|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-24-2014, 10:09 AM
|
| |
Yeah, that is an advantage. Usually they are a bit more expensive and sometimes, but not always they have a reputation of somewhat lower build quality. I have an A Zoom that I think is as good of build quality as any lens I own, so it depends on the lens.
SMC (K) lenses have a reputation to be the best build quality of the MF lenses and I've had 4 of them that were all extraordinary.
I've also had a couple of M series lenses and I think the build quality is nearly as good, but the prices tend to be quite a bit lower than either the K or A series lenses. So, that's why I suggested an M 28 2.8. Abundant, good build quality, good image quality, usually way cheaper than say a K 24 or 30 or anything in 20mm. If you're willing to pay a bit more for the A lens and MAYBE some slightly lower build quality, then by all means. It is a nice benefit to enable modes other than M.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-24-2014, 09:33 AM
|
| |
First generation Pentax SMC manual focus lenses are called "K" lenses. they don't say K on them, just Pentax SMC and then the focal length and max aperture. K 24/2.8 is a Pentax SMC 24mm 2.8 lens.
Next generation were called "M" lenses and they say Pentax-M SMC 28mm 2.8 (for example)
3rd gen were "A" lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-23-2014, 09:50 PM
|
| |
Also, take some time to dial in the focus on your 18-135 through the AF Fine Adjust. Mine was underwhelming until I did. I thought it was just soft, but it was missing focus.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-23-2014, 08:00 PM
|
| |
I can weigh in on this. I started with a zoom and a nice MF fast 50 and enjoyed the prime so much I started picking them up whenever I got the chance. I have a 24mm obsession and own a nice K24/2.8. I also picked up an FA35/2 because it was on-sale and I was frustrated with some stuff. In between I owned an M28/2.8 that I got on a trade and didn't really want and I briefly owned a K30/2.8 that, is a whole story I don't want to get into. Oh, and I bought the DA40/2.8 ltd used here, used it for about a year and sold it here for break even to by the 35/2.
But, here's what I concluded.
F2 is much better than 2.8 low light. I know it's just one stop, but shooting indoors in low light without a flash to get near that fast 50 experience, it's at a tipping point between bright enough and not bright enough in my experience. So, for me, the FA35/2 is a much more useful lens than the DA40/2.8. Being a little wider and full frame help too. Image quality of both are quite good.
That M28 that I picked up in a trade, didn't really want and sold? Fantastic lens. It surprised me how good it was and it started me down the path of wanting wider and "better". I don't think my K30 was a good copy and I essentially returned it because it wasn't even close to as good as the M28 and by review standards, it should have blown it away. The K24 I have is a really nice copy, but I don't use it as much as I thought I would. For landscape, my DA18-135 zoom is pretty good at 24mm and for candid, low light, neither is really fast enough (for me). I'm not the most experienced photographer here by a long shot, but if you're going for that fast 50 experience, 2.8 didn't get me there.
The 24 is a phenomenal lens. I love it on film the way that I think people love the DA15 on digital and I love the focal length on dSLR as well, but I really wish it was F2 or faster. I don't mind manual focus, but I also find that at this focal length I rarely center the immediate foreground subject, so wide open a candid of a person, focus and recompose it a tough shot. If I center the subject and crop it to Rule of 3rds, I kind of wasted the wideness.
I'm disappointed that the DA21 is yet slower than 2.8, though fractionally. Aside from the Sigmas which are much bigger, more expensive, and by reputation less consistent it's tough to get much faster than 35/2.
For the money, no question that a 28/2.8 MF lens is the good buy. I don't know if it's enough wider than 35 to be worth it, though. 24, 21, 20 and under are, but of what I've owned price/speed/quality it is the hands down winner. You didn't say what you were photographing at this FL, so I'm applying my own values, if low light speed isn't important to you, then you may come up with a different answer. But, if you have 2 prime, 50 and 28 is a nice spread and both are abundant and much less expensive than 24, 30 and even 35 for some reason.
Not parting with my 24/2.8 just yet, by the way. When I have the right subject in the right light, it's remarkable. Film or digital.
|
