couldn't help myself

Lowell Goudge · 12-23-2019, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Wasp

When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples.

A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that.

A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8.

A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster.

Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime.

Ok, here is the point.

I use zooms when I travel with family because I don’t always have the time to fool around with changing lenses etc. I put my 10-20 on one body and my 28-75 on the other. The 70-200/2.8 plus teleconverter is for travel if birding or wild life is involved otherwise it stays home.

When I want to just take photos I take just primes one body and a shoulder bag.

There is a place for both, when travelling with family I have to fit my hobby into the trip, they don’t wait for me.

**blackcloudbrew** · 12-23-2019, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Apet-Sure

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I didn't mean to offend. I meant it as a light-hearted jab.

Ha! I was trying to be light-hearted too. No offense taken.

**Apet-Sure** · 12-23-2019, 10:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BillO

carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder.

I'll take that 300/2.8 off your hands if you want to gift it to me for Christmas to lighten your load.

BillO · 12-23-2019, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by luftfluss

Anyway, I think the OP is conflating commenting on weight with complaining about it.

There is no way I can comment on all the responses - and i truly appreciate them all.

However, let me elucidate. I'm not conflating commenting on weight with complaining about weight. The instances I take objection to are the reviews that list weight as a con (contrary quality). In other words, weight is one reason this lens should be de-rated, like there are so many similarly specified lenses that are way lighter.

Imagine buying a mirror then saying that the fact it's shiny is a negative. A mirror must be shiny and you buy it because you need it to reflect and it has to be shiny to do that. A 300/2.8 must be heavy. You buy one because you need it's optical qualities and holding it's weight against it by listing weight as a contrary quality is a bit inane as it can't be any thing else but heavy.

Weight is not a drawback to any given 300/2.8, it's a fact of their existence. It's fine to mention in your discussion of such a lens that you find it heavy, but to suggest there is something wrong with it (list it's weight as a "con") because it's heavy is - more than a bit whiny, it's silly,

Maybe for some I'm not getting my point across

In any case, I'm over whelmed with all the responses here.

---------- Post added 12-24-19 at 01:58 AM ----------

Originally posted by Apet-Sure

I'll take that 300/2.8 off your hands if you want to gift it to me for Christmas to lighten your load.

Not yet ...

**Rondec** · 12-24-2019, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Wasp

When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples.

A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that.

A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8.

A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster.

Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime.

Pentax has to two types of primes -- the limiteds with small size and slow-ish apertures ranging from f1.8 to f4 and the * primes where size is allowed to be as big as is needed for maximum image quality. I guess finally there are the consumer primes like the DA 35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8 and FA 50.

People focus a lot on the aperture difference between primes and zooms, but to me the difference between Pentax primes and zooms has more to do with levels of distortion (primes have less), edge sharpness, contrast/micro contrast, and flare resistance. I shoot a lot of landscapes and two lenses I use quite a bit are the DFA 24-70 and the FA 31. I am seldom shooting at f2.8 and so that difference isn't really important, but the FA 31 still has better colors, contrast, distortion control and flare resistance compared to the DFA lens. The only problem is that it doesn't shoot wider or longer than 31mm. But that still can be a good thing as it makes me think a bit more about composition and things like that.

**boriscleto** · 12-24-2019, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I had to check and sure enough, just 3.04kg. Strangely, though, shipping weight is is 9.8kg. It must require a wood crate.

Steve

Large box. Shipping weight is size based...unless it comes in a metal case like the Pentax...

stevebrot · 12-24-2019, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Large box. Shipping weight is size based...unless it comes in a metal case like the Pentax...

It comes with a lockable hard case. The Pentax DA 560/5.6 (also 3.04kg) comes with a padded fabric bag at about half the shipping weight. The cases probably account for the difference. Both lenses are pretty amazing, IMHO, in that both are designed to be hand-holdable.

FWIW, if Santa drops a DA 560/5.6 down my chimney (gas fireplace...that would be a trick), I would be quite happy with the semi-rigid fabric bag...no problem.

Steve

bertwert · 12-24-2019, 03:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

FWIW, if Santa drops a DA 560/5.6 down my chimney (gas fireplace...that would be a trick), I would be quite happy with the semi-rigid fabric bag...no problem.

Except it may be more protected in a metal foam padded case when dropped down such a distance...

12-23-2019, 11:54 PM	#82
BillO Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 89 Original Poster	Originally posted by luftfluss Anyway, I think the OP is conflating commenting on weight with complaining about it. There is no way I can comment on all the responses - and i truly appreciate them all. However, let me elucidate. I'm not conflating commenting on weight with complaining about weight. The instances I take objection to are the reviews that list weight as a con (contrary quality). In other words, weight is one reason this lens should be de-rated, like there are so many similarly specified lenses that are way lighter. Imagine buying a mirror then saying that the fact it's shiny is a negative. A mirror must be shiny and you buy it because you need it to reflect and it has to be shiny to do that. A 300/2.8 must be heavy. You buy one because you need it's optical qualities and holding it's weight against it by listing weight as a contrary quality is a bit inane as it can't be any thing else but heavy. Weight is not a drawback to any given 300/2.8, it's a fact of their existence. It's fine to mention in your discussion of such a lens that you find it heavy, but to suggest there is something wrong with it (list it's weight as a "con") because it's heavy is - more than a bit whiny, it's silly, Maybe for some I'm not getting my point across In any case, I'm over whelmed with all the responses here. ---------- Post added 12-24-19 at 01:58 AM ---------- Originally posted by Apet-Sure I'll take that 300/2.8 off your hands if you want to gift it to me for Christmas to lighten your load. Not yet ... Last edited by BillO; 12-24-2019 at 12:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WG-3 GPS - Help with using GPS function (or maybe I just need to complain...)	ShawnKann	Pentax Compact Cameras	3	01-08-2014 05:07 PM
Who wants to lose some weight (a weight loss challenge!)	jct us101	General Talk	290	05-03-2013 11:49 AM
Why people complain about Pentax AF and Flash	GreenMachine	Pentax DSLR Discussion	51	09-26-2012 10:01 PM
Complain about your camera here	pingflood	Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc.	26	03-23-2010 05:58 PM

12-23-2019, 06:31 AM	#76
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,850	When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples. A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that. A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8. A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster. Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime.

12-23-2019, 06:32 AM	#77
reh321 retired sw engineer Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 16,422	Originally posted by Hythloday For every picture a photographer has to think about perspective. A zoom lens offers the possibility to zoom out or in so that you get what you wnat in a picture. A prime doesn't offer you that possibility and you get more or less than you want in your picture. I only take one camera and one lens with me when I go out. Suppose a photographer just uses a 21mm lens on APC. His/Her pictures will be entirely different than when a photographer only uses a 70mm lens on APC. With a zoom you can use both focal lengths. With just one prime you will have to stimulate your creativity to make nice pictures. Just give it a try and you will see what I mean. It became clear to me when I went on a holiday last year. The weather forecast was very bad and I left my K-3 and DA16-85mm at home. I just took my K-S2 and DA 35mm. I did use prime lenses - from my photographic beginnings in the 1950's until I got my first standard zoom lens in 1995. Until 1995, I found myself thinking so much about how to get the framing I wanted that I did very little thinking about perspective. Only beginning in 1995, did I do productive thinking about perspective.

12-23-2019, 06:38 AM	#78
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,616	Originally posted by reh321 but relates to prime lens leading to better thinking than zoom lens does?? added: I was responding to member Hythloday's comment about thinking in using prime lens. I was saying that zoom lens leads to more productive thinking - of course, I would hope that all photography is done safely. I know and agree I just couldn't help myself

12-23-2019, 07:25 AM	#79
Lowell Goudge Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 16,061	Originally posted by Wasp When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples. A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that. A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8. A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster. Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime. Ok, here is the point. I use zooms when I travel with family because I don’t always have the time to fool around with changing lenses etc. I put my 10-20 on one body and my 28-75 on the other. The 70-200/2.8 plus teleconverter is for travel if birding or wild life is involved otherwise it stays home. When I want to just take photos I take just primes one body and a shoulder bag. There is a place for both, when travelling with family I have to fit my hobby into the trip, they don’t wait for me.

12-23-2019, 08:08 AM	#80
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,211	Originally posted by Apet-Sure I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I didn't mean to offend. I meant it as a light-hearted jab. Ha! I was trying to be light-hearted too. No offense taken.

12-23-2019, 10:49 AM - 1 Like	#81
Apet-Sure Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Goldsboro North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,376	Originally posted by BillO carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder. I'll take that 300/2.8 off your hands if you want to gift it to me for Christmas to lighten your load.

12-24-2019, 03:49 AM	#83
Rondec Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 22,063	Originally posted by Wasp When it comes to fast zoom lenses there is a great big elephant sitting in the corner of the room. Let me explain by way of a few examples. A 70-200/2.8 is a wondrously versatile thing, but not so much when you compare it to primes. While a 200/2.8 prime is state of the art, a 70/2.8 prime would not sell unless it is really tiny (assuming that there is a market for such a thing). A bokeh monster for portraits it is not. You really need an 85/1.4 for that. A 24-70/2.8 is considered marvelous. A 24/2.8 prime would be entry level. At the other end you have the underwhelming 70/2.8. A 50-135/2.8 is described as fast. A 50/2.8 prime would only be a nifty fifty if it can do 1:2 macro (or better). A 135/2.8 prime is, once again, entry level kit. Once again, not a bokeh monster. Yes, the zooms can do very well. But the last word always belongs to the prime. Pentax has to two types of primes -- the limiteds with small size and slow-ish apertures ranging from f1.8 to f4 and the * primes where size is allowed to be as big as is needed for maximum image quality. I guess finally there are the consumer primes like the DA 35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8 and FA 50. People focus a lot on the aperture difference between primes and zooms, but to me the difference between Pentax primes and zooms has more to do with levels of distortion (primes have less), edge sharpness, contrast/micro contrast, and flare resistance. I shoot a lot of landscapes and two lenses I use quite a bit are the DFA 24-70 and the FA 31. I am seldom shooting at f2.8 and so that difference isn't really important, but the FA 31 still has better colors, contrast, distortion control and flare resistance compared to the DFA lens. The only problem is that it doesn't shoot wider or longer than 31mm. But that still can be a good thing as it makes me think a bit more about composition and things like that.

12-24-2019, 01:22 PM	#84
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 15,137	Originally posted by stevebrot I had to check and sure enough, just 3.04kg. Strangely, though, shipping weight is is 9.8kg. It must require a wood crate. Steve Large box. Shipping weight is size based...unless it comes in a metal case like the Pentax...

12-24-2019, 03:10 PM	#85
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 36,207	Originally posted by boriscleto Large box. Shipping weight is size based...unless it comes in a metal case like the Pentax... It comes with a lockable hard case. The Pentax DA 560/5.6 (also 3.04kg) comes with a padded fabric bag at about half the shipping weight. The cases probably account for the difference. Both lenses are pretty amazing, IMHO, in that both are designed to be hand-holdable. FWIW, if Santa drops a DA 560/5.6 down my chimney (gas fireplace...that would be a trick), I would be quite happy with the semi-rigid fabric bag...no problem. Steve

12-24-2019, 03:22 PM - 1 Like	#86
bertwert Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 13,271	Originally posted by stevebrot FWIW, if Santa drops a DA 560/5.6 down my chimney (gas fireplace...that would be a trick), I would be quite happy with the semi-rigid fabric bag...no problem. Except it may be more protected in a metal foam padded case when dropped down such a distance...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search