All Forum Comments
That makes more sense to me though. The 35mm ltd is a lot more versatile, compared to the 40mm.
Comment by testdasi posted on New entry level limited lens at 29/04/2011 - 17:21
pammihooper wrote:
Okay, there's been a lot said about lenses - but that's the problem. Reviews saying this or that is the best ever, are blasted by one saying same lens is complete rubbish. I've got the P 55-300mm which I like a lot, but need others - prime, wide angle, portrait...whatever. I've spent so long looking that funds are now an issue. I know I'm asking 'how long's a piece of string', but I'm tired of surfing and wasting time looking. Any tips please?
You need to be very specific, both in understanding your needs and asking questions. The more specific, the better advice people can give you. Some basic considerations you need to think about:Okay, there's been a lot said about lenses - but that's the problem. Reviews saying this or that is the best ever, are blasted by one saying same lens is complete rubbish. I've got the P 55-300mm which I like a lot, but need others - prime, wide angle, portrait...whatever. I've spent so long looking that funds are now an issue. I know I'm asking 'how long's a piece of string', but I'm tired of surfing and wasting time looking. Any tips please?
* how much fund? - the most important thing
* for what purpose/purposes? - 2nd most important thing
* prime vs zoom?
* maximum dimension / weight? - e.g. I personally would not consider any 70-200mm lenses because they are too big and heavy
* IQ tolerance? - e.g. I found FA 50mm at f1.4 to be way too soft but some like the dreaminess.
* IQ compromise?
e.g.(1) When I buy a fast lens (f2.8 or better), I want to use it wide open so sharpness wide open is more important i.e. I prefer a lens that is sharper wide open (within the acceptable sharpness zone - see IQ tolerance above) even if its maximum sharpness is not as good as the alternatives.
e.g.(2) I found chromatic aberrations to be the most difficult to fix in post so I prefer a lens with less CA even if it has below average vignetting and barrel/pin-cushion distortion.
* Manual or Auto Focus? - MF is cheaper than the AF equivalent but less convenient. Purists prefer MF.
If you can think about those considerations and post it here, I bet people will be able to give you much better advices.
Comment by testdasi posted on Lenses and the K5 at 29/04/2011 - 13:14
Oggy wrote:
See also Marmite. Some (me included) like them. Others hate them.
So do you use grip? I love Marmite! See also Marmite. Some (me included) like them. Others hate them.
Comment by testdasi posted on To grip or not to grip, that's the question at 28/04/2011 - 22:14
Just received my Sigma 50-150 f2.8 which is 780g.
Do you guys think a grip will improve handling much?
My right fingers seem to fatigue quite quickly holding the K-5 + lens. Adding a grip will add weight so I'm afraid it may make things worse. But the balance may help in a certain way (like for example, it feels relatively heavier using the Tamron 70-300 than the Sigma 8-16 even though the former is lighter).
What do you guys think? Grip or no grip?
Do you guys think a grip will improve handling much?
My right fingers seem to fatigue quite quickly holding the K-5 + lens. Adding a grip will add weight so I'm afraid it may make things worse. But the balance may help in a certain way (like for example, it feels relatively heavier using the Tamron 70-300 than the Sigma 8-16 even though the former is lighter).
What do you guys think? Grip or no grip?
Comment by testdasi posted on To grip or not to grip, that's the question at 28/04/2011 - 21:13
Basically my LBA is itching all over the place (which is ridiculous).
What is the cheapest ~f1.4 lens (with minimum decent IQ) available for Pentax?
Using adapter is ok as long as adapter price is included in the "cheapest" argument. M42 is not included unfortunately because (a) good M42 adapters are expensive and (b) the adapter prevents quick lens changing to other K-mount lenses.
Just realised none of my lenses is faster than f2.5 so just wanna look out for a fast one.
Cheers.
What is the cheapest ~f1.4 lens (with minimum decent IQ) available for Pentax?
Using adapter is ok as long as adapter price is included in the "cheapest" argument. M42 is not included unfortunately because (a) good M42 adapters are expensive and (b) the adapter prevents quick lens changing to other K-mount lenses.
Just realised none of my lenses is faster than f2.5 so just wanna look out for a fast one.
Cheers.
Comment by testdasi posted on A difficult question at 26/04/2011 - 21:46
MattMoore wrote:
Afternoon everyone,
hope you are all away taking wonderful photographs over the bank holiday weekend. Ive got a couple of holidays coming up in the near future, and I would like to pack as light as possible.
I currently have K20D with Pentax 12-24 lens, tokina 28-70 2,8 lens, Pentax F50 1.7 & Sigma 105 2.8 macro.
I would prefer to stick with primes, as I feel they will give me better results versus weight. I'm not particularly interested in a super zoom lens.
My plan so far is to perhaps purchase a KR body as it is lighter than the K20D, and purchase another prime lens to go along with the F50 1.7 and Sigma 105mm. I am considering swapping out the Sigma for a Pentax 100mm macro to keep the filter size consistent.
What I would like from the 3 lenses, are a wider angle, standard, and tele lens with one of them having macro capabilities.
With this in mind, which of the Pentax primes would you buy? Or indeed, which 3 lenses would you choose?
Over to you
Matt
You have many choices I think.Afternoon everyone,
hope you are all away taking wonderful photographs over the bank holiday weekend. Ive got a couple of holidays coming up in the near future, and I would like to pack as light as possible.
I currently have K20D with Pentax 12-24 lens, tokina 28-70 2,8 lens, Pentax F50 1.7 & Sigma 105 2.8 macro.
I would prefer to stick with primes, as I feel they will give me better results versus weight. I'm not particularly interested in a super zoom lens.
My plan so far is to perhaps purchase a KR body as it is lighter than the K20D, and purchase another prime lens to go along with the F50 1.7 and Sigma 105mm. I am considering swapping out the Sigma for a Pentax 100mm macro to keep the filter size consistent.
What I would like from the 3 lenses, are a wider angle, standard, and tele lens with one of them having macro capabilities.
With this in mind, which of the Pentax primes would you buy? Or indeed, which 3 lenses would you choose?
Over to you
Matt
15ltd + 35ltd + 77ltd: 3 limited lenses with 35mm doing macro.
14 f2.8 + 35 f2.4 + 100 macro: 3 non-limited with good IQ, fast wide and 100mm doing macro
21 ltd + FA 50 f1.4 + 100 macro: A less-wide version of the 1st option but with 100mm doing macro and FA 50 doing portrait.
Sigma 24mm f1.8 + Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro + Sigma 70mm / 105mm macro: if you dont't want to buy Pentax lenses.
Comment by testdasi posted on A 3 Lens System at 25/04/2011 - 10:40
Just wondering if anyone has a spare one to sell. Will need this for better balance with my incoming Siggy 50-150 (and portraits).
Cheers.
Cheers.
Comment by testdasi posted on WTB: K-7/K-5 3rd party grip at 23/04/2011 - 14:06
PM sent.
Comment by testdasi posted on Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 ll APO EX DC HSM at 22/04/2011 - 18:04
Unlocker wrote:
Must admit Alex you are confusing me!
First you say that you should use RAW instead of JPEG to get the best picture quality, because, after all, that is what you pay for, then you happily admit to degrading your Image Quality!!
If you are saying that degrading IQ is acceptable, then why the hatred for JPEG if it is acceptable to others?
The 2 arguments don't seem to go together well and it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself!
For the record I'm a RAW shooting no UV filter for protection guy!
PS. Not having a dig just curious!
Resale value trumps everything else (even IQ). Must admit Alex you are confusing me!
First you say that you should use RAW instead of JPEG to get the best picture quality, because, after all, that is what you pay for, then you happily admit to degrading your Image Quality!!
testdasi wrote:
I spend about 10% of a lens cost on a *good* protective filter, knowing that it will degrade IQ but under my layman's eyes, the degradation is insignificant
Surely if ultimate IQ is your goal, knowingly degrading it defeats your objectives?I spend about 10% of a lens cost on a *good* protective filter, knowing that it will degrade IQ but under my layman's eyes, the degradation is insignificant
If you are saying that degrading IQ is acceptable, then why the hatred for JPEG if it is acceptable to others?
The 2 arguments don't seem to go together well and it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself!
For the record I'm a RAW shooting no UV filter for protection guy!
PS. Not having a dig just curious!
Comment by testdasi posted on Filters cheap or expensive? at 20/04/2011 - 21:15
womble wrote:
It is very much courses for horses, and this whole endless debate is pretty pointless. The race car on the 20mph road is a bad analogy really. A better one would be if you had the chance to drive on a racetrack at 200mph the race car would be the best choice, but if you had to drive on a Romanian "yellow" class road, you're much better off using a Landrover. Use whatever you need to get the job done.
We just look at it from a different perspective. You look at RAW vs JPEG as tools. I look at RAW vs JPEG as limitations.It is very much courses for horses, and this whole endless debate is pretty pointless. The race car on the 20mph road is a bad analogy really. A better one would be if you had the chance to drive on a racetrack at 200mph the race car would be the best choice, but if you had to drive on a Romanian "yellow" class road, you're much better off using a Landrover. Use whatever you need to get the job done.
On an unrelated note, this reminds me of arguing things like lager vs ale, chicken vs pork, to-maa-to vs to-mae-to.
Comment by testdasi posted on K-x Raw or Jpeg? at 19/04/2011 - 23:18
