06 will be coming!

**csa** · 04-26-2016, 03:28 PM

Thanks Sandy & Mike! I'll definitely get the 02 next. Yes, I know down the road, the 08 will call; but I want to upgrade my telephoto for my K3 before I spend that much on the 08.

**barondla** · 04-26-2016, 04:03 PM

Don't underestimate the fisheye lens. Love mine.
Thanks
barondla

**csa** · 04-26-2016, 08:20 PM

Not sure I'd like a fisheye, never used one; but I really don't like the "fish bowl" effect.

surfar · 04-27-2016, 02:15 AM

1/2/3/ what do they add up to 6,I get by with these 4.

The 6 is outstanding,my favourite,and I suppose I got a bit of a bargain. The equivalent of U$ 35 with filter and delivered.

2 is good,some say it suits Q7&QS1 more than Q or Q10,I think its good on Q/10/7.I can't comment about QS1 as I don't have one.

**BigMackCam** · 04-27-2016, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by surfar

2 is good,some say it suits Q7&QS1 more than Q or Q10,I think its good on Q/10/7.I can't comment about QS1 as I don't have one.

The Q-S1 is more-or-less a cosmetic upgrade of the Q7, so anything that works well on the other Qs works just as well on that

reh321 · 04-27-2016, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

What the Q really needs is a superzoom. Something like a 5-50mm or or 6-60mm. Better yet a 4.5-70mm. But those are just dreams. The Q is for the urban Japanese market, not the US market...

I would much, much, much rather have something like a 50 - 300mm lens { but that is probably a pipe dream also }

6BQ5 · 04-27-2016, 06:53 AM

Don't underestimate the 02 lens. It's a fine performer when shot wide open or near wide open. If you're not pixel peeping at 100+ percent then it's OK when stopped down too. It flares beautifully which makes it great for artsy shots. Don't be afraid to stop it down to f/8 and point it into the sun with some exposure composition!

7mm_f8_IMGP1955 by Boris, on Flickr

My vote would be for you to get the 01, 02, 03, 06, and 08 lens. Yes, the 03 is a great lens if you know how to leverage it.

3.2mm_f5.6_IMGP1865 by Boris, on Flickr

I took that shot through a passenger airplane window. Skip the others unless you are collector and just want to be complete.

**csa** · 04-27-2016, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

My vote would be for you to get the 01, 02, 03, 06, and 08 lens. Yes, the 03 is a great lens if you know how to leverage it.

As I mentioned, my next priority for lens will be an upgrade telephoto for my K3. This is the outfit I primarily use. The Q is awesome, but I don't have the money to purchase all these lenses for it; unless I'd be using it exclusively; which I won't be. If I'd see an 02 at a good price, I'd take that; but that would be all I can do at this time.

6BQ5 · 04-27-2016, 08:47 AM

Heh! Well, one lens at a time... you'll get there.

**TER-OR** · 04-27-2016, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

Don't underestimate the 02 lens. It's a fine performer when shot wide open or near wide open. If you're not pixel peeping at 100+ percent then it's OK when stopped down too. It flares beautifully which makes it great for artsy shots. Don't be afraid to stop it down to f/8 and point it into the sun with some exposure composition!

.

I'll have to try that, it looks great.

ephophex · 04-28-2016, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Don't underestimate the fisheye lens. Love mine.
Thanks
barondla

I heartily second this. The 03 is just pure fun, and I find myself using it considerably more often than I expected. And the price is right!

**csa** · 04-28-2016, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by ephophex

I heartily second this. The 03 is just pure fun, and I find myself using it considerably more often than I expected. And the price is right!

New, it's about $100; I'd rather put that money towards a lens that I know I'll like.

Never had a fisheye, so don't know whether I'd like it enough to use it.

**pacerr** · 04-28-2016, 09:46 AM - **1 Like**

The Fear of 'fishy-eyes' syndrome?

I shot for ~40 years and the widest lens (FF) I had was a 50. My 'normal' FL was the SMC 85/1.8. I just didn't develop 'WA-eyes' lookin' through a Spotty VF.

Then about 10 years ago I picked up a DA 16-45 that was too cheap to ignore and forced myself to use it for a few weeks - had to learn to 'see' with it. Had to discover it wasn't just a 'magnification thing' but a perspective issue and that WA wasn't just for golden-hour landscapes - close-up and DOF stuff works too.

Intrigued me to the point of acquiring a coupl'a 10-24's to explore and I just recently sold those for a DA 12-24. It's an acquired taste and even harder when you're accustomed to the Big Sky scene. You just don't' 'get it' by lookin' at other folks WA pix either - it's a process, not a result.

Now I really find the Q 08 and 03 a natural part of the kit and I'm continuing to explore the UWA world. The FE doesn't have to be 'fishy' once you learn to use in a manner different than a fast-50 either.

Lookin' back, 'free' digital film, a Q7+03 and an open mind would have allowed for a very cheap expansion in my photo experience. After 20+ years shooting in MT, WY and CO I know the leap of faith it takes to find new FE/UWA eyes out there but it's like finding a new spice for cooking . . . or tryin' Rocky Mt oysters for the first time?

ephophex · 04-28-2016, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by csa

New, it's about $100; I'd rather put that money towards a lens that I know I'll like.

Never had a fisheye, so don't know whether I'd like it enough to use it.

I understand completely that you'd want to optimize your spending by concentrating on what you know you'd like. Shoot on!

**csa** · 04-28-2016, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by pacerr

or tryin' Rocky Mt oysters for the first time?

Well, that 2 for 2 regarding things I haven't tried, the above; and FishEye lenses!

Don't hold your breath for me trying the Rocky Mt. oysters!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What will I be missing or gaining if I continue to be with Pentax?	TropicalMonkey	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	44	01-05-2016 04:07 AM
Something Big Is Coming From Canon (And It Will Ship in October)	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	34	07-09-2014 10:07 PM
Will this hood fit the 06 lens too?	Kendigitize	Pentax Q	3	02-20-2014 07:37 AM
I will be on vacation beginning 06/14/12 until 07/02/12.	Chuck-B&H	Ask B&H Photo!	1	06-13-2012 01:02 PM
Pentax will be the first to get it. Something new is coming.	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	348	03-15-2011 02:22 PM

04-26-2016, 03:28 PM	#16
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Thanks Sandy & Mike! I'll definitely get the 02 next. Yes, I know down the road, the 08 will call; but I want to upgrade my telephoto for my K3 before I spend that much on the 08.

04-26-2016, 04:03 PM	#17
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Don't underestimate the fisheye lens. Love mine. Thanks barondla

04-26-2016, 08:20 PM	#18
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Not sure I'd like a fisheye, never used one; but I really don't like the "fish bowl" effect.

04-27-2016, 02:15 AM	#19
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,142	1/2/3/ what do they add up to 6,I get by with these 4. The 6 is outstanding,my favourite,and I suppose I got a bit of a bargain. The equivalent of U$ 35 with filter and delivered. 2 is good,some say it suits Q7&QS1 more than Q or Q10,I think its good on Q/10/7.I can't comment about QS1 as I don't have one.

04-27-2016, 02:22 AM	#20
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,687	Originally posted by surfar 2 is good,some say it suits Q7&QS1 more than Q or Q10,I think its good on Q/10/7.I can't comment about QS1 as I don't have one. The Q-S1 is more-or-less a cosmetic upgrade of the Q7, so anything that works well on the other Qs works just as well on that

04-27-2016, 04:07 AM	#21
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,184	Originally posted by boriscleto What the Q really needs is a superzoom. Something like a 5-50mm or or 6-60mm. Better yet a 4.5-70mm. But those are just dreams. The Q is for the urban Japanese market, not the US market... I would much, much, much rather have something like a 50 - 300mm lens { but that is probably a pipe dream also }

04-27-2016, 06:53 AM	#22
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Don't underestimate the 02 lens. It's a fine performer when shot wide open or near wide open. If you're not pixel peeping at 100+ percent then it's OK when stopped down too. It flares beautifully which makes it great for artsy shots. Don't be afraid to stop it down to f/8 and point it into the sun with some exposure composition! 7mm_f8_IMGP1955 by Boris, on Flickr My vote would be for you to get the 01, 02, 03, 06, and 08 lens. Yes, the 03 is a great lens if you know how to leverage it. 3.2mm_f5.6_IMGP1865 by Boris, on Flickr I took that shot through a passenger airplane window. Skip the others unless you are collector and just want to be complete.

04-27-2016, 08:42 AM	#23
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by 6BQ5 My vote would be for you to get the 01, 02, 03, 06, and 08 lens. Yes, the 03 is a great lens if you know how to leverage it. As I mentioned, my next priority for lens will be an upgrade telephoto for my K3. This is the outfit I primarily use. The Q is awesome, but I don't have the money to purchase all these lenses for it; unless I'd be using it exclusively; which I won't be. If I'd see an 02 at a good price, I'd take that; but that would be all I can do at this time.

04-27-2016, 08:47 AM	#24
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Heh! Well, one lens at a time... you'll get there.

04-27-2016, 08:51 AM	#25
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Originally posted by 6BQ5 Don't underestimate the 02 lens. It's a fine performer when shot wide open or near wide open. If you're not pixel peeping at 100+ percent then it's OK when stopped down too. It flares beautifully which makes it great for artsy shots. Don't be afraid to stop it down to f/8 and point it into the sun with some exposure composition! . I'll have to try that, it looks great.

04-28-2016, 08:16 AM	#26
ephophex Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 76	Originally posted by barondla Don't underestimate the fisheye lens. Love mine. Thanks barondla I heartily second this. The 03 is just pure fun, and I find myself using it considerably more often than I expected. And the price is right!

04-28-2016, 08:59 AM	#27
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by ephophex I heartily second this. The 03 is just pure fun, and I find myself using it considerably more often than I expected. And the price is right! New, it's about $100; I'd rather put that money towards a lens that I know I'll like. Never had a fisheye, so don't know whether I'd like it enough to use it.

04-28-2016, 09:46 AM - 1 Like	#28
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,350	The Fear of 'fishy-eyes' syndrome? I shot for ~40 years and the widest lens (FF) I had was a 50. My 'normal' FL was the SMC 85/1.8. I just didn't develop 'WA-eyes' lookin' through a Spotty VF. Then about 10 years ago I picked up a DA 16-45 that was too cheap to ignore and forced myself to use it for a few weeks - had to learn to 'see' with it. Had to discover it wasn't just a 'magnification thing' but a perspective issue and that WA wasn't just for golden-hour landscapes - close-up and DOF stuff works too. Intrigued me to the point of acquiring a coupl'a 10-24's to explore and I just recently sold those for a DA 12-24. It's an acquired taste and even harder when you're accustomed to the Big Sky scene. You just don't' 'get it' by lookin' at other folks WA pix either - it's a process, not a result. Now I really find the Q 08 and 03 a natural part of the kit and I'm continuing to explore the UWA world. The FE doesn't have to be 'fishy' once you learn to use in a manner different than a fast-50 either. Lookin' back, 'free' digital film, a Q7+03 and an open mind would have allowed for a very cheap expansion in my photo experience. After 20+ years shooting in MT, WY and CO I know the leap of faith it takes to find new FE/UWA eyes out there but it's like finding a new spice for cooking . . . or tryin' Rocky Mt oysters for the first time?

04-28-2016, 10:03 AM	#29
ephophex Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 76	Originally posted by csa New, it's about $100; I'd rather put that money towards a lens that I know I'll like. Never had a fisheye, so don't know whether I'd like it enough to use it. I understand completely that you'd want to optimize your spending by concentrating on what you know you'd like. Shoot on!

04-28-2016, 10:23 AM	#30
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by pacerr or tryin' Rocky Mt oysters for the first time? Well, that 2 for 2 regarding things I haven't tried, the above; and FishEye lenses! Don't hold your breath for me trying the Rocky Mt. oysters!