Well, that's good to know. I guess maybe I am over-preparing a bit. But,
this could turn out to be a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, so I just
have the "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have
it" mentality. I'll probably temper it a little between now and then.
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 10:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
<And I really don't want to miss out on a great shot because I just
didn't have the lens readily
available.
I spent a week in the Badlands photographing and except for some
prarie dogs, there wasn't any fast moving targets that required having
lenses pre mounted. I mostly shot a 28-80 3.5-4.5 F & a 70-210 4 - 5.6 F.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Gilbert" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment . . .
Well, I was thinking there may be third-party lenses that might make
the cut, so I thought that might make it semi-OT. But, since they'd
be K-mounts, I guess I was just being a little extra cautious.
I wanted to carry three bodies just to make sure I have a fairly long
zoom for wildlife, one of my 50's for great sharpness and bokeh, and
a wider-angle for the landscapes -- all on a body for ready access. I
don't mind carrying the extra weight much. And I really don't want to
miss out on a great shot because I just didn't have the lens readily
available.
Besides, I'm a bit smitten at the images that K100D Super puts out;
there's just something about the sensor on that thing that I just love.
I do have the DA 18-55 and thought about using it. I just wondered if
there might be a nice, affordable short prime that would out-perform
it. If there isn't really one that justifies the outlay, then that's
probably the route I'll take.
Thanks, Bruce!
-- Walt
On 8/20/2012 6:04 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
"OT"? What could possibly be more *on-topic* than questions about
Pentax photo equipment? :-)
Why take the K100D Super when you've got a K20 and K-x along? It'll
just add weight.
Have you not got a DA 18-55 kit lens? I'd use that for wide landscapes
myself. It's a darned sharp lens. And small and light too.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Walt Gilbert <[email protected]>
wrote:
. . . and give me your thoughts.
Say you're going to be leaving for the Black Hills of South Dakota
in a
little over a month and have an extremely limited budget. I'm quite
literally saving up the quarters from my tips (along with
everything else
that I can) to finance it. But, you want to make sure that you get
some
images worthy of the trip.
I'll be taking all of my camera bodies with me -- K-x, K20D, K100D
Super
-- and plan to use my Promaster 70-300 as a zoom, at least one of
my 50mm
primes, and I'd like to have something wider for landscapes. I have a
Takumar 28/2.8, but it's really a pretty crappy lens compared to
the others.
What would be the best, most affordable option -- best bang for the
lowest
buck -- for the wider landscapes? All I really care about is the focal
length and IQ -- everything else is mere window dressing as far as I'm
concerned. I'm essentially looking for something very common and
highly
regarded.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-- Walt
--
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.
