Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2009, 05:13 AM   #31
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
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.
LOL!!! That's hilarious. I actually have three 135s as well, and spent a grand total of about $31 on the three. However, being something of a telephoto freak, I love the length.

If there's something I don't get, and it's probably because I'll never have the money to afford them so maybe it's sour grapes on my part , is the need for all the AF bells and whistles on primes. When I use primes its when I'm slowing down and taking my time to compose and set up the shot (static subject matter as a previous poster stated). For me AF for when the subject is moving, or I'm moving, and there's not time. During those times, I'll usually have a zoom on the camera.

But that's me and my style and again, maybe the money thing. My best quality glass are my 35-40+ year old takumars. Well, my Helios 44 I don't think is that old and it's right in there too.

01-07-2009, 05:54 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
Anything without an aperture ring on it.
01-07-2009, 06:24 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Wombat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
I don't get the M40mm f2.8 pancake lens. I got one by default with the K1000 I bought recently and after trying it out I can understand why the previous owner decided to leave it on the camera. That focus ring is so thin it's unbelievably awkward to use and the lens is really quite soft, especially wide open. Some people like 40mm, but to me it's neither here nor there on a film camera - not quite a "standard" 50mm lens and certainly not a wide angle. What's it for? I don't get it.
01-07-2009, 06:25 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
But joking aside, you probably wouldn't want to switch between your primes while it's snowing, raining or you're surrounded by plants in spring. The last situation would score you pollen on your CCD. The zoom-in-your-legs-theory doesn't work when you're on a sidewalk downtown or trying to frame a shot of a wild animal.
I do it all the time. No problems.
I change lenses as the situation requires.
Zooms will suck dust into a camera, so there is no perfect solution.

01-07-2009, 06:32 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by ll_coffee_lP Quote
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[_]
I have both. The FA31 makes noticeably better pictures, though this isn't always obvious when viewing 800 pixel images that have been oversharpend for viewing on computer monitors.
You could also beat an FA35 to death with a 31LTD and then use the 31 to take pictures of the corpse.
Whether it is worth the extra money really depends on the individual photographer.
01-07-2009, 06:47 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I do it all the time. No problems.
I change lenses as the situation requires.
Zooms will suck dust into a camera, so there is no perfect solution.
Depends on the zoom. I'm getting the 24-105 (sealed) for my Canon since I want to have some versatility in so-so conditions like dusty/windy environments where I don't want to be swapping primes back and forth. Otherwise, primes all the way! (edit: I know the weathersealed lenses aren't airtight, so I guess I do see your point there even with the DA* lenses..)

As for me... I don't get the 50 on a crop body either. I keep seeing the same suggestions being made to Canon/Nikon crop body users, but the whole point of a fast 50 is for low light shooting which is often indoors, and it's just not wide enough for most indoor shooting.
01-07-2009, 07:00 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by Votesh Quote
Super zooms.
The point is that it covers the range of the kit lenses at almost the same IQ (about 90%) so if travelling it solves a lot of problems.

Have a look here and see if this is an improvement of years gone by, let me know your thoughts.

Pentax DA 18-250mm f/3.5 - 6.3 Photo Gallery by alfisti at pbase.com

As for me, the 35mm macro is one I cannot figure out. We have the 35 f/2 that is faster, cheaper and just as good. The only thing the 35 macro does is focus closer but the perspective is really odd IMHO.
01-07-2009, 07:02 AM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oaxaca, Mexico
Posts: 247
There are lenses I don't particularly want but I've seen photos taken using them that are lovely. Having started before zooms I have an affinity for primes but I have to admit that 90% of my strolling is done with a zoom on the camera.

The lenses I just don't "get" are the ones that distort the photo. Lensbabies, ultra-wides. They're fine but I don't get it.

01-07-2009, 07:22 AM   #39
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
.

Incredibly interesting answers here. I have a lot of thoughts (agreement/disagreements) on a lot of these, but I'll just quickly post my two, as I have to get to work:


DA 14mm

This is well loved, even revered by many - but the DA 14 is not small, it's not a DA* or a limited, and it's not cheap - and, as far as I've seen, the 12-24 does just as good a job at 14mm, and is much, much more versatile.

I saw the $375 one appear in the marketplace, and I could have been the first bidder, but...

I love primes to death, and I almost always prefer putting them on the camera, but I just don't get this lens.



Pentax 50mm f/1.2 (K, A, any)

It just costs too much. I know this lens won scarpents 'normal lens shootout', but I think that's because he wanted it to win - it was already his favorite lens, IQ aside.

I've always asked myself: is the 1.2 --> 1.4 difference worth the extra $300? And all the images I saw said.... No.

Since I've discovered the Cosina 55 1.2, I get the 1.2 aperture more now - but the Cosina cost me $200, and that was about all I was willing to spend to get what I consider a specialty lens. (IQ-wise, I think the Tak 55 1.8 is every bit as good as the Cosina, BTW, it just doesn't have that big eye.)

So there are my choices - flame away!!



.
01-07-2009, 07:24 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
Oh yeah for sure, absolue mystery why anyone buys it. The 15 will be very small and that at least starts to make sense.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.DA 14mm

This is well loved, even revered by many - but the DA 14 is not small, it's not a DA* or a limited, and it's not cheap - and, as far as I've seen, the 12-24 does just as good a job at 14mm, and is much, much more versatile.

I saw the $375 one appear in the marketplace, and I could have been the first bidder, but...

I love primes to death, and I almost always prefer putting them on the camera, but I just don't get this lens.

.
01-07-2009, 08:40 AM   #41
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
You could also beat an FA35 to death with a 31LTD and then use the 31 to take pictures of the corpse.
Finally, a compelling reason I can get behind. I haven't photographed a good lens beating in years. But does that count in the "violent crime" statistics for the city? I don't want to go into some database as a "lens beater" or anything.
01-07-2009, 08:48 AM   #42
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
Finally, a compelling reason I can get behind. I haven't photographed a good lens beating in years. But does that count in the "violent crime" statistics for the city? I don't want to go into some database as a "lens beater" or anything.

when was the last time you did photograph a lens beating? and how did it turn out?
01-07-2009, 08:59 AM   #43
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
when was the last time you did photograph a lens beating? and how did it turn out?

Here you go: --> Link.


:0


.
01-07-2009, 09:04 AM   #44
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Here you go: --> Link.


:0


.

I have unfortunately seen that before...
01-07-2009, 09:23 AM   #45
Senior Member
mk07138's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Frostburg Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 151
For me, I was completely underwhelmed by the DA 35mm limited. I still "get" the lens and the results I got were good, but it just doesn't fit me as well as I thought it would. After a little while it was replaced by my A 28mm f2.8 as my standard walk around prime and will be sold relatively soon to finance my purchase of a used FA 100mm f2.8 macro.

Another underwhelming lens I own is my A 50mm f1.4 which puts in really good results but the build quality is lacking in my opinion. I don't understand why a supposedly good lens like that has more plastic on it than my 28mm f2.8. The 28mm has a metal aperture ring that moves smoothly, while the 50mm has a plastic aperture ring that is sticky and less than pleasant to use. My 50mm also has the focusing wobble that causes the entire image to move when looking the the viewfinder. The 28mm is solid as a rock. And I definitely haven't baby'd it over the years.

Doesn't quite fit the "I don't get it" theme of the thread, but I definitely found these two lenses to be very underwhelming.
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 05:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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