[24X36NOW]

uh, FA limited?

The "limiteds" were exactly what I was referring to with the "*"; sorry if I didn't use the right terminology.

F 50mm 1.4, F 50mm 1.7, FA 50mm 1.4, FA 50mm 1.7, F 135 mm 2.8, FA 135m 2.8, F 50mm 2.8 Macro, F 100 mm 2.8 Macro. Just about all the F and FA series primes are not "cheap crap"; they're not "*" lenses; they had plenty of availability; and reasonable prices when new.

I was actually thinking more of the zooms of that period; aside from the Limiteds/*/however you refer to them, the Pentax AF zooms were mostly slow, variable aperture "consumer" lenses with less than outstanding optics. Having said that, even the primes you referenced suffer from the godawful manual focusing rings I was talking about. If you were to try out a manual 50 vs. your AF 50, I think the feel of the aperture ring and focusing ring of the AF lens would probably feel cheap by comparison.

You can get the same thing by taking a step forward or backward. A 35-70 is useless, IMO, especially since a standard 50mm will always be sharper, and you can obtain the 35mm by taking a step back, and the 70mm by taking a step forward. Too many photographers suffer from the "let's stand still and zoom in and out" syndrome. Try moving your feet and being a part of the action, not just a scarecrow.

Apparently, based on your emphasis in your post, you didn't focus (no pun intended) on the rather lively discussion regarding perspective that took place before I posted. You can change the framing by moving, but in doing so you also change perspective, which may introduce elements you don't want into your photo or remove elements you wanted in it. And, of course, as CanadianRockies mentioned, sometimes you simply can't move due to obstacles or terrain.

I brought up a 35 to 70mm and called it useless. I never said anything about a 24-90 or something like that, because obviously you can't get as wide a perspective with a 50mm, even taking a step back, as you can with a 24mm focal length. You also can't compare a prime 50mm to an 18-270. There are always exceptions. I was merely offering a perspective to someone who uses nothing but zoom lenses, as I've encountered many photographers who are too lazy to work with primes when all it took was a few simple steps forward or back. It's a staple of most how to's and instructional courses in photography, about moving to get the shot you want, rather than zooming. It's a typical and sound suggestion and practice.

I didn't specifically say you or "those of you" or anyone in particular. I'm sure there are many like you who use zooms and move all around to get that precise framing. However, there are those who do not and will not. My comments were to them (if they're reading this ). Sorry you took it so personally.

Though I use almost nothing but zooms, I don't compose by looking through the camera lens and zooming in and out to see what it looks like, which seems to be your impression of those who prefer zooms to primes. I usually position myself without camera in hand first (i.e., decide on what perspective I want) and then decide which zoom to use to frame the shot the way I want it. I've hiked quite a bit carrying a load of gear that would make many shooters whine, so "laziness" is hardly a characteristic I would associate with my shooting preferences, even if I do use zooms for just about all of my shooting.

[seacapt]

You guys can say what you will about Zoom Users being lazy but my thinking is this. When I first started this thread I was kind of suprised that a simple kit :
1) ist DL
1) Tamron SP 24-48mm adaptall
1) Tamron SP 35-80 mm Macro adaptall
1) Tamron 80-210 adaptall
1) Pelican 1400 case
Cost me less than $450, covers virtually any situation , gives me great IQ for a 6 mega pixel body and goes with me in my work truck almost every day.
The feel and image quality of these old "Third Party" lenses far surpasses most of the " consumer grade" AF lenses I have tried (including some highly regarded Pentax stuff ). When I first bought the K20D I was pretty excited about finally moving up to Auto Focus but after a while I realized old tech MF aint so bad. I should have known that because when I was shooting Canon film I never switched to EF mounts and kept my old FD manual equiptment.
So any how my opinion is this , Zooms aren't lazy they are a inexpensive and easy to carry way to cover a big range of focal length. Finally MF isn't for everyone or every situation but I only used MF from 1973 till 2008 and they work wellin most situations for me.

[seacapt]

Indeed, the advantage to having the mirror so far back on crop body EOS camera's is they're compatible with almost all old maunal lenses without any adverse effect on image quality (ironically this doesn't include Canon FD mount lenses)
.

One of the reasons I switched to Pentax!

[seacapt]

A 35-70 is useless, :

Funny , the F 35-70 Is one of the few AF lens that I do like and the IQ is pretty close to my A50/1.7! Not trying to argue just saying what I think.

[Marc Sabatella]

The "limiteds" were exactly what I was referring to with the "*"; sorry if I didn't use the right terminology.

Just to clarify, there are two entirely different lenses series - the "*" and the Limited. Only a few Limiteds (FA 31, 43, and 77, plus now the DA Limiteds), but a long history of "*"'s. Both series are excellent.

the Pentax AF zooms were mostly slow, variable aperture "consumer" lenses with less than outstanding optics.

Could be, but then, not really any different from the DA consumer zooms, and probably better than most previous zooms.

Having said that, even the primes you referenced suffer from the godawful manual focusing rings I was talking about. If you were to try out a manual 50 vs. your AF 50, I think the feel of the aperture ring and focusing ring of the AF lens would probably feel cheap by comparison.

Definitely agreed.

[séamuis]

Having said that, even the primes you referenced suffer from the godawful manual focusing rings I was talking about. If you were to try out a manual 50 vs. your AF 50, I think the feel of the aperture ring and focusing ring of the AF lens would probably feel cheap by comparison.

isn't this due simply to the fact that it is an AF lens? the focusing ring has to have a shorter throw and be much less dampened for quick AF without straining the motor. sorry, but you cant have the best of both worlds.. at least not with screw driven AF.

[SteveM]

Basically...if it's pic of my kids...and they are running around all over the place I have better luck with Auto focus.

If I am out taking pics...I find autofocus an annoyance. I want to decide what should be in focus and what shouldn't be.....and not have some frankenfocus feature screw it up for me. I end up setting the camera to centre focusing to lock the pic then have to move the camera to frame the pic.....or better yet I'll tend to use MF with an autofocus lens.

I much prefer some of my prime MF lenses and enjoy picking one or two to head out to take some pics. With that said...I do like the DA* 50-135 and wouldn't give it up. I am finding I don't like what was supposed to be my main lens...the DA* 16-50.....really crappy build quality. I think I prefered the DA 16-45.

One last rant slightly off subject......I would rather have an aperature ring on the DA* lenses....instead of playing with the wheels on the camera. You could still set it to "A" to let the camera take care of it....but we don't have the option with the new lenses.