[Riggomatic]

I've never gotten along with my zooms. When I used the 50-135 on my K-5, my shots would be at 50 or 135 and nothing in between. I still just ended up using my " shoe leather zoom".

[Tsuken]

Nah, this was a long, hard look at the camera followed by the remark, it really was so obvious that misconstruing it as a part of another conversation would be generous indeed. Not that it matters I meet lots of people who's default setting is "its either Canon or its rubbish" it seems to happen more with Canonistas than other brand users. I always think of it as the Man United syndrome. People who don't know anything buy into the name they have heard of, (or used in their college course). (When I was growing up, all my peers were Man U fans, even the ones who didn't know where Manchester was). Continued success then, in some cases, brings the arrogance! I am not saying Canon (or Man U) are bad, theyre actually very good, just that sometimes, some people can't accept that the alternatives have merit too.

Well that’s just stupid and intensely rude. Doesn’t matter how rubbish you think something is - even if it is objectively rubbish, like a Samick guitar - that’s utter Samick behaviour.

[pepperberry farm]

I avoid people like the plague in general - even before the current plague....

Peter's recent experiences are just part of the reason....

[rtmarwitz]

One of the struggles with the DA 70 Ltd for me this month is adjusting to the rather distant MFD.

I just acquired the 70 limited 3 weeks ago. This is my first SIC. I chose it since I figured it would be good to learn to use the lens's strengths/weaknesses. So far for casual walk around I have struggled with the same thing many times already, plus a few other things too. I don't have the 70-210, but I know each time I hit the 70's MFD limit my macro lens crosses my mind. I like the photos I get from the 70 especially some portraits I did in the first week I got it, but looking forward to the next 3 weeks of struggling/learning.

[pepperberry farm]

when I singled with the 70 Limited, that was my only negative all month - the MFD:

What A Lens!

I was hesitant to buy this, simply because I did not hold a lot of interest in the focal length - I have 55's, a 58, and a 90 - but nothing between and honestly did not think that the gap needed to be closed.... I figured, why not, so I bought a second-hand SMC (not HD) copy from eBay.

I was wrong, flat-out wrong. This is a great focal length and this lens will definitely be staying with me.

Let me get the one negative out of the way, so I can continue to wax poetically about this lens. The minimum focusing distance is a pain... really it is. Yes, I know it's not a macro lens, etcetera - but 27"? Really? Many shots had to be recomposed simply because I ran into the MFD.... regularly... Granted, once I was used to it, it was less of an issue (and more of just a grousing point)...

OK - done with that, back to the wax....

This lens is all about the smooooooth...the rendering, colors, bokeh, how the lens handles, all so smooth...

The technical parts are special - it's small size, like the rest of its Limited brethren, makes it a joy to use on your camera. The built-in hood works perfectly with the slip-on cap; I never felt the need to remove the hood/cap and use a generic set up on the DA70 (yes, I'm looking at you DA40 Ltd). The autofocus works as advertised, yes it is a screwdrive so not as quiet or exotic as DC or SDM, but works perfectly fine, is accurate, and quick.

But it's the colors and bokeh that make this lens a keeper for me. Throughout the month, I had to adjust colors minimally - the joy of using a Pentax lens, as they render colors closer to my true vision than any other manufacturer. Bokeh is another triumph here - almost buttery, it's so smooth - if you want bokeh balls, you got 'em; you want a DOF that just fades away, you got it.

[Cerebum]

I just acquired the 70 limited 3 weeks ago. This is my first SIC. I chose it since I figured it would be good to learn to use the lens's strengths/weaknesses. So far for casual walk around I have struggled with the same thing many times already, plus a few other things too. I don't have the 70-210, but I know each time I hit the 70's MFD limit my macro lens crosses my mind. I like the photos I get from the 70 especially some portraits I did in the first week I got it, but looking forward to the next 3 weeks of struggling/learning.

The 70mm is a lovely lens but it doesn't get as much use as my other limiteds, not so much because of the MFD, but more because its a bit long for a walk around. The cool thing about the sic is you get to test every aspect embrace the bokeh, wide open aspects, flare, star bursts etc. Try different styles, mono, landscape, well, anything really and then you can look forward to your next limited (the 21mm is full of pixie dust)

[Riggomatic]

Well that’s just stupid and intensely rude. Doesn’t matter how rubbish you think something is - even if it is objectively rubbish, like a Samick guitar - that’s utter Samick behaviour.

A Samick acoustic was my first guitar. I was almost able to tune all the strings

[rtmarwitz]

then you can look forward to your next limited (the 21mm is full of pixie dust)

lol, I already have the other Limited lenses in my list now...which will be next I dunno.

[robgski]

all my peers were Man U fans

Fun bunch

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[mattt]

when I singled with the 70 Limited, that was my only negative all month - the MFD:

The 70mm is a lovely lens but it doesn't get as much use as my other limiteds, not so much because of the MFD, but more because its a bit long for a walk around. The cool thing about the sic is you get to test every aspect embrace the bokeh, wide open aspects, flare, star bursts etc. Try different styles, mono, landscape, well, anything really and then you can look forward to your next limited (the 21mm is full of pixie dust)

I'm not lens engineer, but I'd suspect the "pancake" configuration has something to do with it. I find the MFD for the M 40mm ƒ2.8 is quite distant too.

btw, I'll be posting the black body ME Super, Gordy Wrist Strap and M40/2.8 on the marketplace. I've collected a few too many film bodies and I'm clearing it out. I'll also be posting my Sigma 120-400 after it returns from the mount refit (to make sure it doesn't scratch anymore K-1 bodies - which it did to mine). Probably a few other goodies going to go too like 500/8 mirror lens, maybe SMC K300/4. I'm trying to justify a second body purchase.... Just have to get around photographing it all and posting.

[iheiramo]

I'm not lens engineer, but I'd suspect the "pancake" configuration has something to do with it. I find the MFD for the M 40mm ƒ2.8 is quite distant too.

Yes, it's clearly longer than in M35mm and M50m lenses.

[Serkevan]

Nah, this was a long, hard look at the camera followed by the remark, it really was so obvious that misconstruing it as a part of another conversation would be generous indeed. Not that it matters I meet lots of people who's default setting is "its either Canon or its rubbish" it seems to happen more with Canonistas than other brand users. I always think of it as the Man United syndrome. People who don't know anything buy into the name they have heard of, (or used in their college course). (When I was growing up, all my peers were Man U fans, even the ones who didn't know where Manchester was). Continued success then, in some cases, brings the arrogance! I am not saying Canon (or Man U) are bad, theyre actually very good, just that sometimes, some people can't accept that the alternatives have merit too.

Oh man. I keep saying that these days you can't buy a bad camera system. They are all different flavours of excellent. I just want to use my preferred flavour in peace .

[pepperberry farm]

talking about zooms....

I follow a couple of Facebooks groups where I see people posting a photo of an old film-era lens, usually a zoom with a generic rebrand name on it and they want to know:

"I found this for $XX - is it worth it?"

it takes every ounce of self-control in my hands to not type "NO!"


from another blog:

Why do I keep buying zooms?

Zooms suck. I suck. You think that’s enough overlap to make this relationship work out. Look, it’s time for some real talk. It’s time to come to Jesus, y’all.

Old zooms suck. They just do. Yeah, there are plenty of you out there that have or will choke (or at least guffaw) from reading this. That’s okay. There are always naysayers when The Truth comes down off the mountain. They’re soft, they’re slow, they vignette like the fade at the end of a Buster Keaton movie. And even if you’re shooting new ones, they’re heavy and cumbersome.

[Serkevan]

talking about zooms....

I follow a couple of Facebooks groups where I see people posting a photo of an old film-era lens, usually a zoom with a generic rebrand name on it and they want to know:

"I found this for $XX - is it worth it?"

it takes every ounce of self-control in my hands to not type "NO!"


from another blog:

So much truth there... I'm a sucker for old primes, they have a LOT of charm and many of them are just excellent performers on top. But old zooms are... no. No no no. I had a couple tele zooms from the M-series era and I have a lot of issues with them. The 90s have some good stuff, though - I love my Tokina 70-210/4.5.

[Tsuken]

A Samick acoustic was my first guitar. I was almost able to tune all the strings

My first electric was a Samick strat. It was plywood. I discovered that when I started carving into it to change pickups and bridge etc.

(not that it really affected the sound, given that I tended to run a Dimarzio Super Distortion humbucker *in series* with a Seymour Duncan Hot Rails, and that went into a ProCo Rat, with the amplifier gain up as well. There was no hint of the wood left in the resultant sound. )