Limited Conundrum...

Mike Pearson
Posted 29/10/2010 - 04:29 Link
My DA35 Macro Limited was purchased in July and has only been off the camera once to try my new DA 70 f/2.4 Limited. The DA 35 has become my all purpose walk-about lens

Mike
jules
Posted 31/10/2010 - 18:22 Link
Well I now have the 40mm (Or I will on Monday!)
70 is next then methinks...
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
gillbod
Posted 31/10/2010 - 22:32 Link
40mm is excellent. i had one, but swapped it in for the 35mm, which is equally excellent, but focuses a bit closer.

70mm is really good too, but my only gripe is that it doesn't seem quite so stellar at infinity as it does at intermediate and closer distances. still great throughout the range, though.

but the 40mm is a serious piece of work—to pack that performance into that size is really something. enjoy it! but don't lose it, accidentally, because, you know, it's pretty small...
k7, 15/4, 31/1.8, 70/2.4, 200/2.8, Metz 58
jules
Posted 31/10/2010 - 23:53 Link
Gillbod, You don't know me yet you know me! I have Stupid Arthritic Sausage fingers
The amount of body caps,, lens caps, terminal caps, I have lost is unbelievable
Worst when I can see it happening and can't stop it! I've rolled em off cliffs and allsorts, My Partner has threatened to carry spares or do the Mother thing and put em on a long peice of string thru my jacket like with kids mittens
Yeah I can see me being in the Doghouse for losing the 40, sort of leaning toward a kr body and just leave it on there as my walk around/go anywhere ready cam.
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
jimmoore
Posted 01/11/2010 - 08:53 Link
Morning Jules

As you are working your way through your conundrums, perhaps you could help me with mine.

I note that you have both the 15 Ltd and 21, do you find they are complimentary or does the 15 take the place of the 21. I currently have the 21 and use it a lot, but just wonder if the 15 would replace or compliment or only have a limited role to play.

Thanks for any insight you may be able to offer.

Jim
MrCynical
Posted 01/11/2010 - 11:05 Link
Don wrote:
I'm considering the 35 macro as well. I want a decent prime in the 21 to 35 mm range, and the macro seems to be worth the money....
I got mine a week or two ago (SRS have them at about £100 less than they were before) - it is definitely worth the money. I wasn't sure when I ordered it whether I'd done the right thing, but it is a stunning lens.
Edited by MrCynical: 01/11/2010 - 11:06
jules
Posted 01/11/2010 - 20:49 Link
Comment Image
Comment Image
jimmoore wrote:
Morning Jules

I note that you have both the 15 Ltd and 21, do you find they are complimentary or does the 15 take the place of the 21. I currently have the 21 and use it a lot, but just wonder if the 15 would replace or compliment or only have a limited role to play.

Thanks for any insight you may be able to offer.

Jim
Hi Jim i actually find I use the 21 more and save the 15 for that extra wide vista, for Genral Landscapes the 21 just seems right! Won't help your LBA one bit that won't
Comment Image
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Edited by jules: 01/11/2010 - 21:19
rparmar
Posted 01/11/2010 - 23:44 Link
I think even 21mm might be too wide and prefer 24mm or 28mm on APS-C for landscapes. These focal lengths present a nice "natural perspective". When using my DA12-24 most shots end up at the 24mm end. When I see vistas taken with the 15mm, the landscape tends to lose its dynamics -- features are "pushed away" from the viewer and disparate elements end up reduced to a similar scale.

Wider views work best for interior spaces, city streets and anywhere there is a strong frame to stabilise the image for the eye. That's where the DA12-24 rocks and presumably the DA15 as well. The DA21 is popular with street shooters and that makes total sense. I have a Vivitar 24mm f/2 I use for that purpose.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Edited by rparmar: 01/11/2010 - 23:46
jules
Posted 02/11/2010 - 07:32 Link
I broadly agree here, there is a certain amount of technique to filling the foreground with the really wides that I've never quite got! I have a friend who is a Nikon Shooter with their 10-24mm, who pulls out great shots all the time. His Wide Landscapes look really good but mine are usually a bit lacklustre for all the reasons you give above.
I owned the 12-24mm for a short time and mine spent all it's time at 24mm. I think I pulled this one off but it's a rarity for me...
Comment Image
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
jimmoore
Posted 02/11/2010 - 08:28 Link
Thanks Jules / rparmar

Thanks for you perspective on this lens.

Will have to see that holds LBA it at bay.



Jim
rparmar
Posted 02/11/2010 - 14:06 Link
jules wrote:
I broadly agree here, there is a certain amount of technique to filling the foreground with the really wides that I've never quite got!
It's true that if you are doing a landscape with a wide lens, the way to "anchor" the composition is to be sure the foreground contains a near object. Really this then becomes an "environmental portrait" of that object, since it is prominent and the rest of the scene becomes context.

Look at the glossy photo magazines and they are full of such photos. It is the landscape equivalent of the extremely thin DOF shot... looks dramatic but it is not an expression of how we normally look at a scene. I like them well enough, but for regular day-to-day landscape shooting prefer something less showy and more representative.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Don
Posted 02/11/2010 - 14:20 Link
rparmar wrote:
jules wrote:
I broadly agree here, there is a certain amount of technique to filling the foreground with the really wides that I've never quite got!
It's true that if you are doing a landscape with a wide lens, the way to "anchor" the composition is to be sure the foreground contains a near object. Really this then becomes an "environmental portrait" of that object, since it is prominent and the rest of the scene becomes context.

Look at the glossy photo magazines and they are full of such photos. It is the landscape equivalent of the extremely thin DOF shot... looks dramatic but it is not an expression of how we normally look at a scene. I like them well enough, but for regular day-to-day landscape shooting prefer something less showy and more representative.
good points.
Comment Image

in the above image I used the 10-17 fisheye to get a mountain shot in with some poppies at Lake Louise in Alberta.
I used the ppoppies to block the view of all the tourists on the pathways between me and the lake.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
jules
Posted 02/11/2010 - 14:52 Link
rparmar wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="jules"] Look at the glossy photo magazines and they are full of such photos. It is the landscape equivalent of the extremely thin DOF shot... looks dramatic but it is not an expression of how we normally look at a scene. I like them well enough, but for regular day-to-day landscape shooting prefer something less showy and more representative.
Agreed, thats why we both have our Slightly less wide lenses
I find myself now always taking a couple with the 21 as well when I spot the really wide shot with the 15, because more often than not I'll like the 21 version better
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo