[jeallen01]

@Des

Funnily enough, the Sigma F4-F5.6 10-20mm (at least the early non-HSM version?) might just be "sort of" FF compatible! Why do I say that?

Somewhat after that lens "hit the deck" with me on top, I heard a "clunk" one day - as, it turned out, there's a small cylindical insert in the rear section of the lens which had fallen out onto the floor! Popped it back in but it fell out again later, and so I refitted it with some medium strength threadlock and it hasn't fallen out since

FWIW, I suspect that that insert is intended to restrict the image projected onto the sensor to APS-C size, and thus, without it, it might cover FF - but probably with quite severe image edge degradation.

---

Last edited by jeallen01; 02-10-2019 at 03:03 PM.

[Des]

Funnily enough, the Sigma F4-F5.6 10-20mm (at least the early non-HSM version?) might just be "sort of" FF compatible!

There are a few PF threads about this, including the one I linked to. My take-home from those discussions is that the lens is soft in the corners on FF, even once any vignetting is cropped out. Removing the insert (as you did involuntarily ;-) ) might reduce vignetting but I agree that it probably would still show a lot of image degradation.

[VILLAINofOZ]

I understand that Full Frame lenses will save me money down the track seeing that I will eventually get a FF camera.
I have decided to go against that advice I guess and to go against my original budget of $800 LOL.

I have now setup to buy a DA*16-50 and a DA*50-135 within the coming weeks as I pay them off (both 2nd hand) quite cheaply from a friend.
I will have my Tamron 90mm & FA 28-105MM on Wednesday.

Originally I posted wanting replacements for what was in my backpack and wanting suggestions for travel lenses. With the 4 lenses above, I think all I want now is to replace the DAL 50-200 with probably the DA* 300 and DA55-300 & then add something wider.

I am probably now just going to buy a WR 15mm limited or a 10-17 fisheye.

My holiday is primarily a photographic holiday for me.
I am spending a week in Italy, flying to London and then going to Stonehenge all before catching up with the 5 others going on holiday together in Edinburgh, 4 day Music festival (Hellfest) in France and then Amsterdam.

I am fully aware of the fact that the phography epuiptment I will be carrying will be around 10kg.
The music festival is allowing me to bring all camera gear. I intend on getting some nice pics.

I don't think I can own too many lenses...
I have ideas of collecting Pentax lenses and will keep buying all these cheap package deals and eventually open a market stall with the excess I get from them after I get what I want out of the package.

As an example, I got a Sun 70-210 4.5 in excellent condition, in its original leather pouch and in its box, a beautiful copy of Pentax-M 35-70 in an original Pentax 35-70 pouch, a Pentax AF160 Flash in its leather pouch and a Focal 2x Tele converter in its leather pouch and box for $30.

I was prepared to pay $30 for the 35-70mm and the AF160 will go to my collection while the rest is excess.
I am building quite a collection of excess.

In 12 months or more when I decide to get a FF camera, I will by just buy more lenses at that time.

[nocturnal]

The Pentax-M 35-70mm f2.8-f3.5 is an excellent lens. I used it for landscapes and it shone, the best M series zoom made I would say.

[KoolKool]

in the crazed world with alots of smartphone crowds around, now just think how to make yourself a little bit special that stand out and get more loves on social media everyday

i have K70 so i would go all the way to 18-135, versatility and practical, it's not about superior image quality, but get most of works done to make not only yourself, but your friends, family happy enough to make up a good, full of smiling day

for self pleasure, i would go for 20-40, and 55-300 PLM, for rogue, creative shooting

[doc_taz_nj]

in the crazed world with alots of smartphone crowds around, now just think how to make yourself a little bit special that stand out and get more loves on social media everyday

i have K70 so i would go all the way to 18-135, versatility and practical, it's not about superior image quality, but get most of works done to make not only yourself, but your friends, family happy enough to make up a good, full of smiling day

for self pleasure, i would go for 20-40, and 55-300 PLM, for rogue, creative shooting

Yep, can't wait for my new K-70 rig to arrive today! Ordered it with the 18-135 WR + SanDisk 32 gb SD card and a UV filter... a kit from B&H for $800 USD. I do have a bunch of lenses I like from my K-x and K1000, but opted for the kit as I wanted at least one weather resistant lens.

I've heard people crap on the 18-135 WR, but that's just it, crap. The images presented here and ones I have seen on flickr say otherwise.

[normhead]

IN our experience, the Tamron is just as good as the DFA 100 macro. It was our first top quality lens purchase and its atop rate lens on every system. My wife still uses hers as walk around on her K-5. I bought my DFA 100 macro, because my wife uses the Tamron as a walk around and it's rarely available if I want it, and because the DFA is lighter and water resistent. The Tamron has better IQ (micro contrast) than my DA*60-250 at 90mm. It's definitely a DA*quality lens image wise. my wife also borrows the 28-105 on a regular basis for a walk arounds on hikes and outings. You need wider option but it's great APS-c lens, in that it's newer "modern lenses fo riders sensors lens. But for APS-c you should have bought the 16-85, IMHO.

For top quality images hiking
DA 16-85, DA 55-300, DA* 55 1.4 or FA 50 1.4, and DFA 100 macro, would be the hiker's dream kit, and I frequently go out with that equipment.

well OK, I have the 18-135 not the 16-85, but the 16-85 is a better in combination with the DA 55-300 PLM, for obvious reasons.
That gives me great pseudo macro on my walk arounds in both zooms, a dedicated macro for when needed, a low light option for around the campfire or stars, all in a nice lightweight package that fits in a smallish bag. And if you get the DA 55 1.4, all water resistant. Thats just a great outdoor kit.

But, since you've ordered the DFA 28-105, which is a great lens, my wife takes the Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro, to complete her set. Apparently a Sigma 17-50 would be better, but either will do.

I am reluctant to take anything but WR lenses hiking, not only for moisture resistance, but because they seem to have better more solid, smoother feeling build quality. especially if compared to non FA*, FA lenses. I'm always afraid my FA 35-80 is going to break into pieces.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-18-2019 at 08:30 AM.

[nocturnal]

Proper top IQ hikers dreamkit is the HD DA 20-40 Limited and the Da* 60-250 f4 maybe along with HD DA15 or Samyang 14mm f2.8 only for mountain landscape astro shots.

I never use a 50mm lens any more, 33mm on the 20-40 gives me that FOV on APS-C which IS good. I had 7x different 28mm primes not so long ago, the 20-40 retired them all, I still have some of them but they need to go as they are unused.

[normhead]

Proper top IQ hikers dreamkit is the HD DA 20-40 Limited and the Da* 60-250 f4 maybe along with HD DA15 or Samyang 14mm f2.8 only for mountain landscape astro shots.

I never use a 50mm lens any more, 33mm on the 20-40 gives me that FOV on APS-C which IS good. I had 7x different 28mm primes not so long ago, the 20-40 retired them all, I still have some of them but they need to go as they are unused.

IMHO, the DA*60-250 is too heavy to carry on long hikes. My DA 55-300 has replaced it. I own both.

[nocturnal]

IMHO, the DA*60-250 is too heavy to carry on long hikes. My DA 55-300 has replaced it. I own both.

K-70, DA15, 20-40 and 60-250 only weigh around 2.3kg. Due to IBIS most times a tripod can be left behind, I drink directly from the streams avoiding carrying litres (kilograms) of water.

A K1 with DFA 15-30, DFA 24-70, DFA 70-200 plus a big tripod to use these on when needed is way more weight and bulk. Then a 645Z system is perhaps more again. It is more the bulk than the weight of these bigger cameras for me personally.

But compare that to what Ansel Adams had to lug about 😀

[normhead]

But compare that to what Ansel Adams had to lug about 😀

You mean compared to what Ansel Adams' trusty mule had to lug about.

Compared to the K-3, 18-135, and 55-300 at 1.7kg it's a pound heavier and a lot more lens changes, and none of the lenses you list have pseudo macro. I'm sticking with what I have.

[pres589]

I wonder if the DA 55-300 RE PLM would be worth using in square crop mode on the K-1 to save weight and space. The lens performs well on true APS-C bodies so in theory... I know it is an extremely compromised solution, but it seems like it's got some real pluses as well.

[normhead]

I wonder if the DA 55-300 RE PLM would be worth using in square crop mode on the K-1 to save weight and space. The lens performs well on true APS-C bodies so in theory... I know it is an extremely compromised solution, but it seems like it's got some real pluses as well.

I've considered it many times. Tess loves the DA 55-300 on her K-5, so it should be awesome. But I haven't actually done it yet. I'm considering it for this summer. I don't want to carry two bodies and I want the K-1 for sunsets. It might make sense to just take the K-1 28-105 and 55-300.

But for myself, I prefer to shoot in FF mode and crop in post. That lets me maximize my crops.

[gaweidert]

You mean compared to what Ansel Adams' trusty mule had to lug about.

Compared to the K-3, 18-135, and 55-300 at 1.7kg it's a pound heavier and a lot more lens changes, and none of the lenses you list have pseudo macro. I'm sticking with what I have.

He did not do al lot of "lugging about" and his kit was pretty light. Not a lot of heavy lenses and a field camera is not that heavy compared to a K! with battery grip installed. FWIW his photo of the Snake River with the Grand Tetons in the background was taken form a roadside pull off. You can stop by there today to take a shot form the same location, but a lot of trees have grown up that block the foreground. However if you lug a personnel scissor lift along with you, you should be able to do a workaround.

[normhead]

He did not do al lot of "lugging about" and his kit was pretty light. Not a lot of heavy lenses and a field camera is not that heavy compared to a K! with battery grip installed. FWIW his photo of the Snake River with the Grand Tetons in the background was taken form a roadside pull off. You can stop by there today to take a shot form the same location, but a lot of trees have grown up that block the foreground. However if you lug a personnel scissor lift along with you, you should be able to do a workaround.

For some reason public works are constantly having their funding cut, and many of the roads lookout, built back in the 60s and 70s now have their views blocked by trees. A scissor lift or chain saw is often desired. Now that there are electric chainsaws, without the noisy gas motors, I'm tempted to surreptitiously restore a few of these lookouts to their former glory. Tempted, but, not terribly motivated.