Lens "Cleanup"

I have been purchasing a few lenses and bodies+lenses sets ever since I got my DS. I obviously should have listened to the Riley Rule from day one. Of all the lenses I bought, the best are the Pentax ones.

Luckily, I didn't spend much money because I always bought things cheap to try them out. I got a fair bit of fun out of this process, but I'm now doing what you all probably have already done: cleaning up. I'm selling the ones I don't want and I'm about to shell out for some good glass. So, what is left by now?

PRIMES
I got myself a nice Tamron 24mm F/2.5, a Revuenon 35mm 2.8, a few Pentax fifties (K 1.8, M 1.4, A 1.7) and another Revuenon 135mm 2.8.

Here, I'm trying to get hold of a Pentax 30 or 35mm, even in K or M mount, because I like the 35mm focal length and the difference from my fifties to the Revue 35mm is huge. Trouble is, finding a 35mm Pentax is hard... people seemed to buy only 50s and 28s...
I almost never use the 135, so I'll keep the Revue for now.
I use my fifties a lot and I might also get an A or M 50mm 1.2 one day...
I'd love to have a Pentax in a wider angle, like a 16mm or something, but this is no priority.
What I will buy for sure next year is a 31mm Limited. Unless Pentax releases a new set of Limiteds for digital until then.

ZOOMS
I have a Pentax 18-55mm (kit lens), a Vivitar S1 70-210 F/3.5, and a Pentax 80-320. All nice lenses that I like a lot.

So, zooms... this will sound stupid, but I've just won a new Tokina 28-80 F/2.8 on eBay.

Why the Tokina? I have been flirting this Angenieux-based, constant aperture, fast lens for quite some time. And the Tamron 28-75 2.8 too. And even though the Tamron seems better and cheaper, and has 33cm minimum focusing distance and 67mm filter thread, and is lighter, and, and... hummm... well... I can't quite explain it.

Anyway, I envisage the Tokina to be too big and heavy to carry around when travelling or when not going somewhere specially to enjoy taking photos. Plus, 28mm is not wide on digital, the 18-55 will have to kick in. So, I'm thinking of getting a Pentax to complement the Tokina (or is it the other way around?). I was looking at the 28-105 on Ffordes... but after shelling out for the Tokina, my wife would leave me sleeping outside if I bought another lens now.

Maybe the best thing to do next would be to get the 16-45. It's wider and better than the 18-55, and a nice zoom to take when "there can be only one". But then again, a 24-90 sounds nice as a good, flexible, longer zoom... humm... too many choices. And the new lens lineup (Pentax and Schneider) will surely confuse me further.

Do you feel I'm doing something horribly wrong here? Anything you would do differently?
Thanks!

I think you're doing fine! You've not spent much money, but bought lots of lenses and you're trying them out to see for yourself what you like and don't like.

Have fun, explore the options and eventually, as your post title suggests, you will no doubt tidy up your collection...

And then buy some more lenses.....

---

Best regards, John

Sounds like your treading the same path that most of us have trod (or is it treaded).

Somebody once said that it's only after we die that our wives find out how much we really spent on our photo gear . . . but by then we've had our fun, right. Of course, if they find out before, divorce seems to be a popular option.

Any of the Limited lenses are truly awesome hunks of glass but my personal opinion is that the 16-45mm DA lens is a pretty good compromise, still expensive, but arguably more versatile and it covers your 35mm focal length requirement. Then again, your 18-55mm kit lens covers the 35mm range and is the 16-45mm that much better to justify replacing. I have no doubt that if we had to buy one or the other of these two zooms, most on this forum would opt for the 16-45mm for its superior performance but I know I would have difficulty justifying that one to my interior minister (my wife).

There is still some very good Pentax glass to be had on eBay and other sources and prices seem to be on an upward trend but there are also some very desireable used third party lenses about too. I actually like some of the newer Sigma glass. I have a 75-300mm Macro Zoom which produces phenominal results in macro and a 135-400mm APO Zoom which is equally stunning.

I guess at the end of the day, we all have very slightly different requirements of our lenses from one another. I for one will keep buying. trying, then selling the ones I don't want to keep . . . as long as my interior minister doesn't find out . . . that is.

That's what I'm doing as well.

I'm just back from a few days in York with the family and decided to carry a small system when we were out and about - DS body, Tokina ATX-Pro 20-35mm F2.8, SMC-FA 28-200 & Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro. The two zooms got a fair amount of use, but the macro didn't get used at all. In that past I used to just use the 28-200 as my snapshot lens for family days out but with digitial it's not wide enough. The 18-55 kit lens covers most of the range that I like but it's poor wide open and, in the range they overlap, also outperformed by the 28-200 (I'm not sure of the 18-55 is the worst Pentax lens I've used but it's definitely up there with the FA powerzoom 28-80 and 100-300). The Tokina is a very nice lens but it's still not wide enough with digital and the family aren't all that tolerant of my stopping to switch lenses. Current thinking is that I'm going to sell the Tokina, 18-55 kit lens (although on Ebay that doesn't make much) and possibly the 28-200 and replace them all with a 16-45mm F4.

I'm feeling tempted by the 16-45 as well, as a replacement for the 18-55. Just a bit wider and sharing the same 67mm filters as my 24-90, which is useful.

The 12-24mm is of course very appealing, but expensive and needing huge 77mm filters.

I know i don't often use filters with digital cameras, but it's nice to have the option.

---

Best regards, John

I use Cokin P filters so a new filter size only means getting another adaptor, however I've got 77mm ones (the Tokina ATX-Pro's use that) and I think I've got a 67mm fitting as well.

The 12-24mm is definitely tempting, however at the moment I think I need a decent walkabout lens first, hence thinking about the 16-45.

Do you see vignetting on this photo? If you do, do you think it is significant?




I really don't feel it is that bad. This shot was taken at 18mm F8 with my Pentax 18-55mm. I can definitely see vignette at 18mm F/3.5 (wide open), but even so it is not THAT bad. I can see no vignette at 18mm F8. At 20mm and above there is no vignette that I can see at any aperture.

I've seen some samples on DPReview's forums thar were really bad. Is it possible that some 18-55s are better than others? Or am I just too tolerant? My A 50 1.7 is amazing at all apertures, I guess I have a nice standard for comparison.

What do you think?

Because I like my 18-55, I can't seem to be able to justify trading it for the 16-45. Maybe if I could have one for a day or two I would change my mind... what I dislike the most about my 18-55 is the CA. There's LOTS of it, even at F8... is the 16-45 much better is this regard?

Actually I can't remember seeing CA in the 16-45. Must be there, at least a bit, or maybe I haven't had a major problem with my images.

Check out my gallery: http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/scenery
The first 4 images are SMC DA16-45 shots. The first had no filters or anything, the other three had ND grads.

Here's one of them to show you what it's up to:




Taken nearly straight into the sun, even though there was an ND grad.
(Processed in Capture One - three exposures output from the one RAW file, then hand blended with layer masks in PS-CS2)

Out of all the lenses I've contemplated selling, the 16-45 is definitely not one of them. It's staying

Matt

The issues I've had with the 18-55 haven't particularily been vignetting, but instead it's the lack of sharpness which I dislike (it could be down to the small file size but that shot of yours also seems to lack sharpness). It's a lot better when stopped down to F8 or F11, but still not particularily good - especially in the corners. I've seen some CA with the lens but it's not been a great problem so far.

I should also mention that the lack of sharpness hasn't been compared to prime lenses, but compared to other consumer zooms (Pheonix 19-35 and the FA 28-200) I had at the time I was testing.

After thinking a bit, I just can't justify the 16-45 any time soon. The 18-55 was cheap and is good enough, so it will have to do for now as a complement to my Tokina. Oh, Matt, beautiful landscape! It shows you put effort into that one and it was worth it!

As for primes, does someone have a Pentax 35mm for sale?! I can't seem to find one on eBay, anywhere! Not even as part of a camera deal. Are 35mm Pentax lenses this scarse or am I only unlucky?

I'll keep searching...

matt, can you give some info on this great landscape shot? Like some exif data. Really great. It shows that you do not have to be affraid of direct sunlight.

I bought the kit with the 18-55 allso because the price difference between it and the 16-45 is a little to high.
So far I do like to pictures from my 18-55. The sharpness issue can be true but I do see a great improvement after a sharpen-o-matic treatment with matt's great script for PS.

The 16-45 is certainly on my wishlist though. But I think I will keep hunting for some nice prime lenses on various auction sites. I really love my A50 1.7 which I got last week. Haven't had a good chance to make some daylight pictures though (the flu got me...)

/Remco

---

Camera:K20D|Ist*DS|Spotmatic II|MZ-10
Pentax Lenses: DA16-45|DA50-200|50A 1.7
Tamron Lenses: 28-200
Takumar Lenses: SMC 55 1.8
Sigma Lenses: EX DG 50-500 'Bigma'|EX 50mm Macro
Flashes: Metz 58 AF-1|Samsung SEF-36PZF|Pentax AF-220T

EXIF data: ISO200, 1/180s at f8, 16mm

Taken with (I think) a Cokin P121S (or could've been a P121F), angled to cover the sun and bring it down a little.
As I mentioned, this was only really possible in RAW. I processed two exposures out of the one RAW file and combined them

Oh yes, and watch your eyes when taking into the sun - don't look at the sun directly!!

Matt

Personally, I find the 16-45 coupled with an old 45-125 to be the perfect :"walk-around" kit for the D. I usually add the 31mm 1.8 as a low-light normal lens.

---

42

I've made the decision that I'm going to go with the 16-45 as my primary lens but I haven't decided what longer zoom to partner it with yet. I've got an 80-200 F2.8 but it's quite heavy to carry about. I might keep the FA 28-200 for now but it would be nice if Pentax were to release something like an AF 50-130 with a constant F4 maximum aperture.

Just look for an old 45-125 like I mentioned above.

It's an old manual lens, but we all used manual lenses for many years before all this auto stuff came out, and we got some great photos!

---

42