Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-09-2009, 01:36 PM   #46
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by zorobabel Quote
I'd be interested in your experience with this. Which bag was too big and which one was ok?
Thanks.
I sometimes travel (most of the time actually) to scientific meetings. Therefore, I have to balance my carry-on between essential items for the trip and camera gear. If I'm not traveling with a laptop, I carry the Pentax sling bag as the personal item. However, if I were to pick a bag for multi use including carry-on, the 3-in1 Kata looks pretty interesting. My last 2 trips, I had to put my camera stuff in my carry-on. I ended up with nothing wider than 35mm due to size of the lenses. I didn't think I'd be inside and need anything wider . . . I ended up in a museum in a train museum in Carson City. With the K200d, I can carry the 21mm ltd, 35mm ltd, FA 50mm, 55-300mm and/or the 105mm macro if space is at a premium. My widest lenses are large physically. I had been traveling with the 35-70mm and 55-300mm and the macro.

The point is that carry on is limited and one has to prioritize in the context of a carryon and personal item.

02-09-2009, 01:55 PM   #47
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
Original Poster
This is one reason I have the DLux4 - space. I try to travel for business with only a single bag - and that has to carry laptop and clothes. In that case the K20d and a couple lenses just isn't going to make the cut. But a p&s that shoots raw and covers 24-60mm can do the trick.

If I know I want/need the dSLR, then I'll add another bag and carry the body in it's own triangle case along with a few primes in their sacks. I'm looking for a better bag solution but the reality is that different circumstances require different solutions. A lot of times I just want the body with a prime and enough space for one or two other primes. Other times just the body and a prime is ok. And others I want a few primes and the 50-135*. That is at least 2 different bags...
02-09-2009, 08:53 PM   #48
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 103
Thanks, it's good to know the Pentax sling was ok, I was worried about them saying the camera bag is too large.
I'm also a fan of carry-on luggage, this autumn I spent 9 days in Hawaii with just a 30L backpack, and the K100 in a holster bag. The wife had a 26L

QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I sometimes travel (most of the time actually) to scientific meetings. Therefore, I have to balance my carry-on between essential items for the trip and camera gear. If I'm not traveling with a laptop, I carry the Pentax sling bag as the personal item. However, if I were to pick a bag for multi use including carry-on, the 3-in1 Kata looks pretty interesting. My last 2 trips, I had to put my camera stuff in my carry-on. I ended up with nothing wider than 35mm due to size of the lenses. I didn't think I'd be inside and need anything wider . . . I ended up in a museum in a train museum in Carson City. With the K200d, I can carry the 21mm ltd, 35mm ltd, FA 50mm, 55-300mm and/or the 105mm macro if space is at a premium. My widest lenses are large physically. I had been traveling with the 35-70mm and 55-300mm and the macro.

The point is that carry on is limited and one has to prioritize in the context of a carryon and personal item.

Last edited by zorobabel; 02-09-2009 at 09:00 PM.
02-10-2009, 01:06 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Random observation, as I keep trying to sort out in my head if I'm better off with the 21 or the 15 as one my wide angle for situations where my 28 isn't wide enough:

I took a bunch of landscape shots with my 18-55II yesterday morning, not thinking about focal length. Looked at the results: all of them turned out to be 28mm or above, and most were right or right around 40mm. I think my 28 & 40 have trained me to "see" those focal lengths almost exclusively now.

What this means, I think, is that I'm still figuring the 15 would be better for me. The 21 just wouldn't give me much I can't already do with my 28 (especially considering I have the 18-55II if I ever *really* need that focal length covered), but the 15 would open up entirely new territory. Who knows if I'd have used it if I had it, but I'm becomes less and worried that 21 is just such a perfect lanscape focal length that I'd be a fool to skip it. My shooting with zooms over the years has taught me that 28mm is really my favorite focal length for landscape, and when I want to go wider, I usually go *much8 wider (eg, I peg the 18 on my 18-55II).

So, I'm still nervously/anxiosuly awaiting news on price...

02-10-2009, 04:42 PM   #50
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Hey Marc, I'd say you'd be better off with the 15mm just because 15 / 28 / 40 seems a lot more versatile than 21 / 28 / 40. Of course if you don't mind a zoom then the DA16-45 covers all of that range. I just had it out again this weekend -- I keep forgetting how much I like it. I am not sure how the DA15 can compete.

I just posted three from the zoom. Every now and then I forget I own it, since I do prefer primes.
02-10-2009, 04:44 PM   #51
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 51
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm becomes less and worried that 21 is just such a perfect lanscape focal length that I'd be a fool to skip it.
Marc, just my two cents on the 21 LTD. I love that focal length. But let me tell you why and maybe then, my advice won't matter to you. I like it to snap landscapes and then turn around and snap a portrait of the people who are with me. I can take medium closeup portraits with it, and the subjects still look good (not too much distortion). Plus, though 3.2 is not that wide, it still allows for pretty good bokeh when I want it. And the quality of bokeh with the 21 LTD is pretty good, all things considered. I don't like zooms, so having a lens that can do all that when I'm hiking with possible subjects is very nice. Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't.

I should clarify what I meant when I said distortion. I guess I really mean perspective. Not too much wacky perspective. The distortion on the 21 LTD is about 2% barrel. That's easily corrected in Photoshop. But I'm talking about that wacky perspective you get when the subject is extremely close and their nose appears huge. The wider you go, the more that's inevitable, and the 21 LTD seems to be at the edge of still acceptable for portraits.

Last edited by brucestrange; 02-10-2009 at 05:30 PM.
02-10-2009, 07:18 PM   #52
Veteran Member
Eaglerapids's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Idaho,USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,588
Marc, up until I got the 21Ltd my widest was a 28mm, except for the kit lens.
Now, I'm not trying to talk you into either the 21 or the 15. When I get the 15 I'll have both. There is a marked difference between the 21 and 28mm lenses. I really couldn't believe it when I first shot the 21. On our cropped sensors it just felt wide, much more so than the 28mm and an altogether different perspective.
I guess one of the reasons I like primes over zooms is the fact that once you have a prime on it forces you to see in that focal length, to explore it. With a zoom you can just go on to another focal length and if it's one that you've become familiar with and are comfortable with you may tend to just stay there. With a prime you have to become one with THAT focal length and you begin to think in that length because you can't take the easy way out and zoom to another length. Instead of twisting the zoom ring you now have to move a little, to think about the shot a little extra.
I think your reasons to get the 15mm are sound and it may very well be your best bet to get it first but I also think, somewhere down the road you may just get the 21mm also. In my part of the country I believe 15mm just may be to wide for landscapes many times and I don't expect it will be my most used lens but I want it for those times when nothing else is wide enough, especially indoors although at f4 it will spend time on the tripod, which is fine by me. That's the reason I have a tripod:-).

PS: I'm not trying to get the zoom guys riled up here, this is just my way of thinking, for what it's worth:-).
02-10-2009, 08:10 PM   #53
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote

What this means, I think, is that I'm still figuring the 15 would be better for me. The 21 just wouldn't give me much I can't already do with my 28 (especially considering I have the 18-55II if I ever *really* need that focal length covered), but the 15 would open up entirely new territory. Who knows if I'd have used it if I had it, but I'm becomes less and worried that 21 is just such a perfect lanscape focal length that I'd be a fool to skip it. My shooting with zooms over the years has taught me that 28mm is really my favorite focal length for landscape, and when I want to go wider, I usually go *much8 wider (eg, I peg the 18 on my 18-55II).

So, I'm still nervously/anxiosuly awaiting news on price...
My thoughts exactly and why I sent back the 21. While it certainly was wider than my 31 or 35, I just didn't "see" that FOV. With my Leica I end up shooting 24mm equivalent a lot though, so at least for my uses and eyes it either needs to be close to "normal" (ie the 31) or really wide. The 21 is kind of in the middle and I just don't "get" it. But everyone has different eyes for framing and composing.

02-10-2009, 09:59 PM   #54
Veteran Member
soccerjoe5's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
When's the 15 supposed to be available at stores?
02-11-2009, 11:11 AM   #55
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
There is no official date, but Ned went on record over at dpreview as saying end of March was not out of the question.
02-11-2009, 11:56 AM   #56
ogl
Banned




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114












02-11-2009, 12:00 PM   #57
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
Wut! Oh yes. This has proper distance scale. I'm gonna dump my sigma 10-20mm for this. Most of my landscapes are shot with 14-16mm anyway.
02-11-2009, 12:39 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 311
I would really want this lens for its small size. But I can't see myself giving up the 12-24... decisions, decisions.
02-11-2009, 01:09 PM   #59
Veteran Member
farfisa's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,274
I think the 15 is going to be great--really unique perspective, and probably as wide as I'd ever need. I might be able to do without a zoom!

But there's definitely still a place for the 21mm. It is very wide and it handles people very well.

When I use a zoom, I tend to like it between 20 and 24 anyway, but it's very fun to go wide sometimes too. I almost went for a 24mm (I tend to "see" 24mm, as some people might say) to fill between 21 and 28, and then decided maybe I needed to get a wide zoom or it would never end!

I did this little test today out in the rain. I frankensteined these together. Every couple mm gives you something--definitely feels more dramatic when you're zooming than when you're looking at something like this.

My conclusion is: the 15 will just make more people want to fill the "gap" with the 21!

02-11-2009, 01:12 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 311
Farfisa do you have a photo like above going out to 12mm?
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!
15mm, 15mm ltd, bunnell, k-mount, lens, ltd, pentax lens, shots, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Eastern Bluebird - a very uncommon sighting jpzk Post Your Photos! 16 07-13-2010 05:08 PM
A Rare Sighting. Mallee Boy Post Your Photos! 4 11-29-2008 01:42 AM
What should be the maximum price for Pentax-A 15mm lens as the DA 15mm is coming up? Mitch34 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-24-2008 04:40 PM
Pentax sighting in new movie. sychen Pentax News and Rumors 3 03-24-2008 07:29 AM
A rare sighting Mile High Post Your Photos! 13 09-25-2007 09:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 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