|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-29-2019, 06:45 AM
|
| |
Thanks, everyone. I have ordered the 43 mm. I am hoping that 7 mm will make a difference -allowing me to take photos without running into the wall and or the dingy corners.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-25-2019, 10:57 AM
|
| |
Thanks, everyone. To answer the question of crop vs. full frame, I use a Ks2.
I spent a couple of days experimenting with the 43 vs. 55 focal lengths on my 16-85. 55 seems too tight for indoor use, especially as my kid grows up and starts sitting upright, it would be impossible to use 55 for a waist up shot. So 43 appears to be a better focal length or maybe even 35 or 31. Thanks bdery for highlighting this.
Now 31 ltd is quite expensive; I am not sure if I have an appetite for it right now. My apartment can be dark - sometimes devoid of natural light so that rules out 35mm macro. So 43 mm with its wide aperture is a reasonable option.
The question now though is - How usable 43 mm is at wide apertures. Does it produces shots of acceptable quality wide open? Also overall is it a worthy upgrade over my nifty fifty - worth paying 4-5 times. With 55 at least I would have upgraded my aperture from 1.8 to 1.4.
Also, I plan to buy a used lens. Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-22-2019, 12:54 PM
|
| |
Hello Pentaxians
I am considering to buy a short telephoto prime lens. My primary use will be portraits. I already have a 50 mm 1.8, but I am seriously considering an upgrade.
I started photography around a year ago. I use 16-85 for my landscapes and as a general walkaround/ vacation lens. For portraits, I have 77mm, 35 mm 2.4 and 50 mm 1.8. A large portion of my portraits is of my son, who is 6 months old. 77 mm is my absolute favorite for portraits - I use it every time we are out of the house. But at home, most of my pictures are shot with the 35 mm or 50 mm, since I live in a small apartment. I have used my 35 mm and 50 mm extensively - but I think as a photographer I am growing out of them. I can notice a difference in the quality of pictures shot with the 77 mm vs 50 & 35 mm. My biggest gripe with 35 mm and 50 mm is lack of contrast compared to the 77 mm. So I am thinking of buying a better quality 50 mm lens.
Pros of 55 mm as I understand are nicer bokeh, WR and larger aperture. I don't care about the WR, my use will be mostly inside the house. 43 mm has that unique ltd rendering, compact size and faster focus. I do care about the bokeh but at the same time, I love my 77 rendering - which I hope 43 ltd will also provide. I also compared the sharpness of 55 mm vs 50 mm 1.8 on opticallimits website. It seems that center sharpness of 50 mm at 1.8 is higher than 55 mm at f2 . Same with 43 mm, which has lower res than 50 mm 1.8 at all apertures. How can a more expensive lens have a lower resolution? What am I missing? The slow and inaccurate focus of 55 mm also seems to be a constant critique
As you can see, I need some help to make the decision.
|
