You do have a use for the 50mm.

It is a much better lens than your two zooms, and great for portraits. It's also fast, so it's good for low light and also for pictures with narrow depth of field.

It's small, light, and discreet.

If you buy a 77mm you will have a better lens, but not hugely. Otherwise, you will find it very hard to improve on your dad's old Pentax 50mm.

G

Number one is very good.

G

As JR says, your choice should be made on the basis of the focal length range. Although the 16-45 is said to be slightly better, you know from your own experience that the 24-90 is very good indeed.

For use as a tourist lens (which is mainly what I use zooms for - wandering round a foreign city and not wanting to carry much gear), I would choose the 24-90 on a film body and the 16-45 on a DSLR.

G

I no longer have any K or M bodies, so I can't try this out for myself. Are you saying that a DA lens meters correctly (at all apertures), and stops down to the right aperture when you press the shutter.

If so (and if you are correct), I am misinfomed. If not, you cannot say that the K and M bodies support DA lenses.

G

This refers to Pentax camera bodies using the K-mount.

All bodies from the Super A onwards support all post-K & M lenses (inc FAJ lenses) fully.

All film bodies, save four, support K & M lenses.

The four bodies are the MZ-30, -50, -60, and *ist.

K and M bodies don't support FAJ and DA lenses.

DSLRs only support K and M lenses in manual mode.

G

On the contrary, Matt, this is a site run by real experts with real insights to impart.

For instance, their John Warton says:

"The subject should be the focus of the picture.”

“Try to always be ready."

"It is OK to make mistakes and learn."

“Lightning [sic] plays a key role in getting a quality shot."

"Be original." (Now that's original!)

Some of his points are so profound, they need careful thinking about:

"Remember that photographs are made to be made – not to be taken."

Gems, all of them.

G

Photolaureates looks as though it might have been set up by that master photographer, Ken Rockwell.

I don't think an invitation from them is anything to get overly excited about.

And watch your wallet.

G

Furthermore, the question WAS replied to (incorrectly) by Teogin, and correctly by Jonesy on 13 December.

Sometimes it pays to read a thread before making unwarranted assertions.

G

Why do you think they will? There are fewer so-called full-frame bodies available now than there were five years ago.

Nikon only produced a 24x36 sensor so as to stop users defecting to Canon on the basis that they just might, one day, perhaps, if they won the lottery, want to use a 24x36 sensor.

How many people actually buy these 24x36 bodies? Very, very few. Pentax makes almost no suitable lenses for a 24x36 sensor, so in order to sell a camera that nobody would buy anyway they would have to produce a whole new range of 24x36 lenses.

It just isn't going to happen. As sensor technology improves, the possible benefits of having a 24x36 sensor recede further and further into the distance.

But we've said all this a thousand times before.

G

Yes.

All true.

A lot? The article mentioned five photographers.

Bailey is an old dog, and can't be bothered to learn new tricks.
Jack Dykinga uses large format, and since it is impossible to produce a large format sensor economically, he has no choice.
Sacha Dean Biyan. Same as above.
Nevada Weir. Quote: "the only problem is that in many places I travel there is no electricity and that eliminates the digital camera.”
Richard Murai. Shoots film, then processes digitally. He thinks he has the best of both worlds.

Hardly a compelling set of arguments for everybody going back to film.

The point that you miss (other than giving the wrong information to the original poster regarding his camera and TTL) is that people don't use digital for reasons of ultimate quality.

If ultimate quality is your goal, and you have huge amounts of money, and unlimited time, you might just be able to make a large print which rivals or exceeds the quality that is possible from a good digital camera.

Mind you, there has never been a convincing comparison between prints from film and prints from digital, where it was possible to conclude that one medium is better than the other. What we have instead is a lot of hot air from people with an axe to grind. This is why I said you "MIGHT just be able".

People use digital because of the three Cs: cost, control, and convenience. And the greatest of these is (probably) convenience.


Stay awake. They already have. Film has gone.

I know one thing that will never change. People banging on about how horses are better than cars, woad better than lipstick, spears better than Gatling guns, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

G