Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2009, 07:34 PM   #76
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
Every addict suffering LBA should be required to read this & the "biggest disappointments" thread. If not to prove to you "the grass isn't always greener" to help prevent you from acquiring some [perhaps multiply] confirmed "LBA lemons".
Naw, that doesn't help. There are two issues. The first is that people have different styles and tastes so one man's dog is another man's cat (whatever that means).

The other is the incredible ability of a human (especially male) to sit back and say, "no, it'll be different with me."

01-07-2009, 07:35 PM   #77
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
An interesting thread so far.

Whenever I read statements like "I can't get accustomed to a particular focal length", I remember the advice of a retired Korean photojournalist friend of mine who tells me how important it is to go out and use the "problematic" lens even more to really appreciate and understand it.

He was so good that he could tell which Nikkor lens in his bag by feel and he could operate his old Nikon FM so fast without the use of a motor drive. He knew his gear so intimately he could change lenses by feel alone in the dark... respect.
01-07-2009, 11:07 PM   #78
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by G_Money Quote
I don't get why people recommend an 85mm as a good portrait lens. That's a 127mm equivalent when used on a crop sensor - too long, I think. It means moving the camera further from the subject, thus flattening the perspective. The recommended FL was usually in the 85 to 105mm range on film.
Depends on who you ask. I usually see the recommendations go up to 135mm on film. It also depends on what kind of portrait you want. Half body, or even head and shoulders, that's on the long side. But for full face shots like what actors & comedians tend to use in their promo 8x10" glossies, 85mm is pretty good - if anything, still just a little short.
01-07-2009, 11:16 PM   #79
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Wombat Quote
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.
Well, considering I do very much like 28mm for landscape on my DSLR, it seems the M40 would have been pretty good for that purpose on film.

On digital, I like the focal length for other reasons - candids, also "landscape features". But the M version is a case where the focus issue really is huge point in favor of the DA. Both because the focus ring is awkward for MF on either lens, but also because the DA version absolutely *rocks* in AF - you'd be missing out on one of the best things about the DA40 if you settled for the M. And that's assuming the IQ is the same - I've heard speculation both ways as to whether the optics are the same or not. But no one normally calls the DA40 soft...

01-07-2009, 11:24 PM   #80
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
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.
I think that's going too far. I'd agree that if you have *no idea* what you intend to shoot, a zoom makes a ton of sense. But realistically, how often do we have no idea?

If I'm inside with a bunch of people, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to want to shoot some people, and probably from a distance of a few feet at most. Or, if I'm in a jazz club, I;m shooting musicians on stage, from a fixed a fixed distance (albeit a greater distance than is likely in someone's living room). There's not actually a ton of variation in the range of focal lengths on might want for these sorts of things.

Or, if I'm walking in the country, chances are pretty good I'll want to shoot landscapes. And again, it isn't really rocket science to figure out based on the terrain what focal length will be likely to be most appropriate most often. But it is true that I'm likely to occasionally want to quickly change the longest focal length I have if i encounter wildlife.

Similarly for other situations. As discussed in the recent thread on missing shots (prime versus zoom), it's kind of a mistake to asusme that prime users are missing lots of shots. And for every shot you get that they miss, the reverse is going to be true as well.
01-07-2009, 11:59 PM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I think that's going too far. I'd agree that if you have *no idea* what you intend to shoot, a zoom makes a ton of sense. But realistically, how often do we have no idea?
That's not what I meant. I had chipmunk or little wild critter photography in mind. You know your subject, but cannot predict its distance from you: it may be in a bush next to you at one moment and then twenty meters from you at another. Also, the-zoom-in-your-legs does not work, because small wild animals startle very easily.

EDIT: On this thread, I posted a photo I took of a Toronto raccoon at 230mm (using the 55-300 zoom) which was framed to my liking without any cropping. Now, this raccoon wasn't exactly small, but its distance from me was fairly variable, to say the least.

Last edited by asdf; 01-08-2009 at 12:28 AM.
01-08-2009, 12:58 AM   #82
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote
First--I just don't get the Zeiss lenses. To spend that much money on a lens and it not even be autofocus, never mind HSM. I figure that there are plenty of less expensive AF lenses that have excellent IQ--some even with HSM, that why should I bother spending more on a lens that has neither?
I'm 100% opposite

Even when using my only AF lens, I still feel the need to question the AF. So...I manually focus it anyway.

When people ask me if I miss a lot of shots with MF lenses, I say I miss just as many with AF.

To me, there's just nothing better than a product whose quality you can *feel*, and that's metal construction with a silky smooth focus ring
QuoteOriginally posted by maxwell1295 Quote
Now that I have a recently acquired Vivitar 55mm/2.8 macro and my eyes on the Tamron SP 90mm/2.5,
If you see one, buy it...don't even think twice. There is no lens sharper, with better bokeh, and decent "working distance" from the subject in a macro lens.

(Just watch out for the sensor reflection at f/11 and smaller :ugh: )
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
That's not what I meant. I had chipmunk or little wild critter photography in mind. You know your subject, but cannot predict its distance from you: it may be in a bush next to you at one moment and then twenty meters from you at another. Also, the-zoom-in-your-legs does not work, because small wild animals startle very easily.

EDIT: On this thread, I posted a photo I took of a Toronto raccoon at 230mm (using the 55-300 zoom) which was framed to my liking without any cropping. Now, this raccoon wasn't exactly small, but its distance from me was fairly variable, to say the least.
This is why I went with a zoom (FA 80-320) for my longest lens. Although, as time goes by, I find myself wanting something like a 200mm and 300mm since I already have a 90mm.

Big? Yep. Heavy? Check. Pain in the ass? Lock n load.

It just seems that...either it's zoomed all the way out or all the way in. I don't really use it in the middle range. Well...that, and I thought my "wildlife" lens needed to be AF. Live and learn I guess. <3 primes
01-08-2009, 07:05 AM   #83
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,108
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote

He was so good that he could tell which Nikkor lens in his bag by feel and he could operate his old Nikon FM so fast without the use of a motor drive. He knew his gear so intimately he could change lenses by feel alone in the dark... respect.
One of the lost features with Pentax is the tactile clues for lens changing.
Why they removed the registration dits and moved the lens release button is beyond me.

01-08-2009, 07:33 AM   #84
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
i dont understand why the 11-16mm F2.8 Tokina lens was never made for Pentax
01-08-2009, 08:59 AM   #85
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
One of the lost features with Pentax is the tactile clues for lens changing.
Why they removed the registration dits and moved the lens release button is beyond me.
Where it used to be? If you are looking at the body currently it sits at 7 o'clock. Where did it use to be?
Sorry to ask, it's just curiosity...
01-08-2009, 09:19 AM   #86
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
FA* 24mm f/2?

.


Anyone not get the FA* 24mm f/2?


.
01-08-2009, 09:22 AM   #87
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.


Anyone not get the FA* 24mm f/2?


.
i would love to have one

if it wasnt overpriced through the roof
01-08-2009, 09:26 AM   #88
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
Where it used to be? If you are looking at the body currently it sits at 7 o'clock. Where did it use to be?
Sorry to ask, it's just curiosity...
The K, M, and FA mount lenses have a little plastic "bump" on the side of the lens. With the older cameras, you could line up this bump (by feel) with the lens release button and the lens would be in registration to mount. On my K10D, the release has been moved a few degrees counter-clockwise so that this is no longer the case.

Steve
01-08-2009, 09:27 AM   #89
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.


Anyone not get the FA* 24mm f/2?


.
I don't get it, but was afraid of a flame torrent if I said so...

Steve
01-08-2009, 09:31 AM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.


Anyone not get the FA* 24mm f/2?


.
Speaking of Jay... you might have noticed someone is selling theirs on Craigslist in Minneapolis. I however do not get this lens either.
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 (&quot;L&quot; and &quot;AL II&quot; 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 01:03 AM. | 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