Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2009, 01:08 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Pretty much any zoom.
I'll interpret "pretty much any" as "almost every, while taking photos of my socks."

Here's 55-300 at work (no cropping needed):

EDIT: At 230mm. I just checked the EXIF of the original.

Attached Images
 

Last edited by asdf; 01-08-2009 at 12:21 AM.
01-07-2009, 01:32 AM   #17
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
I used to be that way about super zooms as I am a prime user, but the ever popular smc-A 70~210mm completely changed my view. it is an excellent lens even wide open, easily hand held and despite the fact that I predominantly use primes some of my best shots have come from this lens. I could never sell it, and it makes so much sense to own this lens. I also acquired the smc-A 28-135, and although IQ wise I think its better I dont use it much. having said that though I dont hink I could ever sell it. the A series was A OK, even if I do use mostly Takumar.

I really dont think there is a lens that I dont get. I can understand how in Pentax land the F series may seem a bit useless considering the FA series was an improvement but as FA's especially the 50's get all bought up the F's start to look more appealing and become useful.
01-07-2009, 01:47 AM   #18
Veteran Member
troyz's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 389
1980's Bayonet Takumars.

(Not to say these are necessarily bad lenses. . . I just don't understand why Pentax ever produced them. . .)
01-07-2009, 01:50 AM   #19
Syb
Veteran Member
Syb's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Utrecht, Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,224
The DA*50-135.
I already didn't get it when it was brought to the market. What a huge lens!
Now I read everywhere that it is a good/great lens, but I still think it is very large for the focal length it covers.

Nothing against huge lenses, though.

There is a lens I would *love to* get as well. A DA*300/2.0 or 2.8. Guess that one would be pretty large as well.

So you know it is not only about size...

01-07-2009, 01:52 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
I used to be that way about super zooms as I am a prime user, but the ever popular smc-A 70~210mm completely changed my view. it is an excellent lens even wide open, easily hand held and despite the fact that I predominantly use primes some of my best shots have come from this lens.
It's about using the right tool for the right job. If you're taking shots of your sleepy cat or your kids who you can tell to pose--like the prime snobs on this board --then you definitely don't need a zoom. Even with a lot of wildlife photography, the biggest focal length would probably be best. However, if you haven't the slightest idea how far the subject you intend to snipe is going to appear, then a zoom will help. Most of the prime shots on this board are of static objects, it seems. But what do I know...

Last edited by asdf; 01-07-2009 at 02:50 AM.
01-07-2009, 02:14 AM   #21
Igilligan
Guest




FA 50 1.4... I know, pure sacrilege

QuoteOriginally posted by dazman Quote
The FA 50. I know I have one and after months of using it I find the DA*'s @50mm can produce images just as sharp and with better colours. I find I have to force myself to use it, so I'll be selling mine & trying the FA43 as my fast prime...better length for me too.
I am with the Dazman here. I mean I do get why it is recommended to almost everyone when the get their first pentax dslr, partly because it is the cheapest I guess. And it really does spank the kit lens in IQ, and teach you why you want faster glass.

But... the PF is really a bit much, even when stopped down it rears its ugly head too often in high contrast areas. And more importantly, the AF in low-light becomes almost useless, so a MF 50 1.4 is more often than not my choice in the low light conditions where I want that wide open aperture.


So I guess I do kind of understand why so many sing its praises when anyone asks "what lens should I get", but I got a nickel that says most with any DA* or other constant ap zooms, or any other primes in that range, rarely use their FA 50's. Mine seldom goes on the camera. In fact the Helios 44m kit lens will almost always win the battle, with the SMC tak 50 1.4 taking it's place in real low light.

Plus, in reality, 50 is a funky length on these cropped sensors... and with all that, we still keep tellin' almost every one to get it. That is part I don't quite get.


P.S. I can't wait to hear the couple you are thinking of Jay

Last edited by Igilligan; 01-07-2009 at 03:31 AM.
01-07-2009, 02:14 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by troyz Quote
1980's Bayonet Takumars.

(Not to say these are necessarily bad lenses. . . I just don't understand why Pentax ever produced them. . .)
Here I can chime in. Why buy lenses with inferior coating, when one can have the smc versions?

But I have a long list of lenses, I won't buy - or won't use, even if I had bought one:

- FA 77mm Limited - as I have the FA 85/1.4 (otherwise I would have been tempted)
- any 50mm lens slower than 1.4
- the smc-A 28-135/4 - nicely made, but I never liked it, sold it on after 10 years of not using it
- FA 20-35/4 - the same as the 28-135 for me, never liked it and sold it a couple of months ago
- the old 135-600mm Pentax zoom, too much of a monster lens. At least I would need an assistant to go with it...

I am more relaxed about super-zooms now. I bought a Tamron 18-200, because the price was good and I wanted something for the occasional stroll without much equipment - and I wanted a lens, I can give to my partner for travelling, after I bought her a K-m for Christmas. I used it once yet, and it is not really good - but not quite as bad, as I expected...

Ben
01-07-2009, 02:45 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
"Anyone have any examples of lenses that they just don't get?"

Yes.

Speaking ONLY for myself the hyper expensive uber lens' such as Zeiss etc.

For me the final image is everything. My images may leave a lot to be desired but the limitation is me not my hardware. Using a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZK Distagon would not result in ME taking any better pictures than what I can now get with my FA 35.

Any difference that makes no difference is no difference.


Last edited by wildman; 01-07-2009 at 03:37 AM.
01-07-2009, 02:59 AM   #24
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by troyz Quote
1980's Bayonet Takumars.

(Not to say these are necessarily bad lenses. . . I just don't understand why Pentax ever produced them. . .)
I understand why Pentax put them out, some people just couldn't justify the price of the SMC lenses. however what I cannot understand is why they chose to put such a revered name on the el-cheapo lens line... this bothers me every time I see a Takumar Bayonet.
01-07-2009, 03:43 AM   #25
Veteran Member
dazman's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,950
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
I am with the Dazman here. I mean I do get why it is recommended to almost everyone when the get their first pentax dslr, partly because it is the cheapest I guess. And it really does spank the kit lens in IQ, and teach you why you want faster glass.

But... the PF is really a bit much, even when stopped down it rears its ugly head too often in high contrast areas. And more importantly, the AF in low-light becomes almost useless, so a MF 50 1.4 is more often than not my choice in the low light conditions where I want that wide open aperture.


So I guess I do kind of understand why so many sing its praises when anyone asks "what lens should I get", but I got a nickel that says most with any DA* or other constant ap zooms, or any other primes in that range, rarely use their FA 50's.

Plus, in reality, 50 is a funky length on these cropped sensors... and with all that, we still keep tellin' almost every one to get it. That is part I don't quite get.


P.S. I can't wait to hear the couple you are thinking of Jay
That's a better explanation of my feelings towards the FA50. Thanks for saying what I was too lazy to type.

Looking forward to Jay's comments, as well.

Last edited by dazman; 01-07-2009 at 03:48 AM.
01-07-2009, 03:58 AM   #26
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
Plus, in reality, 50 is a funky length on these cropped sensors... and with all that, we still keep tellin' almost every one to get it. That is part I don't quite get.
that's going on the assumption that those who are being recommended the lens have used a 50mm on film. if they have never experienced the 50mm on film they do not know the difference. personally I still think its an excellent option because it can still be used greatly as a portrait lens and more importantly it can teach you the basics of photography in a way that the typical zoom cannot. specifically non-constant aperture zooms. the difference between say the 18-55mm and a 50mm in terms of opening up the world of photography is huge. and since AF is normal and most people just getting into photography are going to assume everything is AF or simply want nothing but AF, the FA 50mm is the best choice. plus if they decide to delve into film, the way I did after starting with digital what better K mount lens to have in your arsenal? it will work on any and all K mount cameras.
01-07-2009, 04:30 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
Personally, I just don't get the 135mm focal length. I mean, intellectually, yea, but using one, I've never become comfortable. I suppose that's why I have 3 of them now, to try to learn.
01-07-2009, 04:58 AM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
I don't get the FA31. I see the images that others post, but I don't see much of a difference over the FA35 that is 1/3 the cost and half the size.

I care about results, not prestige - and I think the FA31 is more of the second than the first.

My (c) (c)'s.

c[_]
01-07-2009, 05:00 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
I used to be that way about super zooms as I am a prime user, but the ever popular smc-A 70~210mm completely changed my view. it is an excellent lens even wide open, easily hand held and despite the fact that I predominantly use primes some of my best shots have come from this lens. I could never sell it, and it makes so much sense to own this lens. I also acquired the smc-A 28-135, and although IQ wise I think its better I dont use it much. having said that though I dont hink I could ever sell it. the A series was A OK, even if I do use mostly Takumar.
* snip*
But Seamuis, I would hardly consider the A 70-210 a "super zoom". I own the lens and love it, but I don't think a 3x zoom would qualify as "super" in anybody's book.

NaCl(for me "super zoom" has to be 6X or more)H2O
01-07-2009, 05:11 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
I don't think there is a lens I don't "get" in the sense that I understand why it was made, I originally thought the FA 20-35 was a "dumb" lens till I tried a friend's. Then I immediately went out and got my own, probably the best "garden" lens I own. There are a lot of lenses I won't own, I'm not a fan of super zooms, but I "get" them, they are made for people who, for one reason or another don't want to change lenses. I think that the FA31 is way overpriced even tho I own it's two "brothers" the FA43 and the FA77, but I understand why it is made. I understand that many lust after the FA* 85 1.4 but I have no need for it nor do I want it, but it is still considered by many to be the "perfect" portrait lens. I don't have a screwmount adapter, but I do understand why people like them.

NaCl(lenses, I "get". It's people I don't understand)H2O
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!
examples, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version) dgaies Sold Items 5 12-28-2009 07:58 AM
K-7 and metering with "K" and "M" lenses NaClH2O Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 07-18-2009 09:00 PM
Original "K" and "M" lenses wlank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 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