Originally posted by ChristianRock At some point, I think I'll have to try both the HD 18-50 and the 21 - preferrably the HD version.
Like you I could not get rid of my 18-55 fast enough. I wouldn't consider the SMC 18-50 either - too similar to the 18-55 in sharpness and rendering.
I'm not in a hurry, in the meantime I'll make myself carry the DA*16-50 in all its weighty glory. I know that lens is also one that some people like and some people much prefer the Sigma and Tamron alternatives. I personally think that if you just look at images as a whole, it's clearly capable of more pleasing colors and rendering - for my own personal taste - than any alternative - including the 21 and 18-50, and also the 16-85, 18-135... those of course are for people who want or need the extra range. I'll just carry my little DA 70 with me or perhaps the SMC-M 100 2.8 or Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8 (great lens, or perhaps I have a very good copy).
But at some point this year, I think I'll be getting the HD 18-50 and then at a later time the HD 21. I think I'll skip the SMC 21, as attractive as it is for the low prices that I keep seeing, sometimes well under 200 dollars... there's a reason why there's always so many being sold, and why it's being sold for such low prices...
The SMC 21 is a magnificent lens. I have no idea why people sell them. Crazy.
If you can pick one up for 200, go for it! Basically the same great optics, and better starbursts than HD! And if you put one on, and lose the battery pack, you look like an old guy with a film camera, so no hassles.
Cheers,
Cameron
---------- Post added 02-28-2021 at 02:53 PM ----------
Originally posted by ChristianRock @cambro @Jonathan Mac @pepperberry farm
Thanks for this latest input...
I think I'm starting to see where the DA 21 excels.
If you have something in the foreground - a building, a person/group of people, or just details like in that wonderful table shot that Cameron took - it brings out the colors, the details, the depth, the sharpness. I was going through that DA 21 club thread again and even @northcoastgreg's beautiful scenes with the HD, usually have something of interest at the front of the image. No wonder it's described as the perfect travel lens - when you're traveling, you're always taking a picture of something, not just some scenery far away.
And that is where I probably failed to 'get' the 21 - I was mostly interested in scenery and the details that are far away. That is where the lens does not excel, IMHO. It's a bit like the Pentax 24mm f/2.8 designs that I have had, in that way. They were great at close and medium distances, so-so at longer distances and infinity.
I already have a lens that - IMHO - is very good at infinity and far away scenes, which is the DA*16-50. So the 21 might be a good companion to that.
To y'all's point, I guess I really owe it to myself to get a 21 and really stick with it for a while. Especially when traveling.
Yup. It is a truly GREAT but highly underappreciated lens. Don't forget it is SOMEWHAT wide, like a 30, so it takes a bit of getting used to. Here's two vastly different images, that shows it's strengths, which are many:
Wide angle for landscapes:
When you see this one full size, and the original format on a really good 4K Mac monitor, it is almost 3d!
Closeups for macro (focuses to just under 6"):
Contrast, sharpness, saturation off the charts. It DEFINITELY has the Limited 'magic'. But it takes some work, you have to know wide angle, to really get this thing. I've had some great lenses in my day, but this is possibly the greatest.
Don't miss my massive old FA*28-70 or my FA* 24 F2 one little bit.
Zoom with your feet! F5.6 to 8 and you don't even have to focus!
Cheers,
Cameron
Last edited by Cambo; 02-28-2021 at 03:54 PM.