[normhead]

I have tried to get him to use my primes, but he refuses and says he likes his two zooms! To his credit, he gets very good photos, including BIF, and can make them look 3-D! He is too modest to show his work even though I encourage it. That’s okay, he still enjoys it and we can share with each other!

Weird eh? I was in Photo Arts at Ryerson Politech in 67, and didn't get my first zoom until 1980. MY first 10 years were shot with a 55 ƒ2. And my first zoom got irreparable mould before I learned how to take care of zooms on canoe trips. IN those days, that zoom, a Soligar 50-150, was barely passable as a lens. How times have changed. Computer aided design changed everything.

[que es tu]

Weird eh? I was in Photo Arts at Ryerson Politech in 67, and didn't get my first zoom until 1980. MY first 10 years were shot with a 55 ƒ2. And my first zoom got irreparable mould before I learned how to take care of zooms on canoe trips. IN those days, that zoom, a Soligar 50-150, was barely passable as a lens. How times have changed. Computer aided design changed everything.

Yes zooms can be quite good, even “consumer” grade! I recently got my first Limited lens, SMC 21mm, and really enjoy the lightweight, compactness of it compared to MY 18-135 and HDDA 55-300, or even my 100mm macro! I couldn’t imagine carrying anything that weighs more than 16oz, those old zooms were probably pretty heavy!

[normhead]

Yes zooms can be quite good, even “consumer” grade! I recently got my first Limited lens, SMC 21mm, and really enjoy the lightweight, compactness of it compared to MY 18-135 and HDDA 55-300, or even my 100mm macro! I couldn’t imagine carrying anything that weighs more than 16oz, those old zooms were probably pretty heavy!

I remember when a Popular Photography came out sometime in the 70s... and three of the top 10 lenses based on some really extensive testing with many different metrics rated, and 3 of the top 10 were zooms. 1 was a Tamron, one was a Sigma, there was outrage. My memory is two Zeisses, one Pentax, two Canons, one Nikon. They tested over 100 lenses. It's not the high end zooms that have improved the most, it's what you can get in cheaper lenses. Back in 67 there were a huge number of cheap barely useable lenses, prime and zoom.

Two observations.
There have been good high quality (but expensive) zooms for a very long time. Like at least 40 years. Some people still don't understand that.

Despite that people believe even now that any Ziess or similar lens was better than its competition. I have no evidence that was ever true. Two of them were better than their competition and many other companies had 1 or two that were best in class.

The kit zooms of the 2000's are in many cases better than the primes of the 60's-2000 lenses. Look at the charts of the DA 18-135 or DA 16-85 at 24mm compared to anything but the class leading Canon 24, and they are better than their prime predecessors.

IMHO the last domain of prime photography is sub 2. My DA*60-250 is practically indistinguishable from my DA*200 at 200mm, with so much more range and less PF. But bottom line, if no money falls into my pocket before my cameras die, a K70 (or KF) would do just fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

[UncleVanya]

Weird eh? I was in Photo Arts at Ryerson Politech in 67, and didn't get my first zoom until 1980. MY first 10 years were shot with a 55 ƒ2. And my first zoom got irreparable mould before I learned how to take care of zooms on canoe trips. IN those days, that zoom, a Soligar 50-150, was barely passable as a lens. How times have changed. Computer aided design changed everything.

Norm my first 7-8 years with 35mm were mostly spent with a Nikon 50mm f2 myself. I didn't like zooms at all until they improved... (At least zooms I could afford!)

[normhead]

Norm my first 7-8 years with 35mm were mostly spent with a Nikon 50mm f2 myself. I didn't like zooms at all until they improved... (At least zooms I could afford!)

I still "see" in 55mm to this day. With my 55 1.4 on my K-1 I walk to "the spot" without looking through the viewfinder. With zoom it's look, compose find the right spot for the FL you select.

[UncleVanya]

I still "see" in 55mm to this day. With a 55 on my K-1 I walk to "the spot" without looking through the viewfinder. With zoom it's look, compose find the right spot for the FL you select.

LOL - I know what you mean. With a 50mm on FF or a 35'ish on APSC I have the same kind of intuitive grasp of where the shot is and how it will be before I put the camera to my face.

EDIT: This may explain why the FA 43 and I never got along...

[yucatanPentax]

That was an enjoyable video. I liked that he had various styles for the different situations. Sometimes cajole or encourage, other times asking permission or at least letting people know, other times, anonymously snapping pics. He's easy to listen to with some good information about how he's looking for shots. Thanks for posting!

[reh321]

LOL - I know what you mean. With a 50mm on FF or a 35'ish on APSC I have the same kind of intuitive grasp of where the shot is and how it will be before I put the camera to my face.

EDIT: This may explain why the FA 43 and I never got along...

I shot 45mm for ten years on rangefinder cameras, then 50mm on SLRs for sixteen years - then simultaneously to Canon and a 28-80mm lens. I found the zoom to be so freeing …… I could pick perspective, then framing seperately {instead of picking perspective based on how it would frame}

[Paul the Sunman]

Yes, indeed I am. It's just so lovely to see someone using a DSLR for street photography, together with the 18-135, as so many people use small primes. I'm usually a bit trepidatious when it comes to street photography; I prefer small forms of camera and lens so I'm usually in awe of people who just go out there and use this particular combination.

I like the K-1 for street photography, especially with the moon-lander screen and waist-level shooting. Good lenses to go with it are the DFA 28-105, DFA* 50, the DA 40 Limited, and even the DFA* 70-200 (don't laugh). I find the 70-200 particularly good while seated, holding camera and lens on my lap and watching the world go by.

[normhead]

LOL - I know what you mean. With a 50mm on FF or a 35'ish on APSC I have the same kind of intuitive grasp of where the shot is and how it will be before I put the camera to my face.

EDIT: This may explain why the FA 43 and I never got along...

The 43 is just close enough to 55mm to make it irritating to use. I did get along with my 40 XS. The problem with the 40 XS was it was small enough to easily lose, and that's what happened to mine. I left if on the car seat at Cameron Rd. one day, and it must have been swept off the car seat when I did a lens change, never to be seen again.

[Jeff]

The 43 is just close enough to 55mm to make it irritating to use. I did get along with my 40 XS. The problem with the 40 XS was it was small enough to easily lose, and that's what happened to mine. I left if on the car seat at Cameron Rd. one day, and it must have been swept off the car seat when I did a lens change, never to be seen again.

Whereas I like the 43 on FF and my 31 on apsc which is about 46mm on FF.

I also like my 35 macro but at 54mm FF equivalent I sometimes find it a little tight. Much to be said then for a zoom when out and about, and the 18-135mm is very able and capable. It was my first decent lens some years ago and it retains a soft spot in my heart.

[reh321]

Whereas I like the 43 on FF and my 31 on apsc which is about 46mm on FF.

I also like my 35 macro but at 54mm FF equivalent I sometimes find it a little tight. Much to be said then for a zoom when out and about, and the 18-135mm is very able and capable. It was my first decent lens some years ago and it retains a soft spot in my heart.

I seem to prefer 28mm {I have both Takumar and Pentax-M at that focal length} on my “APS-C” camera; that gives the same view as 42mm did on 35mm - I guess that is similar to the 45mm of my first two 35mm cameras.

[Jeff]

I seem to prefer 28mm {I have both Takumar and Pentax-M at that focal length} on my “APS-C” camera; that gives the same view as 42mm did on 35mm - I guess that is similar to the 45mm of my first two 35mm cameras.

Which is close to what we see with our own eyes - it isn't the case with a 50mm lens (ff equivalent) so it makes sense. In fact I know that Zeiss and Irix both make a 45mm lens for FF. If I was a Sony guy/gal then I'd definitely head for the Zeiss 45mm.

[normhead]

The video reminds me of my days visiting Niagara Falls. K-3 and DA 18-135 or K-1 and DA*60-250


His description of the mindset is perfect.

[reh321]

I like the K-1 for street photography, especially with the moon-lander screen and waist-level shooting. Good lenses to go with it are the DFA 28-105, DFA* 50, the DA 40 Limited, and even the DFA* 70-200 (don't laugh). I find the 70-200 particularly good while seated, holding camera and lens on my lap and watching the world go by.

In the early days of digital, my brother had a Canon camera with an articulating screen. He would look down at the camera and pretend to ‘fiddle’ while actually taking a photo. I always wondered whether anyone was fooled, since they could see the screen off to the side. I have always preferred a ‘flippy’ screen - like the KP or K1 - where the body ‘hides’ the screen, for that function.

These days, ‘selfies’ are the norm - after all, everything revolves around the person taking the photo; personally, I am more interested in the photographer, but I’ve never claimed to be normal. On one trip to the museum, I spent most of my time looking for photographers {instead of exhibits} to photograph.