Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-19-2014, 06:12 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,953
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Based on the images you provided, I'm not sure I should believe you. 8mm on APS-c is wider than 14mm on FF for starts, and I take a lot of 8mm APS-c images... I guess I might like 14mm FF more, but I don't know.

Sigma 8-16 @ 8mm.. what's not to like?


What about 14mm on FF would be better? Please provide an image.
Images...? I never shot anything with it, I simply went by what I saw in the viewfinder.

I'm just saying that if a FF came out and if I were to buy one and if the Sigma 10-20 actually worked on the thing, vignetting and all, that one could use it from whatever point that the vignetting stopped. I wouldn't be immediately screwed and have to hunt down a FF compatible UWA instead. I have no reason to doubt the 10-20 would not perform just as admirably on a FF camera on its longer end than it would on an APS-C camera.

10-20-2014, 11:40 AM - 1 Like   #32
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,354
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Interesting gear... I couldn't live with it, but it's good it works for you. It looks like I almost cover everything you have with my 18-135. That's what I would find disturbing, spending 4 k on a system that does a lot less. No Sigma 8-16 equivalent, no A-400 equivalent. But then, as you've said, you don't do that.

Post some pictures sometime....
Does a lot less? Does your 18-135 open up to f1.8 or f2?
You sure do post a lot on FF threads, yet supposedly claim that your gear can do more. Inferiority complex? Looking for someone to pat you on the back?

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 11:56 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ben78 Quote
Bang on Rawr
50/1.8, 35/2, 100/2, 24-105/4IS 70-200/2.8
Patiently waiting on a 20/2.8 to become available at a decent price.
Keh has a few of those 20mm for sale, and I have nothing but good experience with them. They aren't the cheapest, but their lens ratings are conservative and they have good customer service.

BTW, that lens gets mixed reviews. Some really like it, others not so much. I don't know what your budget is, but the 17-40L seems to be generally well regarded as a landscape lens and of course is a bit wider than the 20mm.
It does overlap your 24-105mm a little bit, but if you want to travel lighter, or you know that you are going out for landscapes, the 17-40 + 50mm would be a nice combo.

Last edited by cali92rs; 10-20-2014 at 11:57 AM.
10-20-2014, 12:07 PM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,334
QuoteOriginally posted by Sagitta Quote
Images...? I never shot anything with it, I simply went by what I saw in the viewfinder.

I'm just saying that if a FF came out and if I were to buy one and if the Sigma 10-20 actually worked on the thing, vignetting and all, that one could use it from whatever point that the vignetting stopped. I wouldn't be immediately screwed and have to hunt down a FF compatible UWA instead. I have no reason to doubt the 10-20 would not perform just as admirably on a FF camera on its longer end than it would on an APS-C camera.
An interesting question... in fact I'm sure early FF adopters will be posting for months on which lenses work and which don't. Based on the fact my 18-135 already vignettes on APS-c I'm pretty sure I'd need a new kit lens. But I also have and old 35-80. It is disappointing how man wide angle lenses probably won't work on FF. I'm sort of thinking in terms of lenses working on two bodies, doubling your effective equivalent focal lengths with the same number of lenses. If the 15 were an FF lens it would make it a lot more attractive.

QuoteQuote:
Does a lot less? Does your 18-135 open up to f1.8 or f2?
You sure do post a lot on FF threads, yet supposedly claim that your gear can do more. Inferiority complex? Looking for someone to pat you on the back?
Butt out dude. I'll post in whatever thread I choose. I wasn't talking to you. I don't need or care for your opinion. Talk to someone who actually might share your delusions.
10-20-2014, 12:27 PM - 2 Likes   #34
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,354
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

Butt out dude. I'll post in whatever thread I choose. I wasn't talking to you. I don't need or care for your opinion. Talk to someone who actually might share your delusions.

The OP asked opinions about where he may want to fill holes in his lineup and you, true to form, talk about how you don't need FF because your APS-C kit does everything you need.
Being that you contribute nothing to the conversation except derailing any useful conversation people may have about full frame gear and reasserting your insecurities with your choice of APS-C, I will continue posting.

10-20-2014, 01:39 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
An interesting question... in fact I'm sure early FF adopters will be posting for months on which lenses work and which don't.
We've been doing it for years, no reason it will ever stop...

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Butt out dude. I'll post in whatever thread I choose. I wasn't talking to you. I don't need or care for your opinion. Talk to someone who actually might share your delusions.
Do people ever quote you to yourself?
10-20-2014, 01:43 PM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,334
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
We've been doing it for years, no reason it will ever stop...

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:40 PM ----------



Do people ever quote you to yourself?
If I was as rude as this dude, I sure hope so. As a general rule , I don't see a general observation such as I made as inappropriate. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment by punting out that my strategy is to cover my full desired range with zooms and then fill in with primes, that being true no matter what format I'm shooting. So maybe I should have given the OP my way of looking at his line-up... so shoot me. This is the way it came out. I make no apologies. If you want me to be perfect in expressing myself every time I post, pay me. I can do it.

But if you think what I posted was inappropriate, report me to a mod, if you're right, they'll take up your cause for you.

Last edited by normhead; 10-20-2014 at 01:49 PM.
10-20-2014, 01:55 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If I was as rude as this dude, I sure hope so. As a general rule , I don't see a general observation such as I made as inappropriate. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment by punting out that my strategy is to cover my full desired range with zooms and then fill in with primes, that being true no matter what format I'm shooting. So maybe I should have given the OP my way of looking at his line-up... so shoot me. This is the way it came out. I make no apologies. If you want me to be perfect in expressing myself every time I post, pay me. I can do it.

But if you think what I posted was inappropriate, report me to a mod, if you're right, they'll take up your cause for you.

I don't think I've reported anything to the mods on this board, ever. On some other boards things get out of hand. I don't have a cause. I think you're funny, nothing will ever beat the time you called someone's toddler fat.



10-20-2014, 06:17 PM   #38
Veteran Member
bimjo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pasco, WA
Posts: 967
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Just guessing...but I am betting I can suck just as good with a FF as I do with my Toy Cameras. Wanna bet?

Regards!
I know the feeling.
10-20-2014, 06:27 PM   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,334
QuoteOriginally posted by bimjo Quote
I know the feeling.
Like he said.... every now and then someone posts a picture I've always wanted to take. Trouble is, if I'm not getting it with APS_c, I'm not going to get it with FF either. If only there was a 5 picture guarantee. Buy this camera and we'll set up the 5 pictures the you've always wanted to take in your life. Results guaranteed. It would be great, but I wouldn't be able to afford it.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 09:37 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I don't think I've reported anything to the mods on this board, ever. On some other boards things get out of hand. I don't have a cause. I think you're funny, nothing will ever beat the time you called someone's toddler fat.
Sometimes I forget I'm talking to amateurs. I said the kids face was fat. I'm used to talking to people who would interpret that as I meant it, the photograph was really bad, and the photographer had made the kids face look fat being too close with too wide an angle lens. I was not commenting on the kid. But hey, you throw a picture out there to show how great a format is, please make it a decent picture. Help me stay out of trouble.

If you'll recall, when I explained my comment, the deleted post was reintroduced to the thread. The other comment is, people do this all the time. They tell you how great their camera is, and they post a really bad picture of a family member. In the silence that ensues they assume that they've proved their point. I worked critiquing other peoples photos too long to fall for that ruse. Post a bad picture as example of how great your format of choice is, I'll tell you it's a bad picture, I don't care if it's of your favourite niece or your rich uncle.

Is this the 20 or 21st time you've taken the time to mis-represent my intentions in this case? You can't seem to let it go. I'll be the first to admit I sometimes take shortcuts in my explanations to the point of them appearing to mean something I didn't intend, if you'll admit you're the first to try and make something out of nothing when I do.

Get over it dude. The world is a rarely what you think it is.

Last edited by normhead; 10-20-2014 at 06:42 PM.
10-20-2014, 07:02 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Like he said.... every now and then someone posts a picture I've always wanted to take. Trouble is, if I'm not getting it with APS_c, I'm not going to get it with FF either. If only there was a 5 picture guarantee. Buy this camera and we'll set up the 5 pictures the you've always wanted to take in your life. Results guaranteed. It would be great, but I wouldn't be able to afford it.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 09:37 PM ----------



Sometimes I forget I'm talking to amateurs. I said the kids face was fat. I'm used to talking to people who would interpret that as I meant it, the photograph was really bad, and the photographer had made the kids face look fat being too close with too wide an angle lens. I was not commenting on the kid. But hey, you throw a picture out there to show how great a format is, please make it a decent picture. Help me stay out of trouble.

If you'll recall, when I explained my comment, the deleted post was reintroduced to the thread. The other comment is, people do this all the time. They tell you how great their camera is, and they post a really bad picture of a family member. In the silence that ensues they assume that they've proved their point. I worked critiquing other peoples photos too long to fall for that ruse. Post a bad picture as example of how great your format of choice is, I'll tell you it's a bad picture, I don't care if it's of your favourite niece or your rich uncle.

Is this the 20 or 21st time you've taken the time to mis-represent my intentions in this case? You can't seem to let it go. I'll be the first to admit I sometimes take shortcuts in my explanations to the point of them appearing to mean something I didn't intend, if you'll admit you're the first to try and make something out of nothing when I do.

Get over it dude. The world is a rarely what you think it is.
This is the first I'm hearing of the 'wide angle' explanation.

FYI, I personally don't critique other people's pics on this board harshly. I think others would take it as criticism based on disagreement in other arenas.
10-21-2014, 06:22 AM   #41
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I said the kids face was fat. I'm used to talking to people who would interpret that as I meant it, the photograph was really bad, and the photographer had made the kids face look fat being too close with too wide an angle lens.
Wow! Do I know that feeling! When I first posted this I noted that "This squirrel looks lazy." Otis has been raising hell about that comment ever since.

Once again....."This squirrel looks...comfortable!"



Regards!
10-21-2014, 07:09 AM - 1 Like   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,462
Sorry @Ben78 that your thread turned into yet another pointless, wacko, FF whine fest. But you have a good start and just see where it takes you from there.

Last edited by tuco; 10-21-2014 at 07:14 AM.
10-21-2014, 11:35 AM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Grand Rapids
Photos: Albums
Posts: 193
The gap I see, where is your travel camera ? :-P
10-21-2014, 12:37 PM   #44
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tamworth, NSW
Posts: 158
Original Poster
Cool squirrel shot Rupert, you always did have those! Nothing even close to squirrels around where I live.

Tuco, that's alright - I should have realised I'd be stirring a pot a bit!

Buttons, I have a Sony superzoom compact.
10-23-2014, 02:29 PM - 1 Like   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
wtlwdwgn's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Billings, MT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,363
Back to the OP's question about gaps, if the wide end is lacking and you want a zoom then the EF 16-35 f/4 IS L is the better corrected lens in that range from Canon. With the very good high ISO performance these days f/4 should be good enough and it's weather sealed. It's also $100 less than the DA* 16-50. BTW, If you want that 20 f/2.8 Adorama has some in their used dept. Just my $0.02.

Last edited by wtlwdwgn; 10-24-2014 at 08:22 AM.
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!
20mm, bit, body, camera, equivalent, hand, image, kids, lens, lot, pentax, people, picture, post, prices, quality, release, time, trouble
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Going fullframe - considerations infoomatic Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 50 08-09-2015 09:22 PM
Next best thing to the 43mm 1.9? Mirrie Dancer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 34 06-19-2014 06:17 AM
What Was The First Thing You Noticed About The K-3? tabl10s Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 62 02-17-2014 06:29 AM
Weird thing about the DPReview forum rrstuff General Talk 18 01-09-2014 09:47 PM
The best thing about Pentax lenses... br.davidson Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-25-2012 01:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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