A 3 Lens System
Posted 25/04/2011 - 22:36
Link
Thanks for all the replies so far guys, seems like a can of worms has been opened!
Ive been giving this a lot of thought lately, as when I do go away I'd like to have all bases covered with a minimum of equipment.
I mentioned about purchasing a KR as lightness is one of the main objects of the exercise. Having thought about this though the weight I will be saving on not having zoom lenses will far outweigh the extra weight of the K20D, also the weather sealing will be very useful. I've been reading Ken Rockwells website for quite sometime, and after reading his articles on carrying less I was getting worried about every gram!
Out of the lenses so far that I will be purchasing, the Pentax 100mm is a very strong possibility. The other 2 so far could go anywhere.
I like the idea of the 15mm for the wide end, but the middle ground seems to be up for debate. There is the 31mm, although it is slightly pricey. Assuming the 100mm will take care of Tele & Macro, which lens would be suitable for low light work?
Whilst I do currently have a 12-24 lens, I would like to just have use of primes for these trips. The idea is to get everything purchased now so that when it comes to it I will be a dab hand using them.
Also, one thing that had slipped my mind until this evening was teleconverters. this could be a useful addition for extra range on the Tele lens.
Thanks all
Matt
Ive been giving this a lot of thought lately, as when I do go away I'd like to have all bases covered with a minimum of equipment.
I mentioned about purchasing a KR as lightness is one of the main objects of the exercise. Having thought about this though the weight I will be saving on not having zoom lenses will far outweigh the extra weight of the K20D, also the weather sealing will be very useful. I've been reading Ken Rockwells website for quite sometime, and after reading his articles on carrying less I was getting worried about every gram!
Out of the lenses so far that I will be purchasing, the Pentax 100mm is a very strong possibility. The other 2 so far could go anywhere.
I like the idea of the 15mm for the wide end, but the middle ground seems to be up for debate. There is the 31mm, although it is slightly pricey. Assuming the 100mm will take care of Tele & Macro, which lens would be suitable for low light work?
Whilst I do currently have a 12-24 lens, I would like to just have use of primes for these trips. The idea is to get everything purchased now so that when it comes to it I will be a dab hand using them.
Also, one thing that had slipped my mind until this evening was teleconverters. this could be a useful addition for extra range on the Tele lens.
Thanks all
Matt
Posted 25/04/2011 - 23:12
Link
MattMoore wrote:
Thanks for all the replies so far guys, seems like a can of worms has been opened!
Ive been giving this a lot of thought lately, as when I do go away I'd like to have all bases covered with a minimum of equipment.
I mentioned about purchasing a KR as lightness is one of the main objects of the exercise. Having thought about this though the weight I will be saving on not having zoom lenses will far outweigh the extra weight of the K20D, also the weather sealing will be very useful. I've been reading Ken Rockwells website for quite sometime, and after reading his articles on carrying less I was getting worried about every gram!
Out of the lenses so far that I will be purchasing, the Pentax 100mm is a very strong possibility. The other 2 so far could go anywhere.
I like the idea of the 15mm for the wide end, but the middle ground seems to be up for debate. There is the 31mm, although it is slightly pricey. Assuming the 100mm will take care of Tele & Macro, which lens would be suitable for low light work?
Whilst I do currently have a 12-24 lens, I would like to just have use of primes for these trips. The idea is to get everything purchased now so that when it comes to it I will be a dab hand using them.
Also, one thing that had slipped my mind until this evening was teleconverters. this could be a useful addition for extra range on the Tele lens.
Thanks all
Matt
For a mid range "normal" around the focal length of the 31mm then the DA 35 f2.4 is a cracking lens, I've had and sold one as I've gone for the 40mm Ltd instead now but for £150 approx new the lens is a cracker.
Thanks for all the replies so far guys, seems like a can of worms has been opened!
Ive been giving this a lot of thought lately, as when I do go away I'd like to have all bases covered with a minimum of equipment.
I mentioned about purchasing a KR as lightness is one of the main objects of the exercise. Having thought about this though the weight I will be saving on not having zoom lenses will far outweigh the extra weight of the K20D, also the weather sealing will be very useful. I've been reading Ken Rockwells website for quite sometime, and after reading his articles on carrying less I was getting worried about every gram!
Out of the lenses so far that I will be purchasing, the Pentax 100mm is a very strong possibility. The other 2 so far could go anywhere.
I like the idea of the 15mm for the wide end, but the middle ground seems to be up for debate. There is the 31mm, although it is slightly pricey. Assuming the 100mm will take care of Tele & Macro, which lens would be suitable for low light work?
Whilst I do currently have a 12-24 lens, I would like to just have use of primes for these trips. The idea is to get everything purchased now so that when it comes to it I will be a dab hand using them.
Also, one thing that had slipped my mind until this evening was teleconverters. this could be a useful addition for extra range on the Tele lens.
Thanks all
Matt
Posted 26/04/2011 - 12:05
Link
For a genuinely fast mid range lens the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a possibility. With improved IQ at high ISO the f/1.4 is really a means of having a narrow DoF so that would depend on your style of photography. If you do not want the narrow DoF the DA 35mm f/2.4 would be a very good lens to choose and a clear winner on the value-for-money front.
K.
K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 26/04/2011 - 12:56
Link
"The classic combo would have been 28/50/135"
I have always found this combination to be pretty bizarre, particularly the 135mm, I think this only came about a long time back due to amateurs with tight budgets buying the three cheapest and easily available lenses from makers lens ranges.
The obvious and far more useful would be 28/50/85....or 24/35/85...in full frame terms.
I have always found this combination to be pretty bizarre, particularly the 135mm, I think this only came about a long time back due to amateurs with tight budgets buying the three cheapest and easily available lenses from makers lens ranges.
The obvious and far more useful would be 28/50/85....or 24/35/85...in full frame terms.
Posted 26/04/2011 - 12:59
Link
As you already have a 105 macro, why do you consider the 100 macro? Adverse weather conditions (WR version)? It's a Pentax? IQ?
But OK, as you've mentioned the 100mm macro, my main setup consists of FA31Ltd and DFA100WR. FA31Ltd as the main lens and DFA100WR to be able to zoom in a little on details and the occasional macro / close up shot.
I know I'm lacking wide and that's not a big issue for me for landscape. It will be an issue if I ever go back to Europe for cathedrals, castles and other architectural objects. I will probably buy the DA12-24 for that one day, but 21 might be a consideration if weight / volume is important.
PS
I have always loved a 28mm for architecture on film. So for primes my choices would be between the 21 (possibly slightly too long) and the 15mm (far too wide).
But OK, as you've mentioned the 100mm macro, my main setup consists of FA31Ltd and DFA100WR. FA31Ltd as the main lens and DFA100WR to be able to zoom in a little on details and the occasional macro / close up shot.
I know I'm lacking wide and that's not a big issue for me for landscape. It will be an issue if I ever go back to Europe for cathedrals, castles and other architectural objects. I will probably buy the DA12-24 for that one day, but 21 might be a consideration if weight / volume is important.
PS
I have always loved a 28mm for architecture on film. So for primes my choices would be between the 21 (possibly slightly too long) and the 15mm (far too wide).
Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Posted 26/04/2011 - 17:49
Link
bretbysteve wrote:
"The classic combo would have been 28/50/135"
I have always found this combination to be pretty bizarre, particularly the 135mm, I think this only came about a long time back due to amateurs with tight budgets buying the three cheapest and easily available lenses from makers lens ranges.
The obvious and far more useful would be 28/50/85....or 24/35/85...in full frame terms.
A bit of a chicken and egg situation here. Were they cheap because they were popular or popular because they were cheap? I used exactly that combination for many years because I found that I could usually use the Mk 1 Zoom Method between the various focal lengths. I did lust after something a bit wider for architectural interiors but couldn't afford one until recently."The classic combo would have been 28/50/135"
I have always found this combination to be pretty bizarre, particularly the 135mm, I think this only came about a long time back due to amateurs with tight budgets buying the three cheapest and easily available lenses from makers lens ranges.
The obvious and far more useful would be 28/50/85....or 24/35/85...in full frame terms.
K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 26/04/2011 - 18:49
Link
If you want a pocketable set up (ie. camera+lens around neck, one lens in its pouch in each pocket) then the DA12-24 is too chunky I'm afraid - I've tried it and it just doesn't want to go, even without the hood on. The D-FA100 (another excellent lens) is a bit of a tight fit too.
If travelling very light in such a way is what you have in mind, then I'd recommend you go for the DA35 (macro or non-macro), FA77 or DA70, and one of the DA15 or DA21. All those lenses are small, light and share a common 49mm filter.
If space isn't such an issue then I think the DA12-24 is well worth its place in any camera bag.
If travelling very light in such a way is what you have in mind, then I'd recommend you go for the DA35 (macro or non-macro), FA77 or DA70, and one of the DA15 or DA21. All those lenses are small, light and share a common 49mm filter.
If space isn't such an issue then I think the DA12-24 is well worth its place in any camera bag.
Joining the Q
Posted 26/04/2011 - 22:06
Link
Thanks again for the replies guys.
The reasons behind swapping the 105 for a Pentax 100 are 3 fold. Firstly is the weight, second filter size and thirdly is the WR. This will go in hand very nicely with the WR of the K20D for times when the weather is less than perfect.
Currently I'm going with the 15mm & 31/35mm depending on funds.
With regards to the teleconverter, are there any that are considerably better than others?
thanks,
Matt
The reasons behind swapping the 105 for a Pentax 100 are 3 fold. Firstly is the weight, second filter size and thirdly is the WR. This will go in hand very nicely with the WR of the K20D for times when the weather is less than perfect.
Currently I'm going with the 15mm & 31/35mm depending on funds.
With regards to the teleconverter, are there any that are considerably better than others?
thanks,
Matt
Posted 26/04/2011 - 23:58
Link
In my early days I tried teleconverters but they are annoying to use. Rather than switch one lens for another, one has to make two attachments, all for a compromise in IQ. You seem dedicated to spending good money for good products; I wouldn't mess that up with a converter.
That said, the best ones (all else being equal) are those that provide the lowest magnification, 1.4 rather than 1.7 rather than 2.0.
That said, the best ones (all else being equal) are those that provide the lowest magnification, 1.4 rather than 1.7 rather than 2.0.
Posted 27/04/2011 - 00:14
Link
MattMoore wrote:
Currently I'm going with the 15mm & 31/35mm depending on funds.
With regards to the teleconverter, are there any that are considerably better than others?
Matt
A huge difference between them. The Pentax-F 1.7x AF adapter is excellent and loses no more than half a stop of light, but it will cost several hundred squids and really, if you have a first rate prime lens you might as well just crop the image.
Currently I'm going with the 15mm & 31/35mm depending on funds.
With regards to the teleconverter, are there any that are considerably better than others?
Matt
Posted 27/04/2011 - 11:16
Link
Sandehalynch wrote:
A huge difference between them. The Pentax-F 1.7x AF adapter is excellent and loses no more than half a stop of light, but it will cost several hundred squids and really, if you have a first rate prime lens you might as well just crop the image.
How do you calculate that? I thought that 1.4x equals one stop and 2x equals 2 stops. What am I missing?
A huge difference between them. The Pentax-F 1.7x AF adapter is excellent and loses no more than half a stop of light, but it will cost several hundred squids and really, if you have a first rate prime lens you might as well just crop the image.
Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Posted 27/04/2011 - 18:55
Link
Personally I'd go for something like:
DA 15mm f/4 Limited
DA 35mm f/2.4
DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 or DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited depending on range required.
I am thinking of replacing my DA*16-50 workhorse with the DA15 and DA35 due to size and weight. I think the 50-135 is irreplaceable though.
DA 15mm f/4 Limited
DA 35mm f/2.4
DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 or DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited depending on range required.
I am thinking of replacing my DA*16-50 workhorse with the DA15 and DA35 due to size and weight. I think the 50-135 is irreplaceable though.
Posted 27/04/2011 - 19:06
Link
I've read this thread and went for an experiment with my lenses, from what I own my 3 lens system would be:
10-17mm fisheye
FA43mm / Vivitar 55mm Macro
Adaptall SP 70-210 f3.5 (19AH)
Though, if I owned whatever I wanted, it'd probably be:
DA12-24mm
FA31mm
100mm macro/50-135 f2.8, or 85mm 1.4. If I know I need the reach then perhaps a 70-200 f2.8 or something even longer.
I might replace my 43mm with the 31mm, but at most times when I'm backpacking, I'm still on the one lens system of the 18-250mm. (purely for safety reasons)
10-17mm fisheye
FA43mm / Vivitar 55mm Macro
Adaptall SP 70-210 f3.5 (19AH)
Though, if I owned whatever I wanted, it'd probably be:
DA12-24mm
FA31mm
100mm macro/50-135 f2.8, or 85mm 1.4. If I know I need the reach then perhaps a 70-200 f2.8 or something even longer.
I might replace my 43mm with the 31mm, but at most times when I'm backpacking, I'm still on the one lens system of the 18-250mm. (purely for safety reasons)
Posted 27/04/2011 - 20:07
Link
sterretje wrote:
It should be 1.7 stops, probably nearer to 1.5 stops in practice. A 1.4x only loses 1 stop
Sandehalynch wrote:
A huge difference between them. The Pentax-F 1.7x AF adapter is excellent and loses no more than half a stop of light, but it will cost several hundred squids and really, if you have a first rate prime lens you might as well just crop the image.
How do you calculate that? I thought that 1.4x equals one stop and 2x equals 2 stops. What am I missing?A huge difference between them. The Pentax-F 1.7x AF adapter is excellent and loses no more than half a stop of light, but it will cost several hundred squids and really, if you have a first rate prime lens you might as well just crop the image.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1088 posts
18 years
Ireland
At no time did it occur to me that I might have wanted to use a different lens, the 31mm and 77mm were just fine.
In many cases I am happy to go out with just my FA77 (eFOV close to 120mm) but this would be rather restrictive on a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Even the 31mm (eFOV 47mm) is not what anyone would call wide.