Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 4 of 4 Search:
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-29-2015, 01:33 PM  
WR/AW zooms ... explain your choice
Posted By pathdoc
Replies: 24
Views: 2,050
I was mostly talking about size and weight parameters, but why not? At the very least, a gasket seal at the lens-body interface.

I'm strongly in favour of screwdrive for the Limiteds, but given that zooms have to allow a substantial volume for the lens elements to move, that arguably leaves you with room to fit in an internal motor and helicoid links at no extra penalty.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-28-2015, 02:50 PM  
WR/AW zooms ... explain your choice
Posted By pathdoc
Replies: 24
Views: 2,050
I'm as sure as God made little green apples that Pentax asked themselves what the 20-40 would have looked like at constant f/2.8 at some stage in the design process. It would be interesting to see those studies.

I would like to see what the basic outline of a 15-40mm f/4.0 Limited would look like.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-28-2015, 10:42 AM  
WR/AW zooms ... explain your choice
Posted By pathdoc
Replies: 24
Views: 2,050
And speed. 16-50 = f/2.8 all the way; 18-135 starts at 3.5, which IMO is not significantly worse, but it's down to 5.6 at the long end. My only first-hand experience of the UK is in summer, where an f/5.6 lens outdoors in daylight (which in Scotland was something like 4am to a bit after 10pm) would not be too much of a handicap. Ditto in Australia, where I grew up and where even the winter days can be not too dull and not as short as in many parts of the UK.

Right now I'm living in Canada, and when I take the 18-135 out to play it's either in broad daylight or (now) with powerful flash/built in assist-light backup - the latter a forced necessity based on field experience.

Consider your entire SYSTEM and how it might evolve, not just the lenses and camera body.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-28-2015, 07:33 AM  
WR/AW zooms ... explain your choice
Posted By pathdoc
Replies: 24
Views: 2,050
I think you meant 200, possibly with some punctuation that the forum gremlins turned into a laugh. I don't think you're doing badly there, and it's a combination I seriously considered instead of what I got (because it would have cost less, because of the extra 65mm, and because I get a stop of light back at 50mm when I change to the longer zoom), but if I'm going out in the wet then I'm usually also travelling light, and that means one lens only is best for me.

My answers:

Do you carry two WR/AW zooms?

No, I only have the one.

Where do you take them?


Anywhere I think I have a high chance of getting rained or splashed on, or snowed on heavily.

Which one?

The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DC.

Why?

Because LBA needed to be held at bay and I wanted one WR lens for maximum flexibility shooting people & animals at play outdoors, so I chose the one that covered the largest focal range as opposed to the widest field of view. 18mm on APS-C is plenty wide enough for me as a people lens (recent ownership of the DA15/4.0 has IMO confirmed this impression), and there are times I'd need to crop fast and tight with the lens* or snap people at a distance while not necessarily wanting or being able to approach my subjects closely.

Perhaps if the 16-85 had been f/4.0 throughout, or 2.8-4.0, I would've been more tempted. I'd have been happy to lose the half stop at the wide end to gain a full one at full zoom. But with nothing in it at either end for speed, and given the significant price difference (almost $180 Canadian the difference right now, going on B&H's list prices), 135mm trumps 85mm and the 135 gives adequate IQ for my purposes. It just wasn't worth the extra cost for what in my context would have been reduced flexibility with nothing to show for it. And many years' experience with my other superzoom, the 18-250, have shown me that I almost never bump against the 18mm limit anyway.

I might say, too, that now I own both the DA21/3.2 and the DA40/2.8, I finally understand what the designers of the 20-40 Limited Zoom were trying to achieve. But because of that, I also don't need it. My bias is towards primes anyway, and I can't justify a WR zoom with a range already covered (and then some) by another WR zoom. Skierd's combination above is an interesting one, though, and another possibility for the zoom-centred photographer who doesn't mind a few gaps would be the 20-40 plus the HD/WR variant of the 55-300 (or even the 60-250, for those who have the money and/or feel they need the constant f/4 and the extra IQ that comes with the price).



* On the principle/rule of thumb "feet before glass before post-processing", while recognising that this is a sometimes-unachievable ideal.

---------- Post added 28-12-15 at 11:39 ----------



Another possible question, which I've covered and which others might want to, would be "If price was not an issue, what made you select one over another?" However, when considering this question, we have to bear in mind that everyone's reasons are VALID FOR THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES, and it shouldn't degenerate into an argument over whose reasons are objectively right.

Also to remember that for some of us, price IS an issue, whether from necessity or choice, and anyone who catches themselves thinking "You should dump that piece of garbage and get a Limited/Star lens" needs to work on their empathy. By all means sing the praises of "top-class" glass, but remember that not all of us can have it.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 4 of 4

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 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