Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2010, 03:54 PM   #16
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
the 40mm fits a narrow slot

IMHO the 40mm is a puzzlement, a weird focal length for APS-C cameras like the Pentax K10-K20-K7-Kx etc. I see its appeal, a fairly fast pancake. But it's a (very) short telephoto, vs a 'normal' focal length of around 30mm. In 35mm film days, its equivalent would be 60mm -- and nobody made 60mm lenses, the nearest approximation being the Helios-44 58/2 common on Soviet-era cameras. (Maybe Russians had to keep their distance when shooting, eh?) I think you'll find any of the mid-range zooms mentioned above would be much more flexible and usable.

OK, the 40mm lovers will decend upon me in full fury now. I can take it.

02-12-2010, 03:59 PM   #17
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote

OK, the 40mm lovers will decend upon me in full fury now. I can take it.
I really like the DA40, but I agree that the zoom is probably the better, more versitle way to go if you're only buying one.

That being said, prepare for the fury anyway
02-12-2010, 04:20 PM   #18
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
Haven't you heard ~~ ISO 3200 is the new ISO 800 and F2.8 is the new F1.7
Screw you Gus!

I want a K-x...

02-12-2010, 09:13 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
IMHO the 40mm is a puzzlement, a weird focal length for APS-C cameras like the Pentax K10-K20-K7-Kx etc...
OK, the 40mm lovers will decend upon me in full fury now. I can take it.
No fury - just an observation that focal length preference is subjective. I happen to find 40mm *more* useful than a true "normal", which usually ends up taking in too much unnecessary stuff. It has a way of cutting right to the heart of a scene without actually losing too much stuff you care about about. On the other hand, no way could I make do with a 40 only - I'd need something else wider too. The 40 and a something around 24-28 make a nice pair, I think.

02-12-2010, 11:15 PM   #20
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3
Original Poster
thanks for all the input everyone! I think I will probably go with the tamron 28-75 for now, but i'll keep my eyes on a deal for the 40mm pancake.
02-12-2010, 11:27 PM   #21
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
Great pick!

I have no doubt both are great lenses quality wise. I myself picked the 40mm limited over tamron 28-75 f2.8, after trying them both at a local mega shop. It really came down the difference of 510g vs 90g to me, but I would be equally happy (if not happier) if I had bought a 17-50 or 28-75 2.8.

Last edited by tokyoso; 02-12-2010 at 11:39 PM.
02-12-2010, 11:34 PM   #22
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
...focal length preference is subjective.
Indeed. When I was growing up with 35mm cams (before zooms), the standard prime set was 28-35mm for wide, 50 for 'normal' (altho 43mm is more accurate), 85 for portraits, and 135 for tele. 200mm was for frantic birders. On APS-C those would translate as 18-24 for wide, 28-35 for normal, 50 for portrait, 90 for short tele, and 135 for long tele. As I said, 60mm just wasn't available then, the closest being the Russian 58/2, which I use sometimes. If that set was good enough for Eisenstadt and Cartier-Bresson and Capra and Gene Smith, is it good enough for me? It'd be interesting to see a graph of focal lengths (or Angles of View) vs numbers of photos shot. 40mm on APS-C gives roughly 39 degrees AoV. How small a slice of total pictures is that?
02-13-2010, 01:01 AM   #23
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Can't really speak of AoV and the other metrics, I just go by what the lens lets me see. Here's a quick n' dirty composite culled from the Tamron website that shows the range of a 35, 50, 70 and 90. It might help.
Mods: I assume this isn't a problem posting website material like this? If you have any doubts, please pull it, thanks,
Brian


02-13-2010, 01:12 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by torchdoc Quote
Hi there,

I purchased my K-x (first dslr) about a month ago, and I'm loving it so far. I'm looking to upgrade from the kit lens, and I think I've narrowed down to the DA 40mm f2.8 vs the tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and I was wondering if anyone has owned both and would choose one vs the other.

I use my camera casually, mostly taking pics of family/friends and while travelling. About half the time I'm indoor, half outdoor. Can't really say too much about my tendencies so far, as I'm still growing and learning.

I like the range of the tamron zoom, but the DA 40mm is so small and presumably produces slightly sharper pics. Any advice is greatly appreciated, thanks!
Don't buy the Tamron. I was thinking of buying one for my wife, until I saw the following:

Strange bokeh with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

In some situations, it will produce instant-delete photos.

The same is true for the VC version.
02-13-2010, 02:39 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Torchdoc: thanks for all the input everyone! I think I will probably go with the tamron 28-75 for now, but i'll keep my eyes on a deal for the 40mm pancake.
Nice choice--that is a fantastic lens and so is the 17-50mm. You will be very happy--Best!
02-13-2010, 02:49 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Nice choice--that is a fantastic lens and so is the 17-50mm. You will be very happy--Best!
Well, the 17-50mm is not a fantastic lens, if you think it's a replacement for a prime. For low light or night-time photography, you can get ugly looking concentric onion rings in the background.
02-13-2010, 03:41 AM   #27
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I agree they are a great match. I'm hoping to give the DA70 a try with my Kx as well for pretty much the same reason.
I have an internal debate going on about springing for the DA70. I already have the FA77, and love it with the K-x (and any other body, including film), but the size and performance of the DA70 are so tempting.
02-13-2010, 03:49 AM   #28
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
Well, the 17-50mm is not a fantastic lens, if you think it's a replacement for a prime.
There are few zooms still that are replacements for primes and vice versa. When I got into DSLR from film, I bought zooms for the new format. Years later, I find myself back where I was in 1981--making good use of the bayonet mount to keep the speed and quality up and the size down.
02-13-2010, 10:24 AM   #29
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
It'd be interesting to see a graph of focal lengths (or Angles of View) vs numbers of photos shot. 40mm on APS-C gives roughly 39 degrees AoV. How small a slice of total pictures is that?
When I did just such a breakdown of a couple years of shooting with my 18-55, I found 40mm was the single most used focal length, and when I bracketed the common prime focal lengths to give me ranges, the 37.5 - 45mm range was my most used range. But as I said, no way could I live with that as my *only* focal length, so if I were to have one prime and that was it, it would have to be something wider. Similar examination of my own shooting patterns showed me that 28 was the next biggest "spike" within the range. I could probably deal with a 28 as a single lens, but I'd also be annoyed a lot that it included too much in pictures that I wanted to have a more narrow focus. Realistically, if I were to have just one prime, a classic "normal" FOV like from a 35mm would probably be the best compromise - but emphasis on the word compromise here, for me. I know from experience that I am happier having focal lengths on either side of that.

I suspect tht has a lot to do with why 50mm was so popular on film - it really was the *only* lens many people owned, and hence needed to achieve that sort of compromise. Of course, there are also going to be those who might find that even with a zoom they shoot at that FOV more often than they do slightly longer or slightly wider. It would indeed be interesting to see similar zoom usage data from other shooters. My graph was very much "bimodal", but others might be more clearly "normal".
02-13-2010, 10:28 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
Don't buy the Tamron. I was thinking of buying one for my wife, until I saw the following:

Strange bokeh with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

In some situations, it will produce instant-delete photos.
Yeah, but how often is one taking pictures of bright lights like that? And does it really happen in all cases? And if the effect is only noticeable when blowing the image up much larger than screen or typical print size, how big a deal is that? Writing off a lens because in rare cases it *might* produce an unpleasant effect that itself is only really noticeable at fairly large prints sizes seems pretty harsh to me.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
40mm, camera, da, da 40mm f/2.8, f/2.8, f/2.8 or tamron, f2.8, half, pentax help, photography, pics, tamron, tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 40mm F2.8 vs FA 50mm F1.4 poogeek Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 12-20-2010 09:09 PM
For Sale - Sold: [US] K20D, Metz 58 AF-1 Flash, FA 50mm 1.4, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Tamron 18-250m jasonfen Sold Items 11 06-20-2010 06:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: M lenses, 80-200mm, 50mm 1.7, 50mm 2.0, 40mm 2.8 (Worldwide) ryno Sold Items 2 04-10-2010 08:50 PM
FA 50mm or DA 40mm winglik Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-14-2009 07:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 3 x 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 40mm pancake, 135mm, 70-210mm, FAJ 28-80mm igowerf Sold Items 12 10-13-2007 08:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top