[3by2]

Firstly, the first line of my OP was meant to be tongue in cheek and I apologize to those I've misled with it. I've been carrying a camera around for about 40 years and did two years at art college. The basics and a little more I think I have. If I'm short of anything it's more the dark arts. One thing is true though, it's only in the last few years that photography has once again become a firm hobby but just that, I don't want to spend a lot of money on it and it's very easy too but I suppose that is all relative.

What are you trying to shoot that you can't now? But also you sound somewhat dissatisfied with the 35 you have, so maybe replace it. You did mention the 40. There are also zooms, I'd highly recommend the 20-40 and the 55-300 PLM. I also like the 18-135, but the 16-65 is supposed to be better. But since you have no zooms, I'm guessing you are a prime guy. My favorite primes (that I own) are the DA* 300, DA 15 Ltd, and the F50/1.7. But, again what are you trying to shoot that you can't now?

I think basically, alongside the other two lenses I don't like the feel of it any more, which is a bit shallow but there you go. One thing it doesn't have is a focus scale and I do use that for calculating DOF. I have reached for one of the other two a couple of times because of that.

I have tried zooms, including the 18-135, I prefer primes, I never seem to get the sweetspot on the zooms. I did have the F70-210, most of my shots tended to be at the 200 end, again out if it's sweetspot and I sold it with the intention of buying a 200mm in the future. Below is one of my favourite shots, taken with the F70-210 at 190 on an *istD. Currently I lack the capability to do shots like this and I quite often see potential for it. I use the 100 in the landscape all the time.




I have just bought an M200 F4 on ebay. It gets mixed reviews but for 40 quid I thought I'd give it a whirl and see if it's better than the 70-210 and if it isn't save my pennies for a DA 200

[Dartmoor Dave]

Below is one of my favourite shots, taken with the F70-210 at 190 on an *istD. Currently I lack the capability to do shots like this and I quite often see potential for it. I use the 100 in the landscape all the time.


I have just bought an M200 F4 on ebay. It gets mixed reviews but for 40 quid I thought I'd give it a whirl and see if it's better than the 70-210 and if it isn't save my pennies for a DA 200

That's a beautiful shot. I've got the M200mm/4.0 and I think it's an excellent lens, although it does need stopping down to f/8 to give its best.

Considering that your example photo was taken with an *ist, I'm wondering if perhaps it's not your lenses that are leaving you unsatisfied but the rendering style of the CMOS sensor in your K5. Perhaps you should pick up a CCD body like another *ist or a K10D for those times when ISO100 is enough, and keep the K5 just for or high ISO. Of course someone will now come along here and say that you can replicate CCD rendering with a CMOS in post-processing, but trust me -- you can't.


And yes, I am genuinely suggesting completely seriously that a 6 or 10 megapixel camera that's hopeless above ISO100 might be the solution to your problem.

[aslyfox]

It can be hard to determine a poster''s level of knowledge and expertise

I claim no expertise but I do research and tend to post a lot

And I hope that even if the OP of a thread might not need exactly what I posted

another reader of the thread might

As you know the idea, unless you are trying to make photography your business,

the idea is to have fun

[3by2]

Considering that your example photo was taken with an *ist, I'm wondering if perhaps it's not your lenses that are leaving you unsatisfied but the rendering style of the CMOS sensor in your K5. Perhaps you should pick up a CCD body like another *ist or a K10D for those times when ISO100 is enough, and keep the K5 just for or high ISO. Of course someone will now come along here and say that you can replicate CCD rendering with a CMOS in post-processing, but trust me -- you can't.

I do look at the 6Mp thread sometimes and the quality of the images still stand up pretty well. I must admit to not following too closely sensor technology so I wasn't aware of the differences between the ist and the K5. It was noise and the ability to crop which made me move to the K5 but some of my favourite images were taken with the *ist D. I wouldn't ever use two cameras though and I have MZ10 if i want to scratch a different itch. I never mentioned film in my OP but an old Mamiya or something does occasionally surface as a thought, you can't reproduce the look of film in PP either.

[BigMackCam]

Of course someone will now come along here and say that you can replicate CCD rendering with a CMOS in post-processing, but trust me -- you can't.

I agree. Profiling and/or RGB adjustments to later cameras' photos can mimic some of the feel... I've spent a lot of time coming up with profiles and adjustments, and it can improve things no end - but it's never quite right. CMOS and CCD sensors just seem to respond differently. I get great-looking results from my K-3, but it can never replace my GX-10 when conditions allow...

[Bui]

I don't know how much you plan to spend, and how many lenses you want, but here are a few suggestions:

- The 15mm limited, great little super wide angle lens than will supplement your 21 perfectly. An used DA 14mm is also as good, but it's bigger

- I also owned the 21 and the 35 limited before, but got tired of constantly switching lenses betwen these 2 standard focal lengths, so I picked up a 20-40 limited zoom, still have it today

- A 70mm limited (or 77 if budget is no issue) to bridge the gap between 35 and 100.

- Plenty of telephoto options to extend that 100mm range either: 50-135, 60-250, or *200 if a prime is preferred.

- Another good option would be getting a versatile standard zoom like 16-85 or 18-135 for main use, and those primes with become its supplements for when you need them.

- Fisheye territory?

- 35mm 2.4 is plenty fast, but personally I find that, occasionally one needs to shoot at very fast aperture (1.4, 1.8) so a 50mm 1.4 -> Sigma 30 -> FA 31 or DA* 55 maybe (depend on budget).

- Buy all current Pentax lenses that are currently being offered on the market, and start to sell later ones that you don't like

[ramseybuckeye]

I think basically, alongside the other two lenses I don't like the feel of it any more, which is a bit shallow but there you go. One thing it doesn't have is a focus scale and I do use that for calculating DOF. I have reached for one of the other two a couple of times because of that.

I have tried zooms, including the 18-135, I prefer primes, I never seem to get the sweetspot on the zooms. I did have the F70-210, most of my shots tended to be at the 200 end, again out if it's sweetspot and I sold it with the intention of buying a 200mm in the future. Below is one of my favourite shots, taken with the F70-210 at 190 on an *istD. Currently I lack the capability to do shots like this and I quite often see potential for it. I use the 100 in the landscape all the time.

I have just bought an M200 F4 on ebay. It gets mixed reviews but for 40 quid I thought I'd give it a whirl and see if it's better than the 70-210 and if it isn't save my pennies for a DA 200

That makes perfect sense, I have the 35/ 2.4, it's a fine lens, sharp, fast, but I never use it for any shots where I'm trying to be creative, maybe it's the focal length, maybe it's just too clinical, I just don't really know. It may be my least used lens. I'm happy that you got the 200, hopefully it can satisfy some desire, it should be good for landscapes. I shoot all of my landscapes between 15mm and 300mm, because that is all of the range I have. Currently for landscapes I'm using two zooms most often, the DA20-40 and theDA55-300PLM, followed by the DA15. You are making me think that i should try using the 35 a little more, but then it doesn't have the character of the 20-40 at 35. Anyway I'm just rambling on, have fun with the 200.

[monochrome]

IMO, replace thee 35/2.4 with the DA 35/2.8 Limited - Mike Johnston called it the Best Lens Ever - and then go shoot a lot. If necessary add the DA70 Limited and you have a classic 3 lens set - 21 / 35 / 70 is about equivalent to the film era 3-lens kit: 28 (21 = 32) | 50 (35 = 52) | 105 (70 = 105), and then your 100 = 150.

[camera_nut]

Forgive me if someone else already suggested this, but l didn't read through all the posts. Maybe you could get a 10 stop ND filter and play around with long exposures. l don't do it much, but it's fun when l do this.

[3by2]

IMO, replace thee 35/2.4 with the DA 35/2.8 Limited - Mike Johnston called it the Best Lens Ever - and then go shoot a lot. If necessary add the DA70 Limited and you have a classic 3 lens set - 21 / 35 / 70 is about equivalent to the film era 3-lens kit: 28 (21 = 32) | 50 (35 = 52) | 105 (70 = 105), and then your 100 = 150.

That's definitely an option. What I need is a few options, which this thread has helped me decide on, because I aim to buy 2nd hand and it's what comes up at the right price. Last year I started a thread on the 20-40mm and decided to try and find one based on that. I bid on a couple on ebay but just missed out and then da21mm came up on SRS as a refurbished deal and I snapped that up. I think if i see a 35Ltd or and FA43, in black, preferably, at the right price I'll get one. the 4 is just a bit more compact which appeals more but I'm not too fussed. A 70 would definitely make up a perfect travel trio, a 20-40 remains an option at some point provided I've got one smaller Ltd for minimalist travel. I have also started to have some ideas about how I could use a fisheye and even have a particular project in mind now, I can't get all of them though, not all at once, so I think I might replace the 35/2.4 first.

@camera-nut, yeah, I do have an ND but it's not an extreme one, filters are on my thought list.

[gaweidert]

The course and books are a good thought. I do have books but they date from the film era.

Plenty of good information in those books from the film era. Rules for composition and lighting etc have not changed. The only thing that has changed is the light capture box. When I got my first digital camera I went out and got a book on digital photography. Basically it was just a rehash of books from the film era dealing with exposure, focus, lighting, composition etc. Not really what I was looking for.


If you want to try something different take a ball and chain approach. (So called by a friend of mine who used to teach photography at a reform school over 40 years ago) Go out in your yard or wherever. Confine yourself to a 10 foot (3 meter) diameter circle. Take 100 photographs without leaving that area. I promise that your most creative shots will come from the last ones taken as you force yourself to look at things in a different way to get to 100. If you want a real challenge, use only one lens.

[3by2]

Right, I've had a good think about the lenses over a dog walk. It just so happens that all of the lenses I was thinking to replace the DA 35/F2.4 are available in various places at the right price. I've discounted the 20-40 purely on size and filter thread. I'm looking for keeping things compact for bikepacking and hiking and travel and I've got two 49mm filters which I've only just bought and I want them to continue to fit all my lenses for now. The 35mm/F2.8 does look ace but a few reviews have mentioned the focus hunt if it misses focus. I already have the DFA100 which does this and it does irritate as it extends to the length of Pinocchios nose before coming back again. I don't need another macro lens either. The FA43 is just more than I want to pay or silver. I don't want a silver lens. I also don't need the F1.9, lovely as it is. So which one....SRS have two SMC da 40mm on their website and in terms of price, size and image quality one of them fits the bill. The DA 21 and 40 could easily accompany me on any adventure in a case just big enough to slide the camera in, so perfect. If I get one of them that leaves me a DA40 and M200 to play with later in the week and scratches the itch.

As for the rest I'm going to focus on PP, which may or may not mean upgrading my current software but certainly means extending my knowledge. How I do that I'm not yet sure because it's more the dark arts I'm looking at, the stuff that people don't necessarily share beyond a broad outline.

Thanks for everyone's input so far.

[monochrome]

21 - 40 - 70 is a fabulous aspirational set if you don’t want the 35/2.8. They’re all pancakes. Used SMC copies are just fine if that helps the budget.

[3by2]

21 - 40 - 70 is a fabulous aspirational set if you don’t want the 35/2.8. They’re all pancakes. Used SMC copies are just fine if that helps the budget.

Yeah, the 70 has got to be bought to complete the set hasn't it. Not yet though. Next big trip maybe.

[monochrome]

Yeah, the 70 has got to be bought to complete the set hasn't it. Not yet though. Next big trip maybe.

Yes - that’s why I wrote aspirational. I travel with KP / small grip and the three pancakes in a really small Messenger bag. Sure, it limits my reach, but that’s the compromise. Most things I can walk closer.

I sold my DFA 100 because I couldn’t take the hunting (as you mentioned). IMO you’re on the right track - just what I did.