Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-12-2015, 03:23 PM
|
|
I think that part about the extremes is especially true when the zoom is only 2x. I wouldn't need to fit the 35 in there (or a 28 or 31, either, for that matter). I've never been with the 40 and a 21 in my pocket (which I do pretty frequently) and particularly missed having a 35.
Also, the zoom also isn't really a macro and gets half as close as the 35ltd though it does focus a bit closer than the 40 pancake. (28 vs. 40cm ).
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-11-2015, 02:30 PM
|
|
True :), but a number of the better zooms seem to be even bigger than if they took the glass from a selection of DA Ltd primes and shoved them inside. ---------- Post added 08-11-15 at 03:34 PM ----------
Not nearly as small as a DA21 and a DA40 together, especially if they only had one mount.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-11-2015, 10:35 AM
|
|
I haven't seen the Sigma, but the 18-135 is one of the more compact zooms around, but probably not one that gets called a "stack of primes" on other terms too often. The ones that are called a stack of primes for performance reasons usually aren't so small.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2015, 02:34 PM
|
|
That is true, but it is a reason why the "stack of primes" is not a great description of any zoom. They are two different animals.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-09-2015, 05:56 PM
|
|
The one thing that will never make a zoom a stack of primes is the inability to remove something from the stack. As someone mentioned earlier, some of us use the primes for the performance and also for the size and weight.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-09-2015, 05:42 PM
|
|
Well, at least it did not devolve to a discussion of FF and APS-C equivalence, or did I miss that?
|