[Votesh]

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

I understand the point of super zooms, they just don't appeal to me at all. They can make good images, and for the price and size they cover a nice range, but from what I've seen, none of them are what I would call good at the longer end of the range. IQ and max aperture invariably fall off at the longer end, and the small max aperture at the shorter end just negates the usefulness for me.

The same range can be covered by 2 relatively cheap zooms with better IQ, and larger range and max aperture. If I had to choose, I would prefer this option over getting a super zoom.

Super zooms may be capable of producing good pictures, but, IMO, they aren't as proficient at it as I would like. They may be attractive on paper, but for me the real world disadvantages make them unattractive for use. Maybe I don't get them just because I have a backpack(albeit a small one) full of good glass that I don't mind lugging around.

P.S. The pictures in your gallery are great.

[Ben_Edict]

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.

Intersting observation. None of my A-lenses, including the 50/1.7 (two of those), 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 have plastic aperture rings. And on an M-lens I have never seen plastic, except for the white alignment marker and some baffle rings- but I never had an M-zoom or one of the cheaper A-zooms (28-80 has a poor reputation).

Ben

[GaryM]

There are a lot of lenses I don't want, but I never saw a lens I couldn't see a purpose, or mission for. Perhaps I'm too open minded.

[séamuis]

There are a lot of lenses I don't want, but I never saw a lens I couldn't see a purpose, or mission for. Perhaps I'm too open minded.

or perhaps you really do want them all and just do a good job of 'convincing' yourself otherwise?

[monochrome]

I have bought and sold several K2's and KX's over the years (I like them, but then sometimes after I buy one I like a lens better). Almost every one I've bought had an M 50/2.0 attached to the body, as if that makes the deal more attractive. At one time I had 6 of them.

Right now I am trying to sell a CLA'ed ME with one attached (my last one).

Peter Zack says he thinks every M 50/2.0 ever made has traveled around the world twice in the last ten years.

I just doin't get it.

[8540tomg]

A bit late to this thread. I see Jay is stirring the pot again. I don’t like zooms in general but especially don’t get slow ones with apertures like 3.5 to 5.6. It’s like looking down a dark tunnel when focusing with them and then there is the fact you end up having to use higher ISO as well. It’s the worst of both worlds. Give me a fast prime anytime.

Tom G

[ll_coffee_lP]

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.

lol

Very good point about the viewing images on monitors, however that's exactly what I did to choose to purchase a 77 ltd (which I get and love using) - so I guess it goes both ways.

The fact that the 31 ltd can physically beat the crap out of the FA35 further speaks to the prestige factor that I already mentioned...

c[_]

[G_Money]

For me it's any pancake lens. But to show my open-mindedness I just bought a DA40, looking forward to my forthcoming epiphany, I guess.

I will admit that I have never even seen one, but the Bigma always puzzles me. I suppose they're popular with the birders, and I can understand that, but the notion of one being used at its 50mm FL makes me giggle! Has anyone ever used one for portrait work? I think it would scare the hell out of the subject.

In the film days, my favourite by far was the Super Tak 85mm f/1.9. That thing lived on my Spotmatic. But I've had five 50mm lenses, A-f2, A-f1.7, A-f1.4, M-f1.4 and FA-f1.4 and they just don't seem quite the same. Perhaps the forthcoming DA* 55mm f1.4 will be closer to it.

And 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.

And I've enjoyed this thread much more than any "name your favourite lens" thread. It seems to invite more reflection.

"And 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."

With my nose, some "flattening of the perspective" is much appreciated...

For me I find the 70-75mm range works for the tight face shots

[Lowell Goudge]

I have bought and sold several K2's and KX's over the years (I like them, but then sometimes after I buy one I like a lens better). Almost every one I've bought had an M 50/2.0 attached to the body, as if that makes the deal more attractive. At one time I had 6 of them.

Right now I am trying to sell a CLA'ed ME with one attached (my last one).

Peter Zack says he thinks every M 50/2.0 ever made has traveled around the world twice in the last ten years.

I just doin't get it.

There are lots of 50mm F2's, not just pentax but every one made them in the early 1980's when SLR cameras were becoming very popular. I know, I have an XR rikenon 50mm F2 from my ricoh XR2s. stopped using it when I got a K50mm F1.4

the point is, they were easy and inexpensive to make, relitively good quality, and a basic offering with most cameras as a "kit lens"

The same is true today with many kit lenses and super zooms. For many people, who never print bigger than 4x6 inch, they do just fine and regardless of the absolute lunitics on the forum (and I consider myself one of them), who print between 8.5 x 11 and 13 x 19, do wild life , or other forms seriously, and who purchase higher end or "specialty" lenses as one person put it, these lenses work just fine.

Aslo note, the volumes produced of these types of lenses allow companies to employ optical designers, and purchase production machines that make the better quality lenses much more adffordable, (or affordable at all).

So I "get" all of them, but I will probably never buy another myself.

[pcarfan]

FA50/1.4 - I don't understand why people say it's a must have ?

For a few dollars more you can get the amazing FA43, which is much sharper at F/2.0 (comparing my own copies) and has much better color and rendering. AND it would last for ever!

+1...................

[NicholasN]

I hate expensive lenses. I can't afford them so therefore they are crap

[Lowell Goudge]

Originally Posted by ShadZee
FA50/1.4 - I don't understand why people say it's a must have ?

For a few dollars more you can get the amazing FA43, which is much sharper at F/2.0 (comparing my own copies) and has much better color and rendering. AND it would last for ever!

just go out at midnight, at ISO 3200 and only occasional lights,

Or, try to isolate foreground and background with limited depth of field

then you will understand F1.4

[jsherman999]

I completely 'get' the FA 50 1.4 - and I do think, when looked at as a combination of goals and execution of those goals, it's brilliant. It's the lens that made me really, really like DSLR photography, so it will always hold a warm spot in my heart.

Plus... If you attack it with the 31ltd, one of those lenses will eventually break, and it won't be the FA 50 - just because it's plastic, doesn't mean it's not a tough little bugger. Same with the FA 35 f/2, best 'plastic' lenses I've ever felt. Those jewel-like all-metal limiteds weren't meant for the tough stuff.


.

[m8o]

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".