[nostatic]

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."

[creampuff]

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.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

[Marc Sabatella]

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...

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

[asdf]

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.

[ryan s]

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

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: )

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

[Wheatfield]

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.

[Gooshin]

i dont understand why the 11-16mm F2.8 Tokina lens was never made for Pentax

[axl]

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...

[jsherman999]

.


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


.

[Gooshin]

.


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


.

i would love to have one

if it wasnt overpriced through the roof

[stevebrot]

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

[stevebrot]

.


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

[MrApollinax]

.


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.