|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2017, 07:15 PM
|
| |
Maybe I am missing your point, but are you suggesting that it is your opinion that only 'professional' photographers shoot in poor weather or harsh conditions?
I consider myself an amateur... my daughter even more so. But she Kayaks, loves the outdoors, and last year spent a week in the Amazon at the start of rainy season. The photographers skill has little to do with what environment the camera will be exposed to.
She has reached the point in her photographic development where she is ready to move up from a waterproof pocket camera to SLR. With her active life choosing a camera which are WR simply makes sense with the conditions the camera will be exposed to.
My old purely mechanical Film SLR got wet more than once, including getting completely submerged once, and once dried each time survived. With the electronics in both cameras and lenses they are far more susceptible to water damage.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-01-2017, 03:03 PM
|
| |
Sorry, I should have specifically stated that there is an absence, even in the high end series, let alone entry or mid priced level, a single standard length WR fixed... with a crop sensor by standard length we are talking 28 to 40mm. Even the shortest fixed lens with WR would be considered a telephoto.
Why it puzzles me is that many of the fixed lense are IF. So I wouldn't have thought it would be that difficult (or expensive) an update.
From a profit perspective, imagine how many 'plastic fantastic' lens have been sold... and how many of those with them would be willing to purchase an 'updated' version if available?
In our local camera club everyone who has remained with Pentax has done so for one reason and that is WR. Even many of those with Canon and Nikon, when you say you want to be able to shoot in the rain, suggest considering Pentax. It is becoming a nitch product such that addressing holes in the product line within this nitch makes sense.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-01-2017, 10:23 AM
|
| |
I completely agree... I had decided to purchase the plastic 50/1.8, but thought I would check local ads just in case and came upon a used 50/1.2. For my own use, as autofocus is not important, it was just a better match at a lower price. That said, although I knew that I was interested in used glass, I was not about to waste a lot of time trying to find it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-01-2017, 09:24 AM
|
| |
Personally, especially as WR and AutoFocus were not a major considerations for myself, and I am use to (from film days) working around the characteristics lets call them (rather than limitations) of old glass, I went with old primes.
But going that route you end up with lenses which are great at one task, but are not what I would call general purpose lenses. I would never consider using the 50/1:1.2 I found for landscapes shooting into the sun for example.
For my daughter, who this lens will be used by, WR and AutoFocus are important features.
Thanks for all the insights, you are quite correct that the question was specifically related to the under $300 lens.
Unfortunately, although by hunting around you may come upon a deal (like I came across on the 50 noted above), finding a used WR lens at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame is not very likely.
It is too bad in some ways that zoom lenses have become the 'standard' kit lens. I would have loved to see the 'plastic fantastic' primes reissued as WR lenses... for that matter I would love to see a wider range of WR primes in general released. But that is a different topic.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-31-2017, 08:18 AM
|
| |
Low light and preference for two legged zoom is why I went with old prime glass for myself, yet daughter prefers the zoom route.
Other than the obvious, that zooms take in less light, is there more to the 'low light' disadvantage to the DAL 18-55?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-31-2017, 04:44 AM
|
| |
Thanks
I went with old prime glass, as I am also getting back into photography and like MF. As her skills advance I will try to convince her of the power of the prime for certain shots.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-30-2017, 06:09 PM
|
| |
The WR is a big draw to the lens for my daughter as she is into outdoor photography. However I completely agree that for me quick shift would be nice to have.
How difficult is manual focus override on Pentax cameras on lenses which don't have quick shift?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-30-2017, 10:13 AM
|
| |
Thanks.
Personally, for her, that was my gut feel, which seems to be borne out generally in most of the comments.
The low weight of the DAL 18-55 is definately attractive, as it seems to be an ok lens. The options considered were:
DAL 18-55 (as part of a kit) cost $100
Sigma 17-70 would cost $150
Tamron 16-50 2.8 would cost $200
If had the money, would definately have suggested she go with the upgraded 'kit' lens.
DA 18-135 (as part of a kit) cost $350
---------- Post added 10-30-17 at 10:18 AM ----------
Prices seem to have plummeted recently on the older screw drive versions of the lens to half of what they were selling for.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-30-2017, 08:09 AM
|
| |
I read a very insightful commentary recently regarding how it has reached the point in lens development that there are very few really bad lenses. Yes some are exceptional in the right hands, but that under most circumstances are not most lenses able to yield respectable pictures?
I don't have the luxury of having been able to try the various lenses side by side, but to be honest back 30 years ago with some pretty cheap lenses I was able to take very decent pictures.
My daughter is also picking up a new camera (likely a K50 as the price is right) and debating between a third party lens, a used lens and a kit lens. Only the Kit lens at the price point offers WR, which as she plans to use the camera on hikes and the like is beneficial.
If you followed my other thread, I was trying out a number of lenses... I have in just a day with the lenses decided I don't personally like short zooms. I prefer the two legged zoom with a fixed lens... but that is just me.
The kit lens and the Sigma are not that different on paper... only 1 stop difference, etc.
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro
Weight: 455g
Max. Magnification: 0.43x
Horizontal FOV: 72 - 20 degrees
Autofocus: slotted screw drive
Water Resistence: No
Pentax DA-L 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 WR
Weight: 200g
Max Magnification: 0.34x
Horizontal FOV: 67 - 25 degrees
Autofocus: slotted slotted screw drive
Water Resistance: Yes
Plus there are other lenses available for around the same 'kit lens' price such as the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
The kit lens is much lower weight than other options, plus water resistant on top of that. Are the 'optical' advantages of the 'better' lenses worth what has to be given up?
|
