Hi! Very well, John, now that you have thoroughly explained yourself I see *exactly* what you mean. So I shall try to respond.
> That is not the right question. The question is, how do I know that you > require more than the choice of three focal lengths provided by the FA Ltd > lenses? Well, if I required just three focal lengths (be they FA Ltd or close to them) I would not have bought additional lenses, but I did. > Well, there is an obvious answer, which is that there is only one chance > in many millions that you require only three focal lengths, and that they > just happen to be precisely 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm. So I feel safe taking > bets on the matter. Bet as you please, but I shall not grant you any prizes ;-). > But I was going on what you said yourself: "Cotty, I don't have the 21 > lim. In this range all I have is FAJ 18-35. I don't want to buy 21 lim > because it is not full frame. So my widest prime is 31 lim that I used." > > From this I infer that you would have used a 21 if you had had one, and > you haven't bought one because it is not full-frame. I was eyeing very seriously FA 20/2.8, but decided against it. You see, John, my photographing goals or tastes or habits change with time. I used to be very fond of Sigma 18/3.5 with which J.C.O enabled me. I used to be very fond of FAJ 18-35 that I brought with me from Norway. But I do realize that most of the time I still shoot in 28-80 range. Yes, sometimes I take with me longer lenses, some times wider ones. But these are occasions, not typical events. Thus, indeed I can live without 21 lim. Again, this is what *seems* to be correct now. What will happen in the future I shall see and hopefully so will you. Remark: I am still very fond of both Sigma 18 and FAJ 18-35 lenses. > You also said: "However I find FAJ 18-35 to be completely satisfying my > wide angle needs for now." Clearly this isn't always true or you would > have used it here instead of the 31 (I'm assuming you had it with you). I wrote it numerous times that my usual style (and so it has been for several years now, and I tend to believe it is unlikely to change) is to take just one lens with me on a leisurely walk. I should also mention that I very much like shooting at apertures close to fully open. This of course does not apply to zoom lenses (sans Tamron 28-75 which is very good even wide open). On the same day I also did some indoors shooting with 31 Ltd. > And later you said that in your (perhaps controversial) opinion: "no DA > lens, be it zoom or prime or even limited prime of the new reduced image > circle series (21, 40, 70) comes close to the performance of original > limited lenses (31, 43, 77)." > > From this I infer that even if you weren't worried about the image circle, > you still might not buy a DA Ltd on perceived lack-of-quality grounds. Hmmm, please don't consider me talking semantics or hair splitting, but I definitely *dislike* the fact that new series of limited lenses have rather slow speed. Thus although the new limited lenses seem to yield good quality pictures they are *slow* for my taste. I find f1.8 of 31 and 77 limited lenses to be *just right*. Again, this is my personal taste. > But despite this concern for quality you say that you are completely > satisfied with a cheap, slow, kit zoom to cover all focal lengths below > 31mm. This I find odd. Well, a lens on par with 31 Limited quality wise and way wider, say 21 mm, covering full frame would be big and expensive. Currently Pentax offers either FA 20/2.8 (which I almost bought) and DA 21/3.2 (not sure about the aperture value). Having analyzed my need for focals wider than what I have, I decided not to buy FA 20/2.8. It would be only illogical now to buy DA 21. It is not as wide and even slightly slower. There is big Sigma 20/1.8, but before I hold one such lens in my own arms in person I shall refrain from putting out any opinion about it. Thus, I had to settle for slower zoom lens. My very sample of FAJ 18-35 is of exceptional optical quality for the price and specifications. Therefore I said that I am satisfied with this lens. > Not all assumptions are of equal worth, and that is especially true in > this case. When a company replaces almost its entire lens line with > lenses that do not suit a particular image circle, it is logical to assume > that the company has no plans, short or long term, to revert to that > particular image circle. The logic is reinforced by the fact that the > company DOES have firm plans to introduce a digital camera covering a > rather larger image circle, for which a separate lens line already > exists. Thus there will be a product for the few who require very high > resolution. I shall not try to produce a different explanation to the facts you mentioned and arguments you provided. I simply see no point in it. You and I disagree more or less like Godfrey and I disagree. I find it just fine. Hope you do the same. > Nikon seem to be doing OK without a 35mm-sized sensor. They are another > company that sees no need for one. Likewise Sony, Olympus, et al. > Indeed, Olympus believe that even an APS-C sized sensor is unnecesssarily > large. So no camera manufacturer other than Canon thinks a "full-frame" > sensor is a practicable proposition. Fascinating. Why then Leica chose x1.3 sensor from Kodak and not x1.5 sensor from Sony whereas Sony's sensor has about the same pixel count and appears to be absolutely fine piece of electronics? And in retrospect, Leica having much trouble with this Kodak sensor now... Why was their choice? > You may choose to ignore these facts, but please don't suggest that your > unsupported belief (AKA wishful thinking) carries the same weight as the > generally accepted assumption that Pentax will not bring out a 35mm-sized > sensor for the K-mount. There simply is no market for it at the price it > would have to sell for, and no need for it because in normal use a 10MP > sensor provides greater resolution than almost all 35mm film, and with > acceptable quality. And anyway, who says that APS-C will stop at 10MP? It already surpassed 10 MP in Nikon D2X, right? I find term "wishful thinking" having rather negative taste and tone. However "unsupported belief" would be quite right. Now, I don't find my belief unsupported. After all Canon does produce full frame sensors and cameras. Please let me re-iterate that development of digital photography in my opinion happens according to Moore's law or variation thereof. No offense and no pun intended, but Bill Gates himself told us some years ago that 640 Kb of RAM for personal computer is perfectly fine for all possible needs. He was quite wrong. Now, of course, if you don't share my opinion about applicability of Moore's law to digital photography then we're on very different grounds and again it would make little sense to try to bridge between these two grounds. > I think I see a DA 21mm Ltd in your future. :-) May be. May be not. I don't see it, but that does not say that my eyesight is sharp enough. I do hope that I clarified my view somewhat. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
