[Arjay Bee]

The Online Photographer: A 'Nested' Two-Lens Kit for the Pentax K-1

Mike Johnston's post for today... He has been a 43 LTD fan from way back in his Luminous Landscape contributions.

[pathdoc]

Interesting. When I set out to spoil myself with lenses for my *istDL many moons ago, I bought the ultimate in nested extremes - the DA18-250 and the DA 40 Limited, probably the biggest and smallest regular consumer AF lens available for K mount at the time. And I did it not even knowing what a nested pair was!!!

I appreciate the fact that he's enthusiastic about the K-1, but he does perhaps sound a little TOO enthusiastic. It's far from a perfect camera, though I do admit it does almost everything I want it to (very, very rarely I feel the lack of an inbuilt flash, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought it).

[biz-engineer]

It is not a good idea to carry a zoom that cover the prime, because if the zoom is mounted , you'll never use the prime. Usually, for the main type of shooting I'll mount the lens on the body so it's ready at any time, and I'll take complementary prime in case. Typical combo used to be (on apsc): Tamy 17-50 2.8 and DFA100 macro (small), or DA15 (small) and DA17-70. For full frame, you'd use a DFA28-105 and a small wide prime (f4) DFA20 f4 (doesn't exist), or other possibility would be to use the DFA24-70 and a DFA135 prime (doesn't exist). In order to max out versatility vs size/weight, the prime lens should be significantly wide than the wider FL of the zoom , or significantly longer than the longest FL of the zoom.

[clackers]

It is not a good idea to carry a zoom that cover the prime, because if the zoom is mounted , you'll never use the prime. Usually, for the main type of shooting I'll mount the lens on the body so it's ready at any time, and I'll take complementary prime in case. Typical combo used to be (on apsc): Tamy 17-50 2.8 and DFA100 macro (small), or DA15 (small) and DA17-70. For full frame, you'd use a DFA28-105 and a small wide prime (f4) DFA20 f4 (doesn't exist), or other possibility would be to use the DFA24-70 and a DFA135 prime (doesn't exist). In order to max out versatility vs size/weight, the prime lens should be significantly wide than the wider FL of the zoom , or significantly longer than the longest FL of the zoom.

I think many of us, like Mike, require at least one lens of aperture f2.8 or faster, for our shooting styles.

If you're outside for long enough there'll be opportunities for shots in low light or benefiting from shallower depth of field.

[zjacreman]

Mike's been developing the idea of the "nested" lens pair in other posts over the last week or two. It's a little counter-intuitive: his idea is that you use a premium, bulky, heavy, do-everything zoom when you're out to do serious photography, because in that scenario, the size and weight don't matter. The second lens in the pair is a small, ultralight prime from the middle of the range, and you carry that one on your camera when you're out doing other stuff, so that you always have the camera on you. The two lenses aren't for carrying at the same time.

It's an interesting idea that tickles the part of my brain that appreciates minimalism, but the part of my brain with LBA definitely stronger.

[SSGGeezer]

the part of my brain with LBA definitely stronger.

Too true! That is how I ended up with a heavyweight SIgma 70-200!

[zjacreman]

It has got me pondering though. I think - if I had to - I could get what I needed just carrying a fast fifty in one pocket, a GR in the other, and a 70-200 f2.8 on a sling strap.

[Doundounba]

I think - if I had to - I could get what I needed just carrying a fast fifty in one pocket, a GR in the other, and a 70-200 f2.8 on a sling strap.

You might need a body for those two lenses as well.

And you'll need a mighty big pocket if you pick the upcoming D-FA* as your fast 50...

[zjacreman]

Haha yeah the K-1 goes with the 70-200 on the sling in this scenario.

And you'll need a mighty big pocket if you pick the upcoming D-FA* as your fast 50...

Nah, I don't think I've ever been less interested in a lens. Honestly, not sure what's broken in the existing 50s that the D-FA* needs so much glass to fix... they've had 50mm figured out since the Super Tak. I suppose if I'd sold off my glass to achieve this minimalist kit I could splurge on a 43 ltd, but the F-series 50/1.7 is very good and very pocketable.

[ChristianRock]

I'm a bit surprised at the amount of praise that Mike threw at the K-1. I know he hasn't shot with Pentax in almost a decade though he used to be pretty fond of the Pentax philosophy. He's all in with Fuji these days. So I'm wondering what he's thinking there...

What I'm not surprised is that this has gotten little attention here. If someone had said bad things about Pentax, I'm sure we'd be at page 20 by now...

Still, it's as positive a recommendation as any Pentax has received lately.

[savoche]

Not sure I see the need for a term for focal length overlap, but I like his pick. This is exactly what I do when travelling; zooms to cover most things and a couple of primes to cover special occasions (macro, low light, artsy thin DOF etc).

Minimum travel kit would be the DFA28-105 and FA43. And, of course, the GR.

Extended travel kit is DFA28-105 and DA55-300, plus FA43 and A20 (not "nested", though), sometimes the DFA100 (macro, low-light short tele) and DA70 (because it's such a nice lens). And, of course, the GR.

[savoche]

his idea is that you use a premium, bulky, heavy, do-everything zoom when you're out to do serious photography, because in that scenario, the size and weight don't matter.

This made me wonder - is this how people generally think? To quote from Mike's blog:

You use the zoom when you're photographing purposefully, when photographing is absorbing your whole attention and concentration; and you use the little prime as a "do-everything" lens when you're just carrying the camera along with you in order to have it along, as you go about your other business or your daily life.

I guess it makes sense if your zooms are high-end f/2.8 lenses, but for me it's the opposite. A zoom is something I use for convenience only - that is, when photography is not my main task of the day. If I'm going out to do "serious" photography I will take a set of primes.

[Wheatfield]

It is not a good idea to carry a zoom.

[mirocal]

Funny how definitions of "serious about photography" center around focusing on the camera . How about climbing ice or running trails with one? The goal is still photography, but a genre where first one has to keep up with the subject. And no offense, all "serious" outdoors photography is "being there" conditioned, hence the eternal search for the weight-quality optimum, that hardly allows for "nesting". I am still far from finding it: depending on how physically demanding the activity is, I may take just an FA 20-35/4 (or F 17-28/3.5-4.5) or DFA 28-105/3.5-5.6 plus DFA 200/2.8.

[savoche]

Funny how definitions of "serious about photography" center around focusing on the camera . How about climbing ice or running trails with one? The goal is still photography, but a genre where first one has to keep up with the subject. And no offense, all "serious" outdoors photography is "being there" conditioned, hence the eternal search for the weight-quality optimum, that hardly allows for "nesting". I am still far from finding it: depending on how physically demanding the activity is, I may take just an FA 20-35/4 (or F 17-28/3.5-4.5) or DFA 28-105/3.5-5.6 plus DFA 200/2.8.

Of course. If you are not there you will get no photos at all. The situation will dictate what equipment can be used. I'll manage with just the little Olympus Tough if conditions are really rough.

However, I disagree with your notion that "nesting" must be at odds with finding the weight-quality optimum. For example, the 28-105 and a 100mm macro would be "nested" in terms of focal length, but if you need macro the 28-105 won't help you.