Thanks for the suggestion. But I'm just not interested in zooms at this time. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with zooms. I used zooms almost exclusively during my professional career. But I definitely prefer primes.
Actually, since I quit the newspaper nearly all of my photography has been done with only one lens ... a 50mm. I just have a thing for the 50s I guess. I suppose it's my old gear-headedness that's telling me I have to get these other lenses to "round out my kit" when mostly I just use one lens. ;D ~Nick David Wright http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ --- On Sat, 2/7/09, John Poirier <[email protected]> wrote: > From: John Poirier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: short tele primes > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 11:40 PM > Hi, Nick. I can see why you're interested in the three > lenses you list. They're all fine. However, given that > you also state you're looking for inexpensive lenses, > I'll be a bit subversive in suggesting that as a > starting point you consider zooms instead of primes. > I'm assuming that when you talk about portraiture with > these lenses you mean head-and-shoulders type work rather > than environmental portraiture. > > Fast primes have the advantage of being easier to focus in > dim light than, say, f/4 or slower zooms. Personally, I > prefer the feel of primes to zooms in general. > > However, if you're doing head-and shoulders > portraiture, your working aperture is highly unlikely to be > wide open. My guess is that you'll be somewhere in the > f/5.6-f/11 range. To achieve those apertures, chances are > lighting levels will be relatively adequate for focusing > purposes. Also, the Program Plus viewfinder is fairly > decent. Under those circumstances a fast prime would be nice > but not absolutely essential. > > Decent zooms can be had for less than the primes you list. > You would have the added advantage of trying different > focal lengths as an aid to making a final selection of a > prime lens. > > I have an M 70-150/4 that is a really sweet lens and very > compact. The A 70-210/4 is also very good. I'd be > comfortable using either for portraiture if on a budget. Or > you could get a K 85-210 (sharp but the size of a bazooka) > and scare the hell out of your subjects... > > I guess the choice depends in part on how you define > inexpensive. > > Cheers > > John Poirier > > Original Message ----- From: "Nick Wright" > <[email protected]> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: short tele primes > > > > > > Exactly the reason I won't be buying one. ;D > > > > I'm specifically looking for inexpensive lenses. > > > > ~Nick David Wright > > http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
