[mariakruse]

I like being able to get very close in. Pollen on the nose kinda close. So this one looks good to me.
maria

[Stavri]

I like being able to get very close in. Pollen on the nose kinda close. So this one looks good to me.
maria

Like this Maria?
(K-3+ Da 35mm f2.8 @f4.0

[mariakruse]

Oooohh, yes! Just like that.
maria

[nicoprod]

I currently use for weddings:
K-3 (x2)
Sigma DC 17-50 f2.8
FA 31 f1.8 limited
DA* 50-135

[PALADIN85020]

I currently have this stable of lenses, which cover 99% of my needs:

HD-DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited - superb wide angle lens with outstanding color rendition. Pretty damn sharp, and if you set focus just a bit in from infinity using f/11, nearly everything from a few yards out to infinity will be in focus. Set and forget. My only complaint is chromatic aberration the further you go from the center of the picture. Annoying to have to deal with.

SMC-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited - absolutely sharpest lens in my kit. With an APS-C sensor, it's crop-equivalent to 53mm, very close to human vision perception. The bonus is that the macro function is out of this world for close work.

SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4 - Hard to beat for low light work, portraiture, and pleasing soft backgrounds. Stopped down and used with a lens hood, it's quite sharp.

SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AL (IF) DC-WR - Probably the best all-purpose walk-around Pentax lens available. Like any zoom, it's not the sharpest, but acceptable. I used it exclusively on a trip to Hawaii. Results were more than acceptable.

SMC-DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 ED AL (IF) - I bring this out only when I need more reach than the 18-135 can offer. It can be equivalent to a 375mm in APS-C cameras. With the K-3's large 24mp pictures, you can crop for even tighter effects. This one is out of print now, so it's only available used. My only complaint is lens creep when it's pointed down.

John
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/paladin

[robthebloke]

Da 15mm, da 35mm macro, da55, and fa77. That would cover most situations - aside from birding maybe. If you find your pockets are weighed down with too much cash, add the fa31!

---------- Post added 10-09-14 at 07:13 PM ----------

Oooohh, yes! Just like that.
maria

The da35mm macro is a superb all-rounder, you really can't go wrong with it. The FA limiteds aren't faultless, but they add so much pixie-dust to your images, that you're constantly bowled over.

---------- Post added 10-09-14 at 07:29 PM ----------

What do you mean please? In what way is the FA43 Ltd f1.9 lens not a straight forward lens. I have seen this lens mentioned before and always with the disclaimer that it is in some way hard to use. I am curious about what makes it difficult.
maria

It's not difficult, it just takes practice (the same can be said of the da21, and the fa77). With a lens like the da35 macro, it's very hard to take a bad photo - at any focus distance/aperture combination - it always delivers.

Some lenses though are less tolerant, so you may find the bokeh looks bad at some focus distance/aperture combinations. Large aperture lenses like the 43 can also add the problem of getting the dof wrong, so a nose may be in focus, but the eyes aren't....

It can be disheartening to get a new lens, go out shooting, and then find you only like one or two shots out of a few hundred. Usually it's just a case of finding out what f-stop range works for a given focus distance, and possibly learning to avoid certain situations that may cause busy bokeh, horrible ca, or flare.

It doesn't mean you should avoid those lenses, but it does mean you may need to be patient with your purchase for the first couple of months....

[mariakruse]

Da 15mm, da 35mm macro, da55, and fa77. That would cover most situations - aside from birding maybe. If you find your pockets are weighed down with too much cash, add the fa31!

---------- Post added 10-09-14 at 07:13 PM ----------



The da35mm macro is a superb all-rounder, you really can't go wrong with it. The FA limiteds aren't faultless, but they add so much pixie-dust to your images, that you're constantly bowled over.

---------- Post added 10-09-14 at 07:29 PM ----------



It's not difficult, it just takes practice (the same can be said of the da21, and the fa77). With a lens like the da35 macro, it's very hard to take a bad photo - at any focus distance/aperture combination - it always delivers.

Some lenses though are less tolerant, so you may find the bokeh looks bad at some focus distance/aperture combinations. Large aperture lenses like the 43 can also add the problem of getting the dof wrong, so a nose may be in focus, but the eyes aren't....

It can be disheartening to get a new lens, go out shooting, and then find you only like one or two shots out of a few hundred. Usually it's just a case of finding out what f-stop range works for a given focus distance, and possibly learning to avoid certain situations that may cause busy bokeh, horrible ca, or flare.

It doesn't mean you should avoid those lenses, but it does mean you may need to be patient with your purchase for the first couple of months....

Thank you. Sounds like many other lenses, I will just have to get to know them as I go.
maria

[WPRESTO]

=PALADIN85020;2970107, it's crop-equivalent to 53mm, very close to human vision perception. The bonus is that the macro function is out of this world for close work.

Interesting point about "human vision perception." Our peripheral vision, without glaucoma or cataracts, extends close to 180 degrees, but our intense attentive vision is centered on the fovea, and is much, much narrower than the angle of a 50mm on FF. Back in the 1950's or 60's, one of the photo mags (Popular or Modern Photography - forget which), decided to find out what focal length corresponded to an artist's perception. So they took some famous French artists who had done urban scenes, where it was possible to relocate both the buldings and where the artist was positioned based on perspective, topography, how objects stacked and overlapped foreground to back ground, etc. They tried various lenses to reproduce the scene as it was rendered in a painting. The result? Easily obvious that a 105mm on a 35mm camera was consistently the best match. So at least for artists doing urban scenes, they see/frame/perceive with a portrait lens eye.

[mikeSF]

Thank you, This is very helpful. I think I will have more lenses than shoes.
maria

and so it begins...


---------- Post added 10-13-2014 at 08:42 AM ----------

FWIW, I'm not a zoom shooter, but I do keep a zoom rig for when the situation warrants it. I can cover from 10-200mm with these:

1) Pentax 10-17 fisheye & Sigma 10-20 (rectilinear)
2) Pentax FA*28-70/2.8
3) Tamron 70-200/2,8

[Imp]

If we are talking about covering a range like the Holy Trinity of zooms does, then how about this?

14-24 becomes the Pentax (or Sigma) 12-24mm
24-70 becomes the Pentax HD DA 16-85mm (new release! Who knows if its any good)
70-200 becomes the Pentax DA* 60-250mm or the Tamron/Sigma 70-200mm

What do you think?

---------- Post added 11-26-14 at 07:42 PM ----------

With all Pentax lenses, a grand total of $3,000.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Now to me the holy trinity is in this order....SMC-K 28mm 3.5 , SMC-K 35mm 3.5 , and the SMC-K 55mm 1.8.
However the plastic wonder 35mm DA may make its way ont the K30 soon....lol

[cbope]

My un-holy trinity would be:

DA 12-24/4
DA* 16-50/2.8
DA* 50-135/2.8

or

DA* 16-50/2.8
DA* 50-135/2.8
DA* 200/2.8 or 300/4

Depending on whether wide or tele is a focus. But I'm working towards at least a quad, adding the DA 12-24/4 and DA* 200/2.8 to my existing DA* 16-50 and 50-135 kit. After getting the DA* zooms, I find I rarely pull out my primes. I find zooms are a great compositional tool.

[Mikesul]

My un-holy trinity would be:

DA 12-24/4
DA* 16-50/2.8
DA* 50-135/2.8

or

DA* 16-50/2.8
DA* 50-135/2.8
DA* 200/2.8 or 300/4

Depending on whether wide or tele is a focus. But I'm working towards at least a quad, adding the DA 12-24/4 and DA* 200/2.8 to my existing DA* 16-50 and 50-135 kit. After getting the DA* zooms, I find I rarely pull out my primes. I find zooms are a great compositional tool.

Yes the DA*200 is often overlooked but it adds some nice flexibility to the system if you need the speed at longer lengths.

[johnc]

Great discussion. I really enjoy choosing my lens bag for any trip and tend to choose what I think will be good for the application. I don't always get it right!

The trio I keep coming back to has really is the DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, and Sigma 8-16mm. I am often out in the British weather and tend to prize the weather sealing of the DA*s. But while this kit overs a great wide range of focal lengths (even more if you swap the 50-135 for the 60-250), the disadvantages are weight, and limited flare resistance.

My new year's resolution is to at least try get some more action out of primes and ditch the weight - especially when the weather will be dry! It will be tough leaving the 16-50 behind. But in all honesty I am not sure that the 8-16 earns it's space in the bag often. Perhaps a DA 15 plus a fast fifty should take that space....

[Gordo]

The three lenses I almost always carry with me are the DA 15mm f/4 Limited, DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited, and FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited. This covers most situations I encounter on walkabouts, and the set is small and lightweight. I would certainly like a faster wide lens than the DA 15mm, but it's small enough to fit in my pocket and the image quality is superb, so I'm happy that it controls my mind.