[JensE]

I have an older Sigma 24mm macro that has rarely been used at 2.8. When I first got it I took a cople o 2.8 practice shoots. Since then, 110 images 90% f8 a few ƒ5.6s and ƒ11s. I wonder what the odds for other people are. Unfortunately I only have my own library available, so I have no idea if other people use WA lenses at wide apertures. Given the whole the wider the lens the more DoF thing, it seems kind of counter productive.

My F 2.8/28 stats:

2.8 139
3.2 3
3.5 221 (mainly one long series of astro-shots)
4.0 49
4.5 28
5.0 8
5.6 73
6.3 22
7.1 25
8.0 23
9.0 4
10 6
11 10
13 3
14 5
16 4
18 2
20 2


As you can see, I rarely use it - your point on zooms. So I tend to bring it mostly when there is either a need for a relatively fast lens or for a 49mm set (compact filters) - which rules out the 31mm. Other than that, it's a nice closeup lens to reverse on e.g. an smc-M 135mm/3.5.

[someasiancameraguy]

How much would you pay for a hypothetical DA 28 2.4 ltd that is roughly 40mm tall ~1.5 inches?
For comparison the DA 21 3.2 ltd is tiny and costs 400 USD. The DA 35 2.4 is around 150 USD.

Personally I'd pay 300-500 for such a lens and pair it with the KP.

[Jonathan Mac]

There is no APS-C-specific (ie. without the extra size, glass, cost of making a FF lens) fast (er than f/2) standard prime made for Pentax. None. The most important lens for Pentax's most popular format, and it doesn't exist. And that's seventeen years after the debut of Pentax's first DLSR.

If there's a bigger gap in Pentax's lens line-up on any format I'm not aware of it.

[normhead]

There is no APS-C-specific (ie. without the extra size, glass, cost of making a FF lens) fast (er than f/2) standard prime made for Pentax. None. The most important lens for Pentax's most popular format, and it doesn't exist. And that's seventeen years after the debut of Pentax's first DLSR.

If there's a bigger gap in Pentax's lens line-up on any format I'm not aware of it.

Every company has a huge gap around ƒ1.2 lenses. You can draw an arbitrary line in the sand but it means little.
The DA 50 1.8 is good enough. the 43 1.8 and 31 1.8 are also in the realm of "an important focal length." that are sub 2.

Me thinks thou dost protest to much.

If you're going to complain that the 31 and 43 are oversized because they aren't made for APS-c you haven't been paying attention.

[stevebrot]

Me thinks thou dost protest to much.

Me thinks many have no intent to purchase. FWIW, I have found 28mm to be a clumsy focal length on APS-C.


Steve

[JensE]

I have found 28mm to be a clumsy focal length on APS-C

A lot of clumsy groups of people in context at 28mm in my DB.

[pres589]

Me thinks many have no intent to purchase. FWIW, I have found 28mm to be a clumsy focal length on APS-C.


Steve

I know I'm in the minority here, but I purchased three 28mm primes all well before I got into full frame film shooting. One with AF that was very much meant for general shooting on my K-5. I think it's a wonderful compromise focal length on APS-C that is extremely versatile.

[normhead]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I purchased three 28mm primes all well before I got into full frame film shooting. One with AF that was very much meant for general shooting on my K-5. I think it's a wonderful compromise focal length on APS-C that is extremely versatile.

So how many images do you have that couldn't have been taken with an 18-135, 16-85, 20-40, 28-105, 16-50- 17-50, 17-70, or 15-30?

I'm reading that you like 28mm, I'm wondering what the uses for 28mm that an't be handled by current zooms are. I currently own 4 zooms that cover that range. I'd like to see a few images that are wider apertures than the prime, just to see what I'm missing.

[pres589]

Shots of bar bands in low lighting with a zoom sounds not so great. I like primes. Out of focus highlights are almost universally better out of a prime. I can't imagine telling someone with a crop Pentax that instead of wanting a new 28mm prime they could swing the 15-30 around. Like, what?

[pepperberry farm]

Me thinks many have no intent to purchase. FWIW, I have found 28mm to be a clumsy focal length on APS-C.


Steve

I'd much rather shoot at 24mm than at 28mm...

[normhead]

Shots of bar bands in low lighting with a zoom sounds not so great. I like primes. Out of focus highlights are almost universally better out of a prime.

And you know this how? I find people who haven't really investigated the issue use terms like "almost universally"

I can't imagine telling someone with a crop Pentax that instead of wanting a new 28mm prime they could swing the 15-30 around. Like, what?

And I can't imagine telling them they need a 28 when the 31 ltd and 21 ltd are available. We all have trouble imagining certain things. But is that worth discussing? If anything is needed it should be a 26mm lens, split the difference. Reality is much more appealing.

[someasiancameraguy]

Macro shots, astro shots, anything requiring shallow DOF or better. Zooms have their place when flexibility is wanted, but there are times where I would pay for the portability and IQ of one good normal lens. Most days I leave the house with the K-1 or MX/MZ-3 with the 43mm, (28mm aps-c equiv) and I'd like the option of getting a similar setup in aps-c.

[pres589]

I'd totally take a 26. A D-FA 26mm f2.4, for instance, would be awesome. And you can't say that zooms as a general rule provide out of focus backgrounds that are as pleasing to look at / less distracting than a prime of similar focal length. I like my 18-135 a lot but no way does it give background out of focus IQ to the level of my Sigma 28 EX DG at the same f-stop.

And I did use my 18-135 in the bar. Its max aperture around 28mm is, what, f4? When you're hand holding, even with SR, that extra stop (or two, or two and some change) of light is worth getting. K-5 raw pushability or not.

[normhead]

I'd totally take a 26. A D-FA 26mm f2.4, for instance, would be awesome. And you can't say that zooms as a general rule provide out of focus backgrounds that are as pleasing to look at / less distracting than a prime of similar focal length. I like my 18-135 a lot but no way does it give background out of focus IQ to the level of my Sigma 28 EX DG at the same f-stop.

And I did use my 18-135 in the bar. Its max aperture around 28mm is, what, f4? When you're hand holding, even with SR, that extra stop (or two, or two and some change) of light is worth getting. K-5 raw pushability or not.

Well that where you and I differ. I don't shoot in bars.Of my 88 28mm images taken this year, not one o my photos has any out o focus areas.
All the new lenses with the amazingly corrected backgrounds are huge. Another reason to go with the 31. Best background from a WA lens and compact. people just aren't making less like this anymore. The odds of you finding a lightweight like the 31 are slim to none, from any manufacturer. The odds that Pentax could make one is even more of a stretch. You're kind of hoping for lightning to strike twice.



I'm looking at this thinking ,well how bad could the DA 18-135 be, because don't see this as good?

I see it as distracting. But I can't check with an 18-135 image because I just don't take that kind of image with the DA 18-135.

I wonder what percentage of Pentax shooters, shoot in bars? Is this actually a niche that could be exploited?

[pres589]

I wonder what percentage of Pentax shooters shoot in bars?

Not nearly enough.