On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:41 PM, eric wrote: > Been looking at some wide angle lenses for my DL, and been noticing > that > while any truly wide angle lens is awfully expensive (yeah, I know, > photography is an expensive hobby), the ones with big apertures are > noticeably cheaper than those with small apertures, numerically > speaking (i.e a 1:2.8 is more than one with 1:3.5). > > I know the aperture controls how much light enters the lens (along > with > shutter speed), and a smaller aperture number means more light can > enter. Other than making it easier to get an in-focus picture while > hand holding the camera, what other reason would I want to get a > smaller > number aperture? Considering 90%+ of my photography is done of > non-moving subjects, and using a tripod, can I compensate with a > slower > shutter speed, or longer exposures?
Aperture, not "aperature". My spell checker had a field day. ;-) If you're talking about wide angle lenses, you mean lenses in the 12-24mm focal length range for the *ist DL. Most short focal length lenses like this perform best between f/4.5 and f/11, so an expensive f/2.8 or faster is likely not warranted if you're looking to save money. There aren't that many wide angle lenses like this that are faster than f/2.8 anyway, and most of the non-Pentax ones that exist don't work well wide open. If you can afford it, the Pentax DA21/3.2 is a superb performer and well worth it ... one of my serious favorite lenses. Beyond that, any of the Pentax DA12-24/4, DA14/2.8, or DA16-45/4 are very good performers, and then there's my other favorite the FA20-35/4: the only zoom I use anymore. best Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
