Thanks for your remarks Godfrey; always informative. I think I'll start
working toward getting the DA14/2.8 and eventually a DA70/2.4Ltd (when
available). The latter sounds absolutely ideal. Where does it fall on
the roadmap?
A couple people have mentioned that I ought to just get my use out of
the 16-45. It has been a great lens for me, and I never feel that it's
producing inadequate results. I just happen to actually *enjoy*
shooting with non-zoom lenses more, for some reason. I've never been
able to quite put my finger on the reason. I think that by picking a
focal length and sticking with it for awhile helps me to see potential
shots in terms of that focal length before I bring the camera up to my
eye, and that helps me to achieve more meaningful composition.
By the way, my *least* used lens, since acquiring the *ist-DS is the
80-320. I almost sold it a couple times, but stopped myself when I saw
how cheap they go for on eBay; not even worth bothering to sell. So I
hang onto it for the one or two times a year where it proves to be the
right choice of equipment.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 2, 2006, at 8:02 PM, David Oswald wrote:
But where I'm always feeling a need is in my non-zoom lenses. First,
I don't have anything that I would consider to be in the range of wide
angle, mounted on the *ist-DS. I've considered the following options,
but have been hesitant to jump in with wallet and both feet:
SMC Pentax-FA 20mm f/2.8 AL
Pros: Compact. Wide-ish angle. Not prohibitively expensive.
Cons: Used on a DSLR, it's not really all *that* wide.
I tested this lens, comparing it to the Canon EF20/2.8 and the Sigma
20/1.8, all on digital bodies only. It's the best of the three wide
open, the Canon catches up by f/4, and the Sigma almost catches up
between f/4.5-5.6. I owned the Canon 20/2.8 with my 10D.
However, I decided that a zoom was more applicable in this range for me.
I'm always wanting between a 24mm and 28mm lens. I tried the DA16-45 but
didn't like its bulk/weight. I replaced that with the FA20-35/4 AL and
find it produces results competitive with the primes in this range that
I've owned and is a wonderful lens to work with: light, compact, quick
and contrasty. The one stop slower speed has not proven to be a problem
at all.
If you already have and like the DA16-45, I wouldn't bother with the
FA20. I'd want wider.
SMC Pentax-DA 14mm f/2.8 AL
Pros: Ultra-wide angle.
Cons: Priced a little beyond my comfort level for a wide angle lens.
A little wider than I feel my "only" wide angle lens should be.
This was the only "new" lens I bought when I ordered the DS body. I'm
very glad I did: it's an excellent performer in every regard, a LOT
cheaper than the Canon or Nikon offerings in this focal length range,
and balances very well on the *ist DS. It produces the field of view of
a 21mm focal length on a 35mm film SLR, which has always been about as
wide as I need. Excellent rectilinear correction, very low chromatic
aberration, best aperture between f/4.5 and f/5.6.
Page of example shots at http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/.
Frankly, I feel that the right choice for me just isn't made. If it
were, it would be called: SMC Pentax-DA 16mm f/2.8. Could such a
contraption be on the horizon?
You already have the DA16-45/4, which is only one stop slower and very
nearly prime quality. Nothing like a DA16/2.8 is on Pentax lens roadmap
for 2006-2007.
Now on to the other gap I'm feeling: the moderate telephoto. I've got
the 50mm lens, which is a good lens for not-so-tight portraits. And
I've got the 135mm lens, which gets me in there really tight. But I'm
always wishing for something between those two. Here are the options
that I see:
SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.9 Limited
Pros: Image quality, build quality, convenient focal length.
Cons: What amateur can honestly justify its price tag?
IMO, that's the only one to go for in this range unless you really want
a macro lens. Small, light, excellent imaging quality, etc. Right now I
jump from 50 to 135 as well, sold my M85/2 as I found I really prefer
having all AF series lenses, and have been debating getting the FA77/1.8
limited too. It's not *that* expensive given the quality. But it's also
a focal length I find I don't use all that often. I might wait for the
DA70/2.4 Limited.
Godfrey
