[lithedreamer]

I'd say either the DFA * 70-200mm or the DA* 60-250mm, both with the 1.4x teleconverter. I'd lean toward the former as it's just stellar in terms of sharpness, especially in crop.

I'm going to concur with Adam. I posted my first photo with the lens in the K-1 shots thread.

I've played with the [FA Limited] 31mm, 43mm, 77mm, [DA Limited] 15mm, 35mm, 40mm, [DA*] 16-50, 50-135, [D FA] 28-105, 100 and the 8-element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4. They've all been renowned for good reasons, but I've never been so compelled as with the 70-200 to call something optical perfection. You're paying for it -oh, you're paying in weight, cash and bulk- but it is remarkable. Post-processing was totally superfluous: distortion is compensated for, flaring is well-controlled, even without the hood, the image is rendered evenly in a very nice and smooth way on the K-1 sensor (a sensor I really like).

I've never had a lens' optics and construction come together so well to produce what my mind wanted to create (even if the photo isn't that stellar in retrospect ). In any case, highly recommended, on any format.

[UncleVanya]

I'm going to concur with Adam. I posted my first photo with the lens in the K-1 shots thread.

I've played with the [FA Limited] 31mm, 43mm, 77mm, [DA Limited] 15mm, 35mm, 40mm, [DA*] 16-50, 50-135, [D FA] 28-105, 100 and the 8-element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4. They've all been renowned for good reasons, but I've never been so compelled as with the 70-200 to call something optical perfection. You're paying for it -oh, you're paying in weight, cash and bulk- but it is remarkable. Post-processing was totally superfluous: distortion is compensated for, flaring is well-controlled, even without the hood, the image is rendered evenly in a very nice and smooth way on the K-1 sensor (a sensor I really like).

I've never had a lens' optics and construction come together so well to produce what my mind wanted to create (even if the photo isn't that stellar in retrospect ). In any case, highly recommended, on any format.

I have to point out that this user will be shooting the lens on a k-3. That 70mm at the widest will feel like 105 which seems a bit restricted (as does the 60mm end of a 60-250.) I don't do this type of photography but several who do seem to think an 18-135 was a good range. Maybe the 16-85 or something like that would be a better fit than the 70-200 - my personal opinion is that the post suggesting doing some ground testing and then doubling the focal length is the best advice given so far.

[lithedreamer]

I have to point out that this user will be shooting the lens on a k-3. That 70mm at the widest will feel like 105 which seems a bit restricted (as does the 60mm end of a 60-250.) I don't do this type of photography but several who do seem to think an 18-135 was a good range. Maybe the 16-85 or something like that would be a better fit than the 70-200 - my personal opinion is that the post suggesting doing some ground testing and then doubling the focal length is the best advice given so far.

They started off by saying they want the best for landscape, aerial and portraiture, a tall order. I started shooting the 77mm on crop, so I think it's worth getting something extra on the long end and zooming out on your feet for the rest. Definitely a matter of taste, though.

[UncleVanya]

...but, everyone said I needed a zoom~which seems impratical in a moving plane?

I was rereading this and I realized I never understood this part. Why do you feel a zoom is impractical in a moving plane? Is it due to size, or focal length? Since zooms come in all sizes and focal lengths getting that clear may be of some help.

Also you mention using a 50 and planning to use a 21. Is wider than 50 important to you - if so the 16-85 or 17-70 type lenses may be better options than the ones mentioned so far. Don't get caught up in a swirl of trying to get the best glass. Good glass is nice but not the only thing to pay attention to. The 16-85 for example isn't a fast lens but it offers stunning image quality by all reports.

Read this for perspective:
Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

---------- Post added 11-11-16 at 10:40 AM ----------

They started off by saying they want the best for landscape, aerial and portraiture, a tall order. I started shooting the 77mm on crop, so I think it's worth getting something extra on the long end and zooming out on your feet for the rest. Definitely a matter of taste, though.

I just think that's a very large expensive lens with limited application in a plane. Even the 50-135 may be too narrow as the op was using a 50 and planned a follow up using the 21.

[lithedreamer]

I was rereading this and I realized I never understood this part. Why do you feel a zoom is impractical in a moving plane? Is it due to size, or focal length? Since zooms come in all sizes and focal lengths getting that clear may be of some help.

Also you mention using a 50 and planning to use a 21. Is wider than 50 important to you - if so the 16-85 or 17-70 type lenses may be better options than the ones mentioned so far. Don't get caught up in a swirl of trying to get the best glass. Good glass is nice but not the only thing to pay attention to. The 16-85 for example isn't a fast lens but it offers stunning image quality by all reports.

Read this for perspective:
Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

---------- Post added 11-11-16 at 10:40 AM ----------



I just think that's a very large expensive lens with limited application in a plane. Even the 50-135 may be too narrow as the op was using a 50 and planned a follow up using the 21.

Oh dang. Yeah, I missed the post where the OP said they were shooting from a plane. Scratch the 70-200.

[normhead]

My K-3 walk around package was 18-135 and 60-250 for years, at some point supplemented by the 1.4 TC. Personally I won't go any heavier than a 60-250 for hand held, which leaves out the new D FAs. But then, I actually walk with my walk around lenses.

I find it mildly amusing that people would recommend shooting primes from an airplane. To my mind, the only saving grace of primes is going places where you can zoom with your feet. I've never thought of an airplane as one of those places. Those pro-prime guys will ignore any circumstance. It's like religion to them. Primes are always the best.

[mikeSF]

I've shot aerials from a doors off helicopter over San Francisco. The first time, I thought about all those things, but then realized it was feasible to change lenses in a moving copter as there was a non windy area at my feet toward the inside of the cabin.
Hoods and caps are a no no, since they can easily be dashed out and into the rotor.
I used FA*28-70, Sigma 10-20, DA10-17 fisheye, and DA* 55/1.4 and really had no issues changing lenses in a Robinson R22 & R44 with no doors.
The worst experience for me, however, was a constant blast of air forcing my nostrils open - now that was uncomfortable. probably just my specific location in the cabin. Otherwise, smooth shooting.

[audiobomber]

I need the best glass for aerial photography & the best that will go from portrait to landscape.

I WANT TO BUY BEST GLASS/ZOOMS I CAN AFFORD!

I researched "best fast standard zoom" extensively. The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 won out. Sharper than the Tamron 17-50 at wide apertures, with silent AF. Better reliability and sharper than the Pentax 16-50. Decent flare performance, Pentax-compatible colours, exceptional CA performance, excellent corner sharpness, especially at the long end where it's as sharp as a prime. The zoom and focus rings turn the wrong way, but that's my only beef. Superb zoom lens.

According to DXOMark:
"The Sigma has the highest measured peak sharpness and it’s the best corrected of the 14 models in our database tested on the K-3."
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24-MPix-Pentax-K-3-Recom...the-Pentax-K-3

Best for Nikon too:
"Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM. Arguably the best mid-range zoom you can put on your DX body"
Thom’s Recommended Lenses for DX Users | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

The 16-85mm would be a good option if you don't need the fast aperture.

[cdurfor]

My answer? Take two cameras. When I aerialshoot, I take one with a FA77mm and the other with a FA31mm. No zooms, no lens switching and importantly less stomach upset as I attempt to frame a shot. Other advantage, I shoot with one camera while the buffer clears on the second.

[bobbotron]

My answer? Take two cameras. When I aerialshoot, I take one with a FA77mm and the other with a FA31mm. No zooms, no lens switching and importantly less stomach upset as I attempt to frame a shot. Other advantage, I shoot with one camera while the buffer clears on the second.

Two cameras is a great call. I brought other lenses in the Cessna, but things happened pretty quickly and it was tight in there, no time to change.

What focal length really depends on what you're doing. I was trying to take an arial photo of my cabin, I found 70mm to 135mm was great. If you want a wider view clearly that doesn't work. Good luck! Getting motion sickness looking through a viewfinder is seriously a concern btw.

This is of a big dam project, at 21mm. This is a huge project, much wider than 20 on APS-C, if you're on small aircraft you're going to start getting the wings in the shot and everything on the ground might look tiny.

[UncleVanya]

Re:motion sickness, Does live view help?

[bobbotron]

Re:motion sickness, Does live view help?

The pilot told me I needed to look back to the horizon. I imagine live view might be better, but looking at anything other than where you going isn't great. It wasn't immediate motion sickness, more of an insidious horrible feeling, didn't realize it at first.

[pacerr]

You didn't say what you wanted to shoot from the air, from what altitudes or what acft you'll use.

A zoom lens is most efficient - can't 'zoom with your feet' and there's regulatory restrictions on how close you may get to people and places.

If you're shooting through typical plexiglass windows it doesn't matter what lens quality you choose 'cause the results will be less than satisfactory with regard to IQ. Same for filters.

Shooting through the OPEN window of a Citabria at 800-1500' AGL I find the DA 18-135, DA 18-55, DA 16-45 and Tamron 24-135 to be very versatile FLs depending on the task.

Acft vibration and an unsupported camera make high shutter speeds desirable. Do NOT use the aircraft as a camera support.

Wind is not especially a factor at 60-85 kts. Explore by shooting out of an auto window. A tethered camera is advised!

Do some 'hand span' field of vision coordination with the pilot-flying and don't expect to get the view you want on the first pass. Pressing on with unbriefed/unplanned maneuvering to minimize acft rental costs is a sure path to disaster. Plan to position for the light needed and time of day.

A typical, workable set-up with Ron K, a pro wildlife 'tog, in the back seat of my Citabria.

[dbs]

I need the best glass for aerial photography
& the best that will go from portrait to landscape.

I have primes that I dearly love but, I am missing shots while changing lenses~
Before I went from Nikon to Pentax I used only zooms & never missed a shot~
unless my handshake caused it.

I am so happy with my K3, I may buy a backup if the prices are good enough
this year but, mostly, I WANT TO BUY BEST GLASS/ZOOMS I CAN AFFORD!

I already went through the failed motor drama & can't handle it again...so what
do you love? What is new that works best?

And thank you in advance for all of your advice & suggestions~

Hi Cecil

What Nikon camera and lenses where you using before and where you doing aerial work with them?
So get the Pentax equivalents to what you had before if possable.
But 2 bodies sounds like a safer idea.

Dave

[lithedreamer]

If you're shooting through typical plexiglass windows it doesn't matter what lens quality you choose 'cause the results will be less than satisfactory with regard to IQ. Same for filters.

I'm usually pretty impressed with how well DA* zooms do shooting through plexiglass. You definitely take an IQ hit, but I wonder how big of a difference there is between that and the consumer zooms...