Getting rid of the 16-50 to go to pancakes. Thoughts?

gnaztee · 12-31-2009, 10:39 AM

I have the DAs 21/35/70 and love the setup...in fact, on a recent trip to Italy, I walked around several days with just the 21 on the camera and 70 in a pocket. I have zooms as well, but I am a freak about cutting down size and weight...my zooms are for portrait and landscape work reached by car...with one exception: I throw the 18-55 WR in my bag in case it rains. I've never felt like I missed any shots by using primes. A DA 15/35 combo would be great if you're still going to lug around that 50-135...otherwise, a 15 or 21/35 or 40/70 combo would be my choice.

herzzreh · 12-31-2009, 10:51 AM

I've never seen 35 in person. How big is it compared to the 40?

gnaztee · 12-31-2009, 11:04 AM

Well, I haven't had the 40 in my hand ever, but I think the 35 is probably 3x as long (but it's still small). This is the sacrifice made to have macro ability with the lens. For me, and I'm not a big guy, the 35 is a jacket-pocket lens. I AM very tempted by the 40 for its size, or the FA 43 for it's size and speed.

edit: a good place to get technical info and resolution ratings is here: www.photozone.de

Andrew Faires · 12-31-2009, 11:33 AM

If the f/2.8 and weather-sealing aren't important to you in that range, then the pancakes make a lot of sense.

Personally, I don't think I'll part with my 16-50 because of the weather sealing, however, when I want to go light, I go with just my 43mm ltd and don't look back.

B Grace · 12-31-2009, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Well, sure, but you kind of put a limiter on things here by keeping the 50-135 in both cases - even just chucking the 16-50 entirely would only give you about a 40% reduction (rough guess). Try replacing the 50-135 too if you want more weight savings.

I agree completely but I was looking at just swapping out the 16-50 for two primes. If a person also happens to be packing a flash, maybe extra batteries and flash cards in cases and such as well as the lens kit and camera it quickly adds up to a good amount of weight which can't easily be reduced by changing a lens. On many of my club outings my 10 lb "gas-pipe" tripod and camera bag together weigh less than some folks' carbon fiber tripods and their super-sized camera backpack combos.

One part of going out on hikes and outings I actually enjoy is selecting a simple two or maybe three prime lens kit beforehand to keep everything easy to carry. I like to put a couple of other lenses I might consider using in a second bag and leave it in my car where I can at least get to it if I choose. I have a nice 200 tele and a decent 300 which stay at home when I'm on a hike looking for wide to normal landscape shots. If a person has the goal of shooting a particular style of shot then two primes are usually all that is needed.

Bart · 12-31-2009, 12:03 PM

I wouldn't want to mis the zoom nor the prime alternatives.
I believe they both have their part to play and I enjoy either approach.

EdMaximus · 12-31-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by herzzreh

My 16-50 doesn't suffer any issues, but simply said, I find it too heavy to lug around. Because of this, I don't shoot as much.

I'm thinking about selling it (I'll keep my 50-135) and buying a couple of pancakes. Probably 40mm as an all-purpose one and something wide. Your thoughts on this?

You know I have been thinking about doing something similar too. I plan on reacquiring the 50-135, acquiring the sigma 10-20, and buy a good prime to fit between those two lenses so I can possibly get rid of the 16-50. The 16-50 is a magnificent lens and all but I have a few personal problem with it. I'm gonna follow this thread closely and start another thread since I have more question to ask.

GeneV · 12-31-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I was given a pre-release 16-50 to play with somewhat before Pentax started shipping them.
I was quite impressed with it, which takes a lot for me. I don't like zoom lenses on general principals.
It didn't sway me though.
My short lens kit is a 15 LTD, 21 LTD and 40 LTD.
I suspect,but can't confirm, that the three lenses combined are smaller than the 16-50..

My kit is those lenses plus the FA 77ltd. I suspect they also take up a combined volume less than my DA 17-70. In any case, as others have noted, the separate lenses carry more easily.

In my film days, I only owned one zoom lens, and I hardly used it. However, using the frequent lens changes on a digital has a downside I did not have with film--dust.

Marc Sabatella · 12-31-2009, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by B Grace

I agree completely but I was looking at just swapping out the 16-50 for two primes. If a person also happens to be packing a flash, maybe extra batteries and flash cards in cases and such as well as the lens kit and camera it quickly adds up to a good amount of weight which can't easily be reduced by changing a lens.

Gotcha. I'd also observe, though, that for me weight *on the camera* is at least as significant as weight in the bag. So even if you save *nothing* in overall weight, I'd still rather have a bag full of 100-200g lenses than two 600-700g ones.

herzzreh · 01-03-2010, 12:25 AM

For me, it's weight on the camera that's important due to simple fact: only rarely do I carry more than one lens.

I love my 16-50, but carrying a ~750g camera and ~500g lens is simply tiresome. Plus, I looked at my old photos, and it seems that the best shots came from when I used primes...

PentHassyKon · 01-03-2010, 12:42 AM

Wow, how timely for me.
I'm thinking of the same, although I have the 16-45 rather than the 16-50.

I brought only 2 lenses on a recent trip to SF: 24/2.8 AF Sigma and FA50/1.4 on a recent trip to SF. I just didn't want to bring along the "bulky" 16-45 and was also concerned with its f4 speed. I found that I used mainly the 24 Sigma and rarely used the FA50. Somehow the 24 focal length suits my purposes - street style photos.

Contemplating on selling the 16-45 and getting the 21/40/43 combo. My only concern is the f3.2/f2.8 is relatively "slow" for the k200d, although still quite usable due to the SR feature of Pentax bodies. I'd probably also sell the k200d and the get the K-x to match the "slow" pancakes.

Since I'm debating on the 40/43 - does anyone here have a comparison photo showing the DA40 and 43 Limited together so I can get a feel for their size?

Pentaxor · 01-03-2010, 01:54 AM

I think a DA15 and DA35 would fit you well. if you didn't have the 50-135, I would had suggested the DA40 instead of the DA35. but since 40mm and the 50mm focal length and resolution ain't that too far off with each other, you could live without the DA40. the DA35 IMO, is a better normal size lens with a flexible or much workable angle and has the needed inferior (against the DA40) yet very good border resolution and corner resolution for portraiture use and most especially macro. did I mention that this is also a macro lens? so you get a general purpose lens that you could use for street, candid, macro, portraiture, slightly landscape/architecture/group/people photography. of course you will need the DA15 for wide shots.

Boris · 01-03-2010, 01:57 AM

@PentHassyKon: FA 43 without a hood is exactly the same size as DA 21 without its hood.

herzzreh · 01-05-2010, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I think a DA15 and DA35 would fit you well. if you didn't have the 50-135, I would had suggested the DA40 instead of the DA35. but since 40mm and the 50mm focal length and resolution ain't that too far off with each other, you could live without the DA40. the DA35 IMO, is a better normal size lens with a flexible or much workable angle and has the needed inferior (against the DA40) yet very good border resolution and corner resolution for portraiture use and most especially macro. did I mention that this is also a macro lens? so you get a general purpose lens that you could use for street, candid, macro, portraiture, slightly landscape/architecture/group/people photography. of course you will need the DA15 for wide shots.

Actually, DA is going on Ebay. I realized that nn two years that I had the lens, I took less than 100 photos with it.

Honestly, I haven't notices too big of a difference between 35mm and 40mm. I tried my zoom with both (EXIF said 35mm and 41mm - close enough) and I could barely notice any difference.

herzzreh · 01-05-2010, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

Wow, how timely for me.
I'm thinking of the same, although I have the 16-45 rather than the 16-50.

I brought only 2 lenses on a recent trip to SF: 24/2.8 AF Sigma and FA50/1.4 on a recent trip to SF. I just didn't want to bring along the "bulky" 16-45 and was also concerned with its f4 speed. I found that I used mainly the 24 Sigma and rarely used the FA50. Somehow the 24 focal length suits my purposes - street style photos.

Contemplating on selling the 16-45 and getting the 21/40/43 combo. My only concern is the f3.2/f2.8 is relatively "slow" for the k200d, although still quite usable due to the SR feature of Pentax bodies. I'd probably also sell the k200d and the get the K-x to match the "slow" pancakes.

Since I'm debating on the 40/43 - does anyone here have a comparison photo showing the DA40 and 43 Limited together so I can get a feel for their size?

You find 16-45 bulky? Haha... try handling 16-50! After doing this, the 16-45 will seem like a pancake lens!

12-31-2009, 11:04 AM	#18
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Well, I haven't had the 40 in my hand ever, but I think the 35 is probably 3x as long (but it's still small). This is the sacrifice made to have macro ability with the lens. For me, and I'm not a big guy, the 35 is a jacket-pocket lens. I AM very tempted by the 40 for its size, or the FA 43 for it's size and speed. edit: a good place to get technical info and resolution ratings is here: www.photozone.de Last edited by gnaztee; 12-31-2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason: added

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I want to get rid of the image in the signature, how?	pcarfan	Site Suggestions and Help	4	03-25-2009 01:35 PM
Getting rid of noise.	jbrowning	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	08-28-2008 08:55 AM
Getting rid of yellowing? How?	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	01-29-2008 05:34 PM
Get rid of the bird?	Tom Lusk	Post Your Photos!	15	09-26-2007 01:24 PM
Dots. Can't get rid of them!	skaktuss	Photographic Technique	7	03-28-2007 10:12 PM

12-31-2009, 10:39 AM	#16
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	I have the DAs 21/35/70 and love the setup...in fact, on a recent trip to Italy, I walked around several days with just the 21 on the camera and 70 in a pocket. I have zooms as well, but I am a freak about cutting down size and weight...my zooms are for portrait and landscape work reached by car...with one exception: I throw the 18-55 WR in my bag in case it rains. I've never felt like I missed any shots by using primes. A DA 15/35 combo would be great if you're still going to lug around that 50-135...otherwise, a 15 or 21/35 or 40/70 combo would be my choice.

12-31-2009, 10:51 AM	#17
herzzreh Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 72 Original Poster	I've never seen 35 in person. How big is it compared to the 40?

12-31-2009, 11:33 AM	#19
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	If the f/2.8 and weather-sealing aren't important to you in that range, then the pancakes make a lot of sense. Personally, I don't think I'll part with my 16-50 because of the weather sealing, however, when I want to go light, I go with just my 43mm ltd and don't look back.

12-31-2009, 11:33 AM	#20
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Well, sure, but you kind of put a limiter on things here by keeping the 50-135 in both cases - even just chucking the 16-50 entirely would only give you about a 40% reduction (rough guess). Try replacing the 50-135 too if you want more weight savings. I agree completely but I was looking at just swapping out the 16-50 for two primes. If a person also happens to be packing a flash, maybe extra batteries and flash cards in cases and such as well as the lens kit and camera it quickly adds up to a good amount of weight which can't easily be reduced by changing a lens. On many of my club outings my 10 lb "gas-pipe" tripod and camera bag together weigh less than some folks' carbon fiber tripods and their super-sized camera backpack combos. One part of going out on hikes and outings I actually enjoy is selecting a simple two or maybe three prime lens kit beforehand to keep everything easy to carry. I like to put a couple of other lenses I might consider using in a second bag and leave it in my car where I can at least get to it if I choose. I have a nice 200 tele and a decent 300 which stay at home when I'm on a hike looking for wide to normal landscape shots. If a person has the goal of shooting a particular style of shot then two primes are usually all that is needed.

12-31-2009, 12:03 PM	#21
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	I wouldn't want to mis the zoom nor the prime alternatives. I believe they both have their part to play and I enjoy either approach.

12-31-2009, 01:55 PM	#22
EdMaximus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York Posts: 318	Originally posted by herzzreh My 16-50 doesn't suffer any issues, but simply said, I find it too heavy to lug around. Because of this, I don't shoot as much. I'm thinking about selling it (I'll keep my 50-135) and buying a couple of pancakes. Probably 40mm as an all-purpose one and something wide. Your thoughts on this? You know I have been thinking about doing something similar too. I plan on reacquiring the 50-135, acquiring the sigma 10-20, and buy a good prime to fit between those two lenses so I can possibly get rid of the 16-50. The 16-50 is a magnificent lens and all but I have a few personal problem with it. I'm gonna follow this thread closely and start another thread since I have more question to ask.

12-31-2009, 03:25 PM	#23
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Wheatfield I was given a pre-release 16-50 to play with somewhat before Pentax started shipping them. I was quite impressed with it, which takes a lot for me. I don't like zoom lenses on general principals. It didn't sway me though. My short lens kit is a 15 LTD, 21 LTD and 40 LTD. I suspect,but can't confirm, that the three lenses combined are smaller than the 16-50.. My kit is those lenses plus the FA 77ltd. I suspect they also take up a combined volume less than my DA 17-70. In any case, as others have noted, the separate lenses carry more easily. In my film days, I only owned one zoom lens, and I hardly used it. However, using the frequent lens changes on a digital has a downside I did not have with film--dust.

12-31-2009, 04:29 PM	#24
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by B Grace I agree completely but I was looking at just swapping out the 16-50 for two primes. If a person also happens to be packing a flash, maybe extra batteries and flash cards in cases and such as well as the lens kit and camera it quickly adds up to a good amount of weight which can't easily be reduced by changing a lens. Gotcha. I'd also observe, though, that for me weight on the camera is at least as significant as weight in the bag. So even if you save nothing in overall weight, I'd still rather have a bag full of 100-200g lenses than two 600-700g ones.

01-03-2010, 12:25 AM	#25
herzzreh Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 72 Original Poster	For me, it's weight on the camera that's important due to simple fact: only rarely do I carry more than one lens. I love my 16-50, but carrying a ~750g camera and ~500g lens is simply tiresome. Plus, I looked at my old photos, and it seems that the best shots came from when I used primes...

01-03-2010, 12:42 AM	#26
PentHassyKon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 415	Wow, how timely for me. I'm thinking of the same, although I have the 16-45 rather than the 16-50. I brought only 2 lenses on a recent trip to SF: 24/2.8 AF Sigma and FA50/1.4 on a recent trip to SF. I just didn't want to bring along the "bulky" 16-45 and was also concerned with its f4 speed. I found that I used mainly the 24 Sigma and rarely used the FA50. Somehow the 24 focal length suits my purposes - street style photos. Contemplating on selling the 16-45 and getting the 21/40/43 combo. My only concern is the f3.2/f2.8 is relatively "slow" for the k200d, although still quite usable due to the SR feature of Pentax bodies. I'd probably also sell the k200d and the get the K-x to match the "slow" pancakes. Since I'm debating on the 40/43 - does anyone here have a comparison photo showing the DA40 and 43 Limited together so I can get a feel for their size?

01-03-2010, 01:54 AM	#27
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I think a DA15 and DA35 would fit you well. if you didn't have the 50-135, I would had suggested the DA40 instead of the DA35. but since 40mm and the 50mm focal length and resolution ain't that too far off with each other, you could live without the DA40. the DA35 IMO, is a better normal size lens with a flexible or much workable angle and has the needed inferior (against the DA40) yet very good border resolution and corner resolution for portraiture use and most especially macro. did I mention that this is also a macro lens? so you get a general purpose lens that you could use for street, candid, macro, portraiture, slightly landscape/architecture/group/people photography. of course you will need the DA15 for wide shots.

01-03-2010, 01:57 AM	#28
Boris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Israel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 932	@PentHassyKon: FA 43 without a hood is exactly the same size as DA 21 without its hood.

01-05-2010, 09:42 AM	#29
herzzreh Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 72 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor I think a DA15 and DA35 would fit you well. if you didn't have the 50-135, I would had suggested the DA40 instead of the DA35. but since 40mm and the 50mm focal length and resolution ain't that too far off with each other, you could live without the DA40. the DA35 IMO, is a better normal size lens with a flexible or much workable angle and has the needed inferior (against the DA40) yet very good border resolution and corner resolution for portraiture use and most especially macro. did I mention that this is also a macro lens? so you get a general purpose lens that you could use for street, candid, macro, portraiture, slightly landscape/architecture/group/people photography. of course you will need the DA15 for wide shots. Actually, DA is going on Ebay. I realized that nn two years that I had the lens, I took less than 100 photos with it. Honestly, I haven't notices too big of a difference between 35mm and 40mm. I tried my zoom with both (EXIF said 35mm and 41mm - close enough) and I could barely notice any difference.

01-05-2010, 09:43 AM	#30
herzzreh Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 72 Original Poster	Originally posted by PentHassyKon Wow, how timely for me. I'm thinking of the same, although I have the 16-45 rather than the 16-50. I brought only 2 lenses on a recent trip to SF: 24/2.8 AF Sigma and FA50/1.4 on a recent trip to SF. I just didn't want to bring along the "bulky" 16-45 and was also concerned with its f4 speed. I found that I used mainly the 24 Sigma and rarely used the FA50. Somehow the 24 focal length suits my purposes - street style photos. Contemplating on selling the 16-45 and getting the 21/40/43 combo. My only concern is the f3.2/f2.8 is relatively "slow" for the k200d, although still quite usable due to the SR feature of Pentax bodies. I'd probably also sell the k200d and the get the K-x to match the "slow" pancakes. Since I'm debating on the 40/43 - does anyone here have a comparison photo showing the DA40 and 43 Limited together so I can get a feel for their size? You find 16-45 bulky? Haha... try handling 16-50! After doing this, the 16-45 will seem like a pancake lens!