Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2019, 06:31 AM   #76
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

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
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,422
QuoteOriginally posted by Hythloday Quote
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
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,616
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
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
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,061
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
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 donít 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 donít wait for me.

12-23-2019, 08:08 AM   #80
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Apet-Sure Quote
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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Goldsboro North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,376
QuoteOriginally posted by BillO Quote
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.
12-23-2019, 11:54 PM   #82
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Apet-Sure Quote
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.
12-24-2019, 03:49 AM   #83
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,063
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
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
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,137
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,207
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
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
Pentaxian
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Posts: 13,271
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, glass, k-mount, lens, mirror, pentax lens, quality, responses, slr lens, weight, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top