Zoom lenses are the work of the Devil.
With the DA*50-135 the differnce in AOV is less so I simply take a comfortable distance and use the zoom to frame the shot.
The DA*16-50 has a real differnce in AOV so I think about the kind of shot I want and set it on the focal length and work with that, so basicly a variable prime lens.
It's all up to you how you use the lens like is said through this topic, therefore I don't think that using primes makes you think more about the shot, actually it might make you think less about the shot since you don't need to think about what focal length to use
Unlike a couple of others, I find less need for zoom lenses when I am out looking for and at wildlife and/or birds. I tried a zoom lens for this, and it just did not work for me.
As we say on this side of the pond, Different strokes for different folks.
K3, M 400/5.6, M 100/4 macro, DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA L 55-300
FA 24-90, 1.7X AFA, 1.4X-S
AF 540 FGZ flash
I can see the argument for a SuperZoom for those times when you just have absolutely no idea what you are going to encounter
Which is probably 99% of the time for most of us
One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital, perhaps with this in mind a new topic should be started "are primes the work of the devil"
I used primes when I first got my istD, and the sensor was filthy within weeks, my K10D will be four(?)years old now and I've cleaned the sensor twice, even allowing for the dust removal on the K10D thats a huge difference in the amount of muck entering my camera.
I like a weighty camera. It feels to me as if the extra mass keeps things steadier.
That's fine until you try to take shots at or above head height!
One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital.
Ipsy,
Perhaps the difference is not the film or digital backs, but the fact that we are now arguably more affluent, and thus spoilt for choice?
To expand - I had three lenses and one TC to go with a single camera in the 1970s - that's all. None of these lenses was a zoom BTW...
Now - with two cameras, I have three zooms and five primes - hmmm....
They may make it easier for you to BE lazy, but only your own free will can MAKE you lazy.
but it does help
One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital, perhaps with this in mind a new topic should be started "are primes the work of the devil"
I used primes when I first got my istD, and the sensor was filthy within weeks, my K10D will be four(?)years old now and I've cleaned the sensor twice, even allowing for the dust removal on the K10D thats a huge difference in the amount of muck entering my camera.
I know prime users who say that since they shifted to primes they've had less of a problem with sensor crud, as zooms have a tendency to suck in dust, whereas primes are more dust resistant.
Can't say I've noticed either way, but it would be hard to tell as I interchange between primes and zooms. And of late I've hardly got any crud on my sensor in any case - perhaps down to my finessing lens changes (one lives in hope).
Was your problem with the istD as much a result of the less dust resistant sensor on earlier cameras (and the lack of internal dust removal) as frequent lens changes?
When I got my K20D I got the 16-45 + 50-200. Then I found the DA 18-250 and thought *no more lens changing* I was quite happy for a month or so till I bought a smc Pentax-K 200mm f4 PRIME Oldie, I was never again happy with the IQ of the 18-250 (zoom from the devil) and started to collect old primes. As the weight of my bag go heavier and heavier I started to read this forum and read how good the Top Quality Zooms were and when I bought the DA*50-135 I think for me this was the best of both worlds Good IQ with not so many lenses to carry and change.I certainly think the KIT Zooms are the work of the DEVIL, Cheap and Nasty.
K5+Bigma+BushHawk Shoulderpod.
K5+16-50DA* + 10-17DA Fisheye + 50-135DA* + Sigma 70mm Macro + DA35 2.4..
Slik Pro 700DX tripod.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixellie/
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. When you take the crop factor into account the field of view is roughly the same as a 42mm lens on film, slightly wider than the classic 50mm but pretty close.
A 50mm prime is handier than you might think for landscapes as it allows you to crop out foreground clutter like ugly fences between the road and the rest of the scenery. You can then stitch images together to get a wider field of view.
The kit 18-55mm is cheap but not nasty IMO, my only criticism of it is the physical size of the lens and that's only compared to the tiny older primes.
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. When you take the crop factor into account the field of view is roughly the same as a 42mm lens on film, slightly wider than the classic 50mm but pretty close.
50mm was classic but wrong The actual 'normal' focal length on a 35mm format (whether digital or film) is 43mm - the reason Pentax made the seemingly odd FA43!
I just like the way the M 28mm f3.5 behaves. Infinity focus comes up pretty rapidly and it shows very little distortion. I usually leave it on f8, focus, take a meter reading, and shoot.
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
So the 42mm equivalent I get with a 28mm on my K-m is perfect then!
I just like the way the M 28mm f3.5 behaves. Infinity focus comes up pretty rapidly and it shows very little distortion. I usually leave it on f8, focus, take a meter reading, and shoot.
It is a great lens indeed. Set everything on the lens to the orange marks, and it's a top notch focus-free lens with surprisingly little distortion, particularly considering its new price: I got mine in the early 80's or late 70's for Cdn $ 110. I no longer need it with my current lens lineup, but my daughter in law likes using it reversed to get 2:1 macro.
K3, M 400/5.6, M 100/4 macro, DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA L 55-300
FA 24-90, 1.7X AFA, 1.4X-S
AF 540 FGZ flash
And yes, I too find 28mm a good length for walkabout and also candids if preset to a focus zone. It's sad that Pentax haven't accommodated this with a DA limited despite the film-era hullabaloo about 43mm being the ideal focal length. My A series 28mm has a slight brownish-yellow tint if I use it for colour, perhaps the result of a lens coating designed for film rather than digital.
link
David
Retired at last - now all that time for photography - you would think: wink:
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
5661 posts
15 years
Bradford,Yorkshire,
UK
Primes better than zooms?
Zooms better than primes?
I think both have their place, primes are great for street and portrait shots, but zooms win out travelling.
K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.
Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...
PPG entries.