Digital brings new lens philosophy

Interesting.

Time was, on my old KM (yes the film one)I would have either a 135 (200) or a 200mm (300) lens and if it was wide then an 28-80mm zoom. The 55mm, 28mm and 2x were always in the bag.

Now with my K10D I seem to have my 16-50mm on all the time.

This means I've gone from 300mm to 24mm overnight, why?

.....and then when I want to get close its a 100-300mm, so thats 450mm and yet its still not close enough.

So I've moved from being stuck in the middle to being stuck at the extremes.

Anyone else notice this?

Peter

"So I've moved from being stuck in the middle to being stuck at the extremes.

Anyone else notice this?"

Peter[/quote]I may be creeping up on a similar outcome but far earlier in the process. Right now I am trying to find something satisfactory for the long range pictures. As "R&D" I have purchased a 100-300mm lens and two 2x units (the first was all manual and not very satisfactory).

John Blair

K10d, 18-250mm, 50mm, 100-300mm, plus a 28-80mm & 70-200mm from my old SF1n

I think the Internet must take the lion's share of the blame. When I was shooting film I had a weekly browse through AP and a couple of John Hedgecoe books as inspiration; 36 shots would be a month's worth of photography. Now I can read up on lenses and techniques that would never have crossed my radar in the old days and I can rattle off 36 shots before breakfast!

Digital photography has made it easier for me to experiment but the Internet has given me the impetus to do so. As for focal lengths I always favoured mid-length telephotos and I still do, so not much has actually changed there except I own more (and better) examples of the breed.

I answered the poll no because I believe the DA*50-135mm lens is absolutely superb, even better than the DA* 16-50mm, and suits the focal lengths I use most. The DA* 16-50mm is always on my camera while it's in the bag . . . only because I can pack everything in better.

To say this lens is sharp seems an understatement.

Although my DA* 16-50 does spend more time on my K20D partially for the reason Peter mentions and also because of it's usefulness as a walk around I said no too
Reason..... I like my DA* 60-250 better, given its range and optical quality I think it's a fantastic lens. I would go so far as to say it compares very favourably with my old (but now sold) Oly ED 50-200 SWD which is high praise indeed (IMHO)

Back to the DA* 16-50, I am getting to like it more and more, and it is certainly excellent provided it is kept in the sweet spot aperture wise

I sold my DA18-250 for a DA*50-135 so not true in my case either.

btw wasn't there a shift in populair focal lengths in the history of photography.
People went from wide to long I believe... not sure about that though.

Ah, DA* 50-135, next on the list and glad to hear its worth the money.

There may be a couple of reasons for that, a) affordable, quality long length lens and b) ability to get in there with the action as more people realised that the picture was there for the taking if only you could get in and capture the moment.

Peter