Again, any offers?

Anybody interested?

Bump

I have the DA17-70/4 and wanted something wider, I looked at the DA15, which is slightly wider but couldn't justify spending £500 for the difference.

The problem with very wide angles is that you have to be careful to avoid perspective distortion unless you're after that specific effect (Brian's 4th shot above is an example). I reasoned that, if buying a wider lens, it had to be much wider (wide enough not to have to buy a wider one later) and that fish-eye distortion is not necessarily worse than the perspective distortion (in many situations I think it looks less 'wierd' to the eye).

I went for the DA10-17 fish-eye, when used with care the fish-eye effect can be reduced considerably. It's not an every-day lens, but neither are ultra-wide rectilinear lenses. This is an un-corrected shot at 17mm:



Up river #1 by John Halliwell, on Flickr

There are a few more here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-halliwell/sets/72157633351564323/

John.

Crikey that's similar in size and heavier than a 6x7 75mm f/4.5 and I wouldn't want to walk round with that hanging off my K-5:

Weight (g) 600 (later 560)
Size 81 x 91.5mm

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-75mm-F4.5-Lens.html

I probably don't have enough for a monthly retrospective for 2013 so I'll post my fav/best shot and the circumstances around it:

For me 2013 was a strange year photographically, the year started processing my 'backlog' of exposed colour 120 film from as far back as 2003. Then I shot the remains of my expired colour 120 film prior to building a P6x7 outfit. I bought an MX-1 and carried it almost everywhere, it's a very useful piece of kit that's a real pleasure to use. Apart from a holiday (before buying the MX-1), I've hardly used my K-5.

My favourite (and probably best) shot was one I almost didn't take. I needed to test a newly acquired P6x7MLU body and metering prism, nothing artistic, just something that would confirm the shutter was OK, there were no light leaks and the frame spacing was OK. It was the end of November, I'd been to the location earlier in the day, loaded Provia 100 but been rained off by a downpour. The rain stopped and I decided to have another go, it's after 3:30pm, the light's fading fast but the sky looked simply amazing.

I'd taken a hand-held a meter to check the metered prism for accuracy but its battery expired before I could take a reading. I tried again and managed one reading which roughly matched the prism's. I'd picked the 75mm f/4.5 lens earlier in the day, but now the sun is setting, my shutter speeds wide open are somewhere around 1/60th & 1/125th, sometimes I had to decide whether I needed to stop down to f/5.6 and use 1/30th or risk being under-exposed by half a stop. I'd only wanted test shots so was hand-holding and only wanted to shoot the film to get it in the post. The open-aperture metering wasn't working, stop-down metering was working but the needle moved down from the top (instead of up from the bottom as expected).

When the film came back, this shot really surprised me, the image on a lightbox simply looks fabulous, the scan (I didn't do any PP on it) simply doesn't do the original justice:



River Ribble Pylons #2 by John Halliwell, on Flickr

Today it has been accepted into the PPG

John.

For me the FA31 is too expensive to justify (especially new) for a single DSLR prime lens. The 43 would interest me first but only on film (FF) as it's close to my preferred 40mm focal length. The British Journal of Photography commented that "with the 77mm f/1.8 FA Limited Edition Pentax offers one of the best compact full-frame portrait lenses ever made." (Nov 2013 pg81).

I don't have a lot of experience with the 20-35 (I bought the lenses close together recently and haven't been able to spend time with any one in particular). I bought it primarily for my film cameras (I feel 30-50 is a funny range on APS-C) I was looking for either a 20 or 24 and the opportunity to buy the 20-35 was too good to miss. Using it with a film camera (full frame) is dramatic given the wide-angle of view at the wide end.

In use, the focus ring is smooth but lighter damped than a manual focus lens (unlike my F50/1.7 which seems rather rougher). It's built reasonably well and could be used (on film) as a 'walk-round' lens for those that like wider lenses.

On APS-C I think the zoom range is a bit awkward, not quite wide or long enough to justify it over my DA17-70/4 (bit smaller though).

I'd keep the 15, 35 & 50 and possibly the 55-300 (if I wanted a long lens - who doesn't?). It all comes down to how much you can sell the ones you don't think you need. The M50/1.7 has low value and is a cracking lens. The 18-55WR is really handy if the weather turns, and again possibly isn't worth enough to warrant selling.

I'd agree. You have what I'd consider to be a good line-up there, but ultimately it depends how you'd like to work. I still shoot film, as such my preference would be to keep the FA43, but if shooting mostly APS-C, I'd prefer to keep the 50/1.2 (the 43 seems an odd 65mm equivalent).

I've just refreshed my lens line-up, I went for: FA28/2.8, FA35/2, FA50/1.4 & FA20-35/4, the reasoning:

- 28/2.8 - wide angle for film, 42mm for APS-C (40mm is my favourite focal length).
- 35/2 - fast-wideish for film, fast enough 50mm for APS-C.
- 50/1.4 - fast 50 on film, portrait lens on APS-C
- 20-35/4 - primarily the wider end for film.

Add to this my M40/2.8 for that 40mm on film and my DA17-70/4 for wide-angle on APS-C (although probably would prefer the DA15) and I've covered most of my needs on digital and film. The only problem being I've spent my K3 budget in the process...

I wanted to keep it all film capable (aperture rings) and the FA's seemed the best choice (they still manual focus reasonably well on manual focus cameras).