All Forum Comments
Comment by wadna posted on What "Normal" lens for K-7 at 11/07/2010 - 22:00
rparmar wrote:
The FA 31, fine lens that it is is just too expensive for my purposes (still looking for one though). 28mm would be ideal but the FA 35 probably is the best of the bunch at the price.mecrox wrote:
The best all-rounder is most likely the DA 35mm f2.8.
I wouldn't disagree. I owned it for a while and thought it the best single all-rounder lens one could put on a camera. But for me it was never a matter of having only a single lens and so I grudgingly traded it on. The best all-rounder is most likely the DA 35mm f2.8.
mecrox wrote:
Second up would be the FA 35mm f2.0. But because it is no longer made and is much sought after, I think you'd have to be careful not to overpay for a second-hand example whether Pentax or Samsung.
I think at $500 it goes for too much. The DA35 has a lot more usefulness and is built better. I don't own a single (non-Limited) FA lens since I dislike their look and feel.Second up would be the FA 35mm f2.0. But because it is no longer made and is much sought after, I think you'd have to be careful not to overpay for a second-hand example whether Pentax or Samsung.
mecrox wrote:
I have an SMC A 28mm f2.8 (manual focus). It's OK for black and white but I haven't found it up to the standards of my limited lenses. Time to move on.
I agree completely. I prefer the Vivitars to this lens, which seems antiquated.I have an SMC A 28mm f2.8 (manual focus). It's OK for black and white but I haven't found it up to the standards of my limited lenses. Time to move on.
mecrox wrote:
I would not buy an FA 31mm. I think it is far too expensive for what it is, and personally I would not feel much at ease strolling around with such expensive kit.
If it was 28mm I would have bought it to go with the other two FA Limiteds in my bag. There is something about them that transcends other lenses.I would not buy an FA 31mm. I think it is far too expensive for what it is, and personally I would not feel much at ease strolling around with such expensive kit.
Comment by wadna posted on What "Normal" lens for K-7 at 11/07/2010 - 21:57
dougf8 wrote:
Why on the "other" site does the 30mm F1.4 Sigma get 9.7 rating?
Are people buying 2nd hand copies that are duffers?
If you had a crap copy and wanted rid, you just keep schtum and sell it, leaving the buyer to work it out?
Or are these new copies with some variation?
It was new.Why on the "other" site does the 30mm F1.4 Sigma get 9.7 rating?
Are people buying 2nd hand copies that are duffers?
If you had a crap copy and wanted rid, you just keep schtum and sell it, leaving the buyer to work it out?
Or are these new copies with some variation?
Comment by wadna posted on What "Normal" lens for K-7 at 11/07/2010 - 21:55
MrCynical wrote:
Depends on your priorities, but anything in the 28-35mm should do. Your in-production options are:
*Sigma 30mm f1.4 - fastest lens here and also the cheapest (relatively speaking). It has no resolution to speak of in the far corners wide open (and isn't great at borders either), but at f1.4 your extreme corners are going to be blurred (ie bokeh) anyway
*FA31 Limited - fabulous, but it's £1000. If you have £1000 to spend on photo gear (and don't, for some reason, want the DA*50-135 ), the FA31 is widely regarded as one of the best prime lenses ever made.
*DA35 Macro Limited - not a fast lens (only f2., but if your primary use for it will be outdoor/street work it is very well regarded indeed. It also has the advantage that, though 35mm isn't a great macro focal length, you never have to worry about the minimum focus distance for normal shots! Only weakness might be the slow autofocus, however unlike the others on this list it has Quick Shift (ie you can turn the MF ring while in AF mode) so you can give it a helping hand if it decides to hunt.
Of the used options, the FA35 is just under a stop faster than the DA35 and just over a stop slower than the Sigma. It's supposed to be very sharp wide open (ie it's likely sharper at f2 than the Sigma is at f2). Since it's only available used, you'll (perhaps rather obviously) pay less than you would for a new copy of the other lenses.
Thanks, I'm contemplating the FA 35.Depends on your priorities, but anything in the 28-35mm should do. Your in-production options are:
*Sigma 30mm f1.4 - fastest lens here and also the cheapest (relatively speaking). It has no resolution to speak of in the far corners wide open (and isn't great at borders either), but at f1.4 your extreme corners are going to be blurred (ie bokeh) anyway
*FA31 Limited - fabulous, but it's £1000. If you have £1000 to spend on photo gear (and don't, for some reason, want the DA*50-135 ), the FA31 is widely regarded as one of the best prime lenses ever made.
*DA35 Macro Limited - not a fast lens (only f2., but if your primary use for it will be outdoor/street work it is very well regarded indeed. It also has the advantage that, though 35mm isn't a great macro focal length, you never have to worry about the minimum focus distance for normal shots! Only weakness might be the slow autofocus, however unlike the others on this list it has Quick Shift (ie you can turn the MF ring while in AF mode) so you can give it a helping hand if it decides to hunt.
Of the used options, the FA35 is just under a stop faster than the DA35 and just over a stop slower than the Sigma. It's supposed to be very sharp wide open (ie it's likely sharper at f2 than the Sigma is at f2). Since it's only available used, you'll (perhaps rather obviously) pay less than you would for a new copy of the other lenses.
Comment by wadna posted on What "Normal" lens for K-7 at 11/07/2010 - 21:53
For anyone interested I bought the Sigma 30mm f1.4
I tested it & returned it as it was a complete dog wide open being so blurry in the centre (not to mention the eye watering edge blur) as to be unusable.
So I'm back where I started but would still prefer AF operation.
I tested it & returned it as it was a complete dog wide open being so blurry in the centre (not to mention the eye watering edge blur) as to be unusable.
So I'm back where I started but would still prefer AF operation.
Comment by wadna posted on What "Normal" lens for K-7 at 11/07/2010 - 02:24
I use a round screw on Hoya metal hood that gives good coverage which I bought for the SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 that came with my new (then - that's a long time ago) Spotmatic.
Simon, that square one looks inadequate to me - I would go with the round one as it's deeper.
Regards, Ian.
Simon, that square one looks inadequate to me - I would go with the round one as it's deeper.
Regards, Ian.
Comment by wadna posted on Lens hood for 50mm FA 1.4? at 03/07/2010 - 05:50
I think we can all learn from that article.
I would love to see more incisive, thought provoking critiques of photos posted here.
Regards, Ian.
I would love to see more incisive, thought provoking critiques of photos posted here.
Regards, Ian.
Comment by wadna posted on Photo Critique - a tutorial at 28/06/2010 - 08:07
Anvh wrote:
But that's your limitation then and not that of a camera which I thought it was
"I use RAW all the time for the flexibility & what I can get out of a file but at sport on 5fps I'm inclined to go with jpg."But that's your limitation then and not that of a camera which I thought it was
You thought you read something I didn't say.
Comment by wadna posted on J.Peg or Raw at 20/06/2010 - 00:23
Anvh wrote:
What I am unsure about is what your point is Stefan.
I'm not sure I understand either, that link just seems to confirm that JPG is the best option for long bursts.[/quote]It was said that when you want to do 5 fps for sports you can only use JPG but that's not true both JPG and RAW do 5.2 fps, or did you meant the burst isn't long enough?[/quote]With the programs I use it's a lot quicker to review jpg files than RAW & if you shoot continuous at 5fps there are a lot to review & delete.Mongoose wrote:
I'm sure I'm sure.wadna wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Anvh"][quote:3496ace15f="wadna"]I use RAW all the time for the flexibility & what I can get out of a file but at sport on 5fps I'm inclined to go with jpg.
You sure? link[quote:3496ace15f="Anvh"][quote:3496ace15f="wadna"]I use RAW all the time for the flexibility & what I can get out of a file but at sport on 5fps I'm inclined to go with jpg.
What I am unsure about is what your point is Stefan.
Comment by wadna posted on J.Peg or Raw at 19/06/2010 - 22:05
George Lazarette wrote:
I have always thought that JPEG is for experts, and RAW for amateurs and newbies.
It's all about nailing exposure. If you can be confident that you will get the exposure right every time, use JPEG. If not, use RAW.
I use RAW.
G
RAW allows 16 bit processing providing much smoother tonal gradation & also the ability to recover more detail in high DR shots.I have always thought that JPEG is for experts, and RAW for amateurs and newbies.
It's all about nailing exposure. If you can be confident that you will get the exposure right every time, use JPEG. If not, use RAW.
I use RAW.
G
Comment by wadna posted on J.Peg or Raw at 19/06/2010 - 12:30
6. The reviewer's usage might conform to exactly what the lens is good for and nothing else. In the case of the Sigma 30, low-light portraits, with the subject in the centre, would work a treat. Who cares about soft edges and vignetting then? They are actually bonuses! But one would not want to use it for shots of walls and landscapes -- in these use cases the FA31 would blow it out of the water.
Clearly the edges are softer than the centre and there is vignetting in the corners. Oh...wait, no, there isn't any difference...
I'm sure the FA31 would be nicer. But as it would have cost me FOUR times the price the Sigma did, one would hope so!