Hi Paul,
Well, I'm sure you've opened a can of worms here, what with all
those on the list who frequently shoot with zooms, and those
relatively few of us who are more addicted to primes. Let's look at
this from several perspectives:
> I find that when I'm exercise-walking or
> pleasure-walking with a single lens, I am
> overcome by "prime" anxiety: "What if this
> focal length won't do justice to the subject
> I wish to shoot, or won't allow me to shoot
> it from the desired perspective?"
Regardless of what lens you're carrying you will never be able to
have the ideal lens for every - or perhaps even most - situations
you want to photograph, even if you're carrying a Sigma 50~500
zoom. While zooms are nice, they'll be slower and heavier than a
prime that fits within the range of a particular zoom. Of course,
you know what the tradeoffs are, so I needn't drone on. I think,
though, that once you recognize that you'll never catch every shot,
the choice comes down to how comfortable you are with, and how fast
you can shoot, a particular lens. Perhaps even that's not a problem
if you're shooting something that'll just wait for you, but often on
those walkarounds, things happen quickly, and sometimes what you
want to capture is quite fleeting.
I prefer a prime or two because I know that I can work fast with it
- sometimes very fast, without even bothering to worry about
focusing or aperture, and sometimes without even getting the camera
right up to my eye. A true grab shot. I am willing to forgo getting
"everything" with the idea that what I do catch will be something
special. Of course, this is just me - zooms are too slow to capture
much of what I shoot.
That said:
> seriously thinking
> about acquiring a wide-angle zoom.
OK, now that you know my position on zooms in general, let's get
specific. I just happen to have the Pentax M24~35/3.5 and the
A24~50. Of the two I most prefer the 24~35 - in fact, I actually
like it. It's easier and faster to use, lighter, accepts better
quality lens hoods, and, as far as I'm concerned, is a sharper lens
- the images are far better than those of the 24~50.
While the 24~50 seems like a great focal range - and it is - I think
the heavier, bigger, softer lens that it is puts it in a definite
place well behind the 24~35. Truth is, I've only used the lens a
half-dozen times or so since I bought it new, that' how much I
dislike it, while I've used the 24~35 just about as much over a
much, much shorter period. Also, lens hoods for that baby are
difficult to come by, and flare can be a big issue compared to the
more agile 24~35. If you're primarily a prime shooter, the 24~35
will probably be more comfortable for you.
Using the 24~35 with a fast fifty in your pocket certainly seems the
way to go when considering these two lenses.
I can't speak for the other lenses except that with but one
exception thus far - the 43mm Ltd - the focusing feel of an AF lens,
even when used manually - seems to be atrocious. Yeah, there will
be a lot of zoom guys and AF guys telling you that it's not bad, but
for a guy like you, who is a lot like me based on our emails, you
probably won't like the way the lens feels.
I won't address the non Pentax lenses as my experience with them is
virtually nil.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
