On Mar 2, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> >> I don't know whether it is a good thing, or a bad thing, that I didn't know >> about this until it was too late for me to do anything. >> >> There are several lenses that are high on my wish list, that now that I'm >> employed I could even pretend that I can afford, especially at an event like >> this. Specifically the DA35 macro, which would be nearly a perfect lens for >> photo walks in the woods with my K-5. Alternatively, if I wait until Cotty >> makes hat soup, my DFA50 macro would fulfill the same niche, albeit with >> slightly less depth of field. >> >> How is that for rationalization? If I buy a full frame camera, I can save a >> bunch of money on lenses. >> > Larry, FWIW, on my recent trip/cruise I carried mostly prime lenses. Of the > roughly 3800 shots with a K-5II, about 1800 of them were with the DA35/2.8 > macro. (About 700 @ 77mm, 450 @ 21mm, 350 @ 55/1.4, 250 @ PK-A 200/4, the > remainder @ 40/2.8, 15/4 or 12-24/4.)
The good news is that I am now working and collecting a paycheck again. The not so good news is that the house project I started in October that should have taken a week or two is still going strong, and keeps growing. I tried to stop the leaking into the downstairs through one wall, and ended up rebuilding about eight feet of wall from the ground up. Once that was done, there were two other leaks, and in order to solve them we need to do some major digging out under the house so that the dirt under the house is not piled up higher than the concrete wall that is supposed to keep groundwater out. Since I'm working now, I had to hire a contractor to do that. In order to dig it out, he had to take out the upper half of one of the walls in the apartment under the house. Once he (or rather Martin, his rent-a-mexican) got a substantial amount of the dirt dug out, Ray discovered that the posts on piers that were (in theory) holding up the house, were in reality just hanging from the joists. He is now putting in beams to support the joists, and posts on real pillars, sunk into the dirt, so that the house stays up for reasons other than force of habit. This project is taking distressingly large bites out of my lens budget. I'm rather hoping that I can continue putting off the expense of the project of pouring an actual foundation under one end of the house. There is a reason I call it the temple of deferred maintenance. > I was pleasantly surprised by the (new to me) 35mm and agree with you that it > would make a great walk-in-the-woods lens. Of course YMMV depending on > location, subject, etc. Between my 31/1.8, my 50/2.8 and 90/2.8 macros and my 20/1.8 semi macro I've pretty much got the functionality of the 35 macro covered, even without putting on the 16-50. On a related note, I have lamented on more than one occasion the time that I passed up a 43/1.9 limited because it was too big compared with my 40/2.8. > I had expected that the 21mm, 55mm, and 77mm in that order would get the most > use, and had the 35mm along mostly for its macro capability. But it quickly > became my default lens. Get yourself one now; you can always sell it later if > need be to buy a full frame body . . . At $700, they are about twice pain threshold especially when they don't get me any functionality that I don't already have in other lenses. -- 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.
