[GUB]

I was looking for an ultra wide angle prime for expansive landscape photography in Arizona and couldn't find anything I liked that was affordable, so I compromised with a zoom.

Have you thought about getting an older 28mm and stitching your results.? I found that was the cost effective way to go wide in apsc. I find handholding 3 x portrait shots or 4 x grid shots very simple and effective. Of course you need to be in manual mode.

[mikesbike]

Hello,

These are probably very silly questions that show my inexperience with digital photography, having mostly lived in the film camera world.

I just recently purchased a K-70 and a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD (non-VC to get a sharper image), thinking I'd get the uncropped equivalent range of 25.5-75mm, mild WA to mild Telephoto. However, after mounting the lens on the camera body and doing some practice shooting at the lens' 50mm focal length, I noticed both in the viewfinder and in Live View that the image is the same as I see it without the camera. Shifting my eyes away from the camera to the actual subject (a house across the street, shooting from within my home office), I do not see a mildly zoomed-in image. It's as if I were shooting a film camera with a 50mm 'normal' lens rather than a 75mm mild telephoto which I had expected.

So am I missing something with the whole cropped sensor technology? Do you think the lens is defective and not giving me the entire zoom range out to 50mm (75mm cropped)? How can I verify the proper functioning of the lens zoom range?

Any assistance I can get with this would be greatly appreciated.

It is as others have said regarding FL being the same, crop sensor, etc. but your problem is you are using the wrong test as you describe above. The telephoto "effect" will show up as your image fills your APS-C camera screen, VF, or when transferred onto your computer screen. If you stand at the same spot and shoot the same subject with a 50mm lens on your 35mm film body, then shoot the same with your DSLR and a 50mm FL, you would see a very different result. It is like taking the image shot with your 35mm body, then cropping the image and filling the screen with your cropped image. In order to get the same image right out of the camera (not cropping) with your 35mm film body as you are getting with your APS-C DSLR, shot from the same distance, you would need a longer lens.

In practical usage, the advantage for APS-C in this case does mean that a 50mm lens, especially a fast prime, is more useful for portraits and fast action at some distance, than it would be on a 35mm film or FF DSLR. And one can be had at far less expense than a longer lens for FF use.

[MrB1]

Have you thought about getting an older 28mm and stitching your results.? I found that was the cost effective way to go wide in apsc. I find handholding 3 x portrait shots or 4 x grid shots very simple and effective. Of course you need to be in manual mode.

This is a good alternative to using a wide angle lens - the DA 35 Limited is often the only lens with my camera, so I use it in this way when needed. Any mode (except Green Auto) can be used - I usually set Av Mode - select optimal exposure settings and lock them with AE-L to capture the set of images.

Philip

[aslyfox]

keep your eye on the forums' market place " buy/sell "

it can be sorted by country

The Pentax Marketplace | Buy & Sell Pentax Cameras and Lenses (United States) - PentaxForums.com

you never know what might turn up

you can also place a " wanted " notice

Wanted Items - PentaxForums.com

[DWS1]

Have you thought about getting an older 28mm and stitching your results.? I found that was the cost effective way to go wide in apsc. I find handholding 3 x portrait shots or 4 x grid shots very simple and effective. Of course you need to be in manual mode.

Not only more cost effective, I think you can capture more detail too.

[TwoUptons]

Thank you everyone for your explanation, viewpoints, and wise words. I didn't expect such a long thread. But basically, this 17-50mm lens is a starting point for my system as I'm starting over in my photography life after leaving film shooting. I now see what to expect with future lenses. I think the Tamron is a great lens and it has very good reviews, both by professionals and down-to-Earth users, but it's still a zoom. I have always favored prime lenses before, especially Nikon primes. I was looking for an ultra wide angle prime for expansive landscape photography in Arizona and couldn't find anything I liked that was affordable, so I compromised with a zoom. But I think photography, as in life, is a bunch of compromises anyway.

The 17-50 is a good starting point for adding a few primes...

15mm ltd gets a lot of love here... but the widest I have for APS-C is 16mm.

I have the 16mm Zenitar fisheye, and it's a little weird on APS-C... it's about like having a 24mm on film with a ton of distortion...

-Eric

[interested_observer]

Thank you everyone for your explanation, viewpoints, and wise words. I didn't expect such a long thread. But basically, this 17-50mm lens is a starting point for my system as I'm starting over in my photography life after leaving film shooting. I now see what to expect with future lenses. I think the Tamron is a great lens and it has very good reviews, both by professionals and down-to-Earth users, but it's still a zoom. I have always favored prime lenses before, especially Nikon primes. I was looking for an ultra wide angle prime for expansive landscape photography in Arizona and couldn't find anything I liked that was affordable, so I compromised with a zoom. But I think photography, as in life, is a bunch of compromises anyway.

Evening Jim, I'm out here in the Arizona Territory with a couple of suggestions. Rather than going with an ultra wide, I would suggest using the lens that you have and shooting stitched panoramas. All you have to do is to overlap you shots by a third (and shooting handheld is just fine), and then on your PC drag them into Microsoft ICE (free download) and the utility will stitch them into a single resulting image. Rather than have an ultra wide lens try to shoehorn the view into a single image, by stitching you are actually adding resolution and sharpness.

[GUB]

I usually set Av Mode - select optimal exposure settings and lock them with AE-L to capture the set of images.

I am not familiar with the AE-L -- Is that a sort of parallel workflow to M mode and green button?

[MrB1]

I am not familiar with the AE-L -- Is that a sort of parallel workflow to M mode and green button?

Note that I stated I usually use a digital AF lens, so the camera doesn't need to be in Manual Mode.

AE-L is on the button at the top right of the rear of the camera. It is "Auto Exposure - Lock". On some Pentax cameras, the same button is also AF - "Auto Focus", so to use it for AE-L, it needs assigning to that function in Camera Menu 5, Button Customisation: "AF/AE-L Button - AE-L".

In any of the semi-auto modes (P, Sv, Tv, Av, TAv), pressing the AE-L button stops the camera automatically changing the exposure settings (when you point the lens at a different part of the scene which may have different brightness), for as many shots as you wish. While exposure is locked there will be an asterisk displayed on the rear screen and in the viewfinder.

Philip

[GUB]

Note that I stated I usually use a digital AF lens, so the camera doesn't need to be in Manual Mode.

I am not sure what you mean here - Manual mode is nothing to do with focus. I was suggesting manual mode because you don't want the camera changing its exposure between shots. But you have your own solution to that.
I choose to be in manual mode all the time anyway so it is not an issue for me.

[MrB1]

I am not sure what you mean here - Manual mode is nothing to do with focus. I was suggesting manual mode because you don't want the camera changing its exposure between shots. But you have your own solution to that. I choose to be in manual mode all the time anyway so it is not an issue for me.

On the assumption that other Pentax users might also read these posts, my replies were simply trying to be helpful to anyone who is interested, so I'm sorry if part of my post was misleading.

You referred to using stitching to go wider in APS-C using "an older 28mm" lens, and you stated "of course you need to be in manual mode,* which is indeed the case for the older M Series or K Series lenses, which must be manually controlled.

I think this is a great way of capturing a wide (or tall) field of view, without having to buy (or carry) another lens.

However, I sometimes use my DA 35 Limited lens for taking a set of shots for stitching. DA lenses can be used in the semi-automatic modes (P, Sv, Tv, Av, TAv), so with any DA lens it is not essential to be in M Mode, unless you want to work that way.

So e.g. for someone like me who usually has a DA lens on the camera and uses Av Mode, it is not essential to switch to M Mode to get a set of equally exposed shots for stitching, as the AE-L button can be pressed to lock the exposure settings for the set.

Philip

[DWS1]

For many years I was a proponent of primes and zooming with my feet. I have the 15, 21, 31, and 40 Ltds
Then my feet got old and tired like the rest of me.
I love my 16-85. It hasn't been off of my K-5 IIs since I got it

I'm the same way. For the most part, the zooms made in the last 5 years or so are far better than those of the past, and have significantly narrowed the gap between the primes.

[GR Jim]

Have you thought about getting an older 28mm and stitching your results.? I found that was the cost effective way to go wide in apsc. I find handholding 3 x portrait shots or 4 x grid shots very simple and effective. Of course you need to be in manual mode.

Actually, yes. That's why I'm not heartbroken to go with a 17-50mm zoom. I always put my shots through post and I'm pretty good with Photoshop. I teach it in the university where I'm a professor. So creating panoramic scenes is no big deal to me. I'd much rather go with edge-to-edge sharpness than with a larger field of view. That's why I ultimately chose the Tamron over the Sigma 10-20mm I was originally going to get. According to user reviews, the Tamron is reasonably sharp across the entire frame at 17mm when stopped down a bit. Since I'll be really testing this lens in Arizona in the desert and all that sun, I'll be stopped down quite a lot. In fact, I just purchased a 10-stop ND filter that will be on that lens pretty often, I think. Since in my experience, bright sunlight bleaches out the landscape, I'll be able to recover some color if I open the aperture more. Plus, the K-70 has some great effects and scenery modes to help if necessary, although I don't use too many gimmicks with my shooting.

[pschlute]

just purchased a 10-stop ND filter that will be on that lens pretty often, I think. Since in my experience, bright sunlight bleaches out the landscape, I'll be able to recover some color if I open the aperture more.

10 stops is going to cut out an awful lot of light.

[GR Jim]

Evening Jim, I'm out here in the Arizona Territory with a couple of suggestions. Rather than going with an ultra wide, I would suggest using the lens that you have and shooting stitched panoramas. All you have to do is to overlap you shots by a third (and shooting handheld is just fine), and then on your PC drag them into Microsoft ICE (free download) and the utility will stitch them into a single resulting image. Rather than have an ultra wide lens try to shoehorn the view into a single image, by stitching you are actually adding resolution and sharpness.

Yup. That's what I decided to do. Truth be told, I haven't done much stitching of images for myself in a non-academic setting and I know how to do it in Photoshop. I also know of ICE and other similar programs, although I haven't used them yet. My stitching experience comes from scanning large artwork in pieces, combining them, and printing the results on a large-format printer.

---------- Post added 12-13-20 at 08:31 PM ----------

10 stops is going to cut out an awful lot of light.

Yeah, that's the point. I've seen far too many photos of sunny places that have a flat, nearly colorless appearance due to the effects of strong sunlight. I need the nuances of shadow and rich colors that are difficult to capture in mid-day. You can see quite a lot of beauty in the desert and scrub land of the American southwest if you work hard and smart enough to eke it out. The 'golden hour' is good for that, but I'll be on a pretty tight schedule and I won't have the luxury of coming back to a particularly striking place to wait for nature's perfect lighting. Thus I need to resort to certain optics like ND filters to make it all work.

I truly respect Ansel Adams' art. He had incredible patience and waited long hours in just the right places, like a predator waiting next to an animal trail, for that perfect moment to capture. He managed to snag the perfect image with all those subtle nuances in truly challenging conditions.