Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

What primes would we like to see?

johnriley
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:30 Link
Quote:
Let me get this straight... you wouldn't be excited by a 200mm equivalent f1.4 ?

Not in the slightest. I wouldn't buy a 200mm-equivalent lens as I don't have a need for one, regardless of the speed.

Quote:
35mm is a classic focal length & many a street photographers mainstay

True, going back to the 1950s. By the 1960s photographers were already moving wider, even as far as 24mm in some cases. Tastes change and I'm not sure we can revisit Cartier-Bresson in the same way as once we might.
Best regards, John
Mannesty
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:31 Link
Stuey wrote:
I would love to see something from Pentax in the range of 400/500 or even 600mm . . .

This is already available. If you marry a Pentax DSLR to a SMCP-F 1.7x AF TC and a DA*300mm, you have the 35mm equivalent FOV of 765mm at a fraction of the probable cost of a 600mm lens. I doubt you used anything longer in the days of film.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Edited by Mannesty: 11/09/2010 - 14:32
K10D
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:36 Link
johnriley wrote:
Quote:
Let me get this straight... you wouldn't be excited by a 200mm equivalent f1.4 ?

Not in the slightest. I wouldn't buy a 200mm-equivalent lens as I don't have a need for one, regardless of the speed.

Quote:
35mm is a classic focal length & many a street photographers mainstay

True, going back to the 1950s. By the 1960s photographers were already moving wider, even as far as 24mm in some cases. Tastes change and I'm not sure we can revisit Cartier-Bresson in the same way as once we might.

My two pence may not be worth while?

The Std lens has for a long time been less than 50mm

However, there exists a user group that uses 200mm+ as a Std lens on the street, purely for isolation. I see this as the norm in day to day use.

Best regards
Inspiration is rarer than a plate glass camera.....
johnriley
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:40 Link
Quote:
However, there exists a user group that uses 200mm+ as a Std lens on the street, purely for isolation. I see this as the norm in day to day use

This is a very detached and distant form of street photography, but perfectly valid if that's what is wanted. At some point, as the lenses get longer still, maybe even intrusive in some eyes.

Certainly it's the very opposite of the "get into the crowd and interact" concept.

It all depends on the photographer's style.
Best regards, John
RR
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:44 Link
Of course street can be shot at any focal length, but I find less than 50mm (equivalent) to be the most engaging.


edited, due to forum script not liking the "less than" sign.
Edited by RR: 11/09/2010 - 14:45
Don
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:56 Link
I'm still shooting bigger game with my 16-45, my 50 1.4 and 100mm... every vacation...
if I bought s 600mm lens I'd have three problems...

1) I'd have to learn to back up further from the animals (that elk shot I posted recently, shot with the 16-45, would have had me pulling a Wile E Coyote of a cliff if memeory serves me...
Comment Image


2) nothing is gonna have fifty soccer Moms on thier cell phones calling 911 like seeing a guy down the street from the playground with a telescope on his camera...

3) if I bought such a lens, I'd have to give up vacations to pay for it, and it's too big to use around the house.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Edited by Don: 11/09/2010 - 14:57
K10D
Posted 11/09/2010 - 14:57 Link
johnriley wrote:
Quote:
However, there exists a user group that uses 200mm+ as a Std lens on the street, purely for isolation. I see this as the norm in day to day use

This is a very detached and distant form of street photography, but perfectly valid if that's what is wanted. At some point, as the lenses get longer still, maybe even intrusive in some eyes.

Certainly it's the very opposite of the "get into the crowd and interact" concept.

It all depends on the photographer's style.

Or geographic location, unfortunately.

Hysteria rules OK?

Anywhere in New York, Middle East, Russia, Holland I see guys and gals photographing people and no one raises an issue.

Most lenses are 300mm+.

What a situation! Almost public anonymity.

Sadly, with the current state of mind in the UK, similar situations are few and far between.

Regards
Inspiration is rarer than a plate glass camera.....
K10D
Posted 11/09/2010 - 15:00 Link
Don wrote:
I'm still shooting bigger game with my 16-45, my 50 1.4 and 100mm... every vacation...
if I bought s 600mm lens I'd have three problems...

1) I'd have to learn to back up further from the animals (that elk shot I posted recently, shot with the 16-45, would have had me pulling a Wile E Coyote of a cliff if memeory serves me...
Comment Image


2) nothing is gonna have fifty soccer Moms on thier cell phones calling 911 like seeing a guy down the street from the playground with a telescope on his camera...

3) if I bought such a lens, I'd have to give up vacations to pay for it, and it's too big to use around the house.

Its worth a second opinion.

Regards
Inspiration is rarer than a plate glass camera.....
womble
Posted 11/09/2010 - 15:14 Link
My K 135mm f/2.5 lens is one of my favourites as is my 50-135 which I use most frequently at 135mm so a 135mm f/1.4 would be lovely.

Personally, I do not use very long lenses but I'd like to see Pentax reintroduce some so that they have a more rounded portfolio of lenses. At present they seem to have a plethora of wide and standard length lenses and far fewer longer lenses. The one longer lens I would be after would be a macro in the 180-200mm range.

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.

My website
JonSchick
Posted 11/09/2010 - 15:40 Link
Cheap and cheerful to add to the 35/2.4:

24mm/2.8
50/1.7 and
85/as fast as they dare

WR and Limited:

Reworked 135/2.5K - without purple fringing though!
180 macro of similar spec to the Sigma one that is very difficult to find

Aside from this lot, I think the other major gap remaining is a long telezoom - 80-400 WR with a clear step up from kit lens quality would be nice.
Jon

Some occasional random stuff at The Photographers Block: link
johnriley
Posted 11/09/2010 - 15:54 Link
80-400mm or even 100-400mm would be very nice.
Best regards, John
rparmar
Posted 11/09/2010 - 17:31 Link
johnriley wrote:
In 135 terms, these would be 36mm, 42mm and 202.5mm, none of which seem overly exciting to me (35mm, 43mm, 200mm)

Would you buy lenses of those particular lengths? Or, to put it another way, when (if) you used film, did you buy those lenses?

I think you need to re-read the focal lengths you just determined. I think you missed a thing or two.

35mm is the perfect walk-around lens. How many 35mm lenses were there in film days? How about "lots"! As I am sure you are aware, many famous photographers used only this focal length. So, yes, we need 24mm in APS-C.

43mm is the perfect normal lens on full-frame, so we need a fast 28mm on APS-C. How many normal lenses were there in film days? Well, several billion, although only Pentax got the focal length right. The rest just copied an arbitrary focal length from cinema work that was only more-or-less correct.

200mm equivalent field of view in a fast lens would be perfect for stage work, theatre, runway and just about any time you want a flattering portrait but cannot get close enough for 115mm field of view (which is what the FA77 gives you). How many 200mm lenses were there in film days? I'd say it was not exactly unorthodox.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Edited by rparmar: 11/09/2010 - 17:32
johnriley
Posted 11/09/2010 - 17:47 Link
Can't argue with your logic, and indeed wouldn't want to.

I'm just wondering how the choices have been affected by new approaches to photography.

At one time, let's say 1950s to mid 1960s, the choice was a fairly universal 35mm-50/55/58mm-135mm. It was Pentax at the forefront of new technology from 1964 that gradually stretched this to replace 35mm with 28mm, then 24mm, and for the "swinging sixties" crowd even the new fisheye that did not need mirror lock-up.

In the 1970s the 28mm-50mm-135mm-200mm set up would be fairly normal, with some preferring the shorter 100mm. There was plenty of choice from Pentax, with the "odd" lengths of 120mm and 150mm being included.

The 1980s saw the beginning of the zoom revolution, and this has now become the norm. Pentax continue to produce excellent and sometimes exceptional primes, and continue the precedent already established of not being afraid to use unconventional focal lengths.

I would not discourage any new lenses if they feel there's a demand for them.

Ultimately though it does very much depend on the individual - and a wide lens choice does mean that there is something to suit all requirements.
Best regards, John
johnwhit
Posted 11/09/2010 - 18:58 Link
Well I still regularly use a Signa 24/2.8 and love it. A DA 24/2 Ltd would be a fine addition to the Pentax range as would the 28/2 or faster 1.8, I can see a 135 lens being popular too I still use my FA 135/2.8 from time to time. What I'd really like to see would be a DA*100-400/5.6 with IQ to rival the C***n 100-400L in other words a longer version of the DA*60-250/4

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.
johnwhit
Posted 11/09/2010 - 19:03 Link
mph555l wrote:
I'd like a DA10 limited, and a DA8 fisheye limited.

(And a lottery win to pay for them..)

Cheers,

/Ian

You could have a Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye without the lottery win, approx £220

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

Add Comment

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