RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Stanley Halpin wrote:

> If you aren’t going to use it, maybe you should send it back? Where are
> your priorities?!?

Exactly where my wife left them!

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[P.J. Alling]

On 10/31/2015 12:06 AM, Larry Colen wrote:



David Mann wrote:
On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith  
wrote:



The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment


But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!


It has worked for me for years.


Don't sell yourself short Larry, you're ample proof that equipment isn't 
a substitute for skill...

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist).






Cheers,
Dave








--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

David Mann wrote:

> But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!

*Sigh!* If only

Anyway, many thanks for your replies. I can report a rather nice parcel has
arrived with a 16-85mm WR lens. As is the way of things, I'm now in and out
of the house doing family jobs until tomorrow night, so I won't get a chance
to try it out until Monday. Typical!

Malcolm 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting Enablement - Lens Choice Question

[Malcolm Smith]

Bipin Gupta wrote:

> Congratulations Malcom, You now have an excellent lens in the 16-85 WR,
> that Ricoh-Pentax could have labelled "STAR".
> 
> I am glad that I had pointed you out to this lens as your first choice.
> Suggest you check it out thoroughly as some manufacturing defects have
> been discovered. The latest one is a shift in the image downwards after
> focusing. In the viewfinder you will notice the frame drops down a bit
> after the lens has focused.
> 
> Enjoy your new baby.

Thanks Bipin, I will check this out carefully on Monday.

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fighting Enablement - Lens Choice Question

[Bipin Gupta]

Congratulations Malcom, You now have an excellent lens in the 16-85
WR, that Ricoh-Pentax could have labelled "STAR".

I am glad that I had pointed you out to this lens as your first
choice. Suggest you check it out thoroughly as some manufacturing
defects have been discovered. The latest one is a shift in the image
downwards after focusing. In the viewfinder you will notice the frame
drops down a bit after the lens has focused.

Enjoy your new baby.
Regards.
Bipin.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Oct 31, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:
> 
> David Mann wrote:
> 
>> But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!
> 
> *Sigh!* If only
> 
> Anyway, many thanks for your replies. I can report a rather nice parcel has
> arrived with a 16-85mm WR lens. As is the way of things, I'm now in and out
> of the house doing family jobs until tomorrow night, so I won't get a chance
> to try it out until Monday. Typical!
> 
> Malcolm 

If you aren’t going to use it, maybe you should send it back? Where are your 
priorities?!?

stan


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Boris Liberman wrote:

> Malcolm,
> 
> Sorry to join late...
> 
> If you *absolutely* have to have WR lens, then I think that 16-85 is
> preferable. The difference between 18 and 16 mm on wide end is
> significant. It will give you more interesting compositional
> opportunities. The difference between 85 and 135 mm on the long end is
> less significant, because both are part of 55-300 range.
> 
> However, if WR is not mandatory, then I should suggest that neither of
> these lenses is interesting. At least to me they are not. I prefer
> faster lenses, for these reasons: possibility to get sharper images at
> wider apertures, more play with DOF, more options for low light
> photography without having to raise the ISO too much. To that end I
> suggest Sigma 17-70 lenses. If you can, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0
> Contemporary is said to be very good. If you cannot (shameless plug
> here), I can easily enable you with very cheap Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 as I
> am going to upgrade to Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 Contemporary anyway.
> 
> There is another option - you could buy Tamron 28-75/2.8 or Sigma
> 24-60/2.8 (another shameless plug, as I want to sell mine to finance
> that upgrade, I mentioned above). They would give you widest aperture
> and get you ready for incoming full frame camera, should you ever want
> to upgrade. Both are inexpensive these days and having had the former
> and having the latter, I should say - they are quite excellent.
> 
> Sorry for the plugs... HTH

Thanks Boris. The WR lenses have me, so it really is a choice of those,
although had this been the start of Summer I may have felt differently, but
I want a lens that I will use straight away - and it's raining yet again as
I type this, the sky is saying 'WR'.

Most of these choice issues comes back to knowing what you like to take
pictures of, and until the last year or so it would really have been
landscape and 'everything else', which leads you down the road to buying
what you think is good at the time. I pretty much know what I like now, and
that at least leads me more in the right direction. 

The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment, and I'd
like to do a studio lighting course so I can improve the range of abstract
photography I enjoy.

Malcolm 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Igor wrote:

> Malcolm,
> 
> I haven't used any of these lenses, but I was thinking about a similar
> question.
> Just in case you haven't seen this review, - it might give you some
> impression of this lens, and answer some technical questions, including
> some comparisons between different lenses in this range:
> http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-
> 56/general-image-quality.html
> (It is spread over many pages, - this is just one of them, so use the
> arrows to go "left" and "right".)
> 
> My lens is 17-70/4. I like it. It is not perfect: it is good at the
> wide end, but becomes less sharp in the 50-70 range.
> But I've stopped carrying 18-250 which is more "universal" in favor of
> 17-70 which provides better quality for me, and I always have 50-135
> for when I need the higher quality for 50+ mm.
> I value the extra "17" vs. "18"mm, and the constant f/4 aperture.
> (f/5.6 becomes a bit too slow for my needs.)
> 
> So, as other people pointed out you'd probably need to figure out what
> your most frequent subjects/scenes demand, and go from there..
> Alternatively, you might buy just the lens that you _want_ to have. :-)

I hadn't seen that review Igor, and I had a good read of it last night. I
like the 17-70mm, particularly the fact it is f4 across the whole range but
I want the WR lens, particularly at this time of year.

What I'd really like to have will wait for another year :-)

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Larry Colen]

Boris Liberman wrote:

Igor, personally I translate "limited" designation into "unusual and
therefore costly". And the "*" designation to "professional and hence
expensive".


While wikipedia is not a definitive source, it can still be valuable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_(lens)

FA lenses[edit]

Pentax smc FA 35mm f2
These lenses are designed with use for full-frame film SLR cameras. As 
with the F series, they feature an aperture ring providing compatibility 
with older camera bodies. Autofocus is like the F series of screw-drive 
type. The FA* lenses are professional grade lenses and the FA Limited 
lenses are all metal high quality primes. The FA series has been 
superseded by the DA and D FA series optimized for digital cameras, but 
as of March 2015 the three FA limited as well as the FA 35 mm f2 and 50 
mm f1.4 are still in production.[4]


DA Limited lenses[edit]
These are high quality (mostly prime) lenses with the lens housing made 
of metal. They usually have a wider maximum aperture compared to zooms 
but narrower as compared to other prime lenses. This is a compromise as 
DA Limited lenses are usually made to be much more compact than other 
primes lenses. In August 2013 the DA Limited lenses were upgraded with 
Pentax new HD coating, replacing the previous smc coating.[9] The new HD 
lenses are also available in both silver and black, as opposed to only 
black.


The DA 35/2.8 Macro was co-developed with Tokina.[6] As of February 
2015, the DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR announced in November 2013[10] 
stands out for being both the only zoom as well as the only weather 
resistant lens of the series.



--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[P.J. Alling]

I think Limited has more to do with build quality than optical 
excellence.  Don't get me wrong, I love the 43mm limited, and I love 
it's optical characteristics, but honestly the FA 20-35mm is easily as 
sharp at f4.0 it's maximum aperture, and has just as pleasing a 
rendition under most circumstances.  What the 43mm has is a machined 
aircraft aluminum body, and old school optical design.


On 10/29/2015 4:57 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:



Alan,

I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited 
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have 
constant aperture and be parfocal (as opposed to varifocal).
(Of course, those criteria were in addition to the great optical and 
build quality.)


The recent introduction of 20-40 f/2.8-4 lens broke both of those rules.
So, I think both of those designations now mean close to what 
"reserve" means for wines: "We thought we can charge extra for this 
product, and we hope this designation will help the sales".


Also, I thought the lenses had to be fast in their class. But 
21mm-f/3.2 was pushing that criterion as well.


Still, I would be surprised to see any of those designations on a 
f/3.5-5.6 lens.


Also, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is suspiciously similar in the specs to the 
one from Nikon. By any chance, - do they share the design?

(I.e. is it possible that the lens optical design was done by the same
3rd party? I do not see any discussion about that upon a quick search 
in Google.)


Igor


Alan C Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:10 -0700 wrote:

Very erudite reasoning. I also have the 18-55/55-300 combo which gives 
perfectly acceptable results in most circumstances. Although I do have 
other lenses, they are all inferior optically except for the Pentax M 
50mm 1.7 & the Sunactinon A 28mm 2.8. The 16-85 is so highly rated one 
wonders how it missed "limited" or "*" status.



Alan C




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[David Mann]

On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:

> The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment

But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!

Cheers,
Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Larry Colen]

David Mann wrote:

On Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:


The next issue I have is more about acquiring skills than equipment


But equipment is such a good substitute for skill!


It has worked for me for years.



Cheers,
Dave





--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Bipin Gupta wrote:
 
> Hello Malcom, choice of lenses have always been the most difficult
> decision for most of us. So how do we finally decide.
> Ask simple rational question like:
> a) Genre of photography
> b) Predominantly wide or tele user.
> c) Bright or Low Light photography
> d) Percentage of use for a particular zoom or prime lens
> e) Consumer Reports
> e) Weight, length, ease of use
> f) Do you change lenses often
> g) Cost of course and how much can you afford.
> h) Others, Miscellaneous
> 
> Example, I am a wide shooter, Travel photography being my genre, and
> even that 1 mm matters when I am in Europe. So the natural choice is
> the 16-85, all others being equal.
> Of course I use the Sigma 10-20 EX DC 50 % of the time in my travels.
> The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 30 %
> In bad weather all the lenses get replaced by the 18-135 WR + a very
> high quality auxiliary Wide Angle + 1.4X & 1.7X TCs.
> 
> I note from internet reviews that the 18-135 is a good all around lens
> with sufficient reach hand held.
> 
> Now I have a fetish for sharp lenses mostly zooms - never buy limited
> or "star" lenses. So I will go on buying the same lens till I find one
> that is brutally sharp.
> 
> I hope I have been of some help, though the points I have raised are
> all obvious common sense.

Comprehensive reply Bipin, many thanks.

My photography falls mainly into three areas, abstract, landscape and
equestrian (mostly horse care and stable management). 

I rarely use flash, I will do anything in my power to avoid it, although I
will if pushed. I therefore regularly carry a reflector or two and I'm not
adverse to pushing the ISO up. The latest DSLRs are really great at
performing at higher ISO in ways the *ist D could only dream of.  I'm not
fussed about carrying equipment and I use my tripod on many occasions. I'm
happy to swap lenses, although I will take an older body with a different
lens if I am taking a car to somewhere I will be taking photos, and I know
that it would get silly swapping lenses otherwise.

I'm wary of reports in magazines which tend to then have a tie up with
advertising of a certain manufacturer (whichever one it may be), and much
prefer reports from those who have bought and used the lenses/equipment in
real life, day to day.

I like mirror lenses; I know these are often regarded as a poor option
because of their slightly soft image, narrow depth of field and doughnut
shaped bokeh, but I've had years of practice to obtain the image I want from
them.

Still looks like the 16-85mm by the way!

Malcolm 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Darren Addy]

Clearly you need to purchase both.
:)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:
> Brian Walters wrote:
>
>> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens. My 16-45 has got
>> very little use since I got the 18-135.  Maybe my IQ standards are not
>> as stringent as those of other people but I have absolutely no problem
>> with the lens.
>>
>> Having said that, reviews suggest the 16-85 is superior but I'd find
>> that too short on the telephoto end.
>
> I've taken on board what folk have said, and I think if I hadn't got the
> 55-300mm which I use a great deal at shorter end, there would benefit to me
> going for the 18-135mm. A fair bit of the photography I'm now doing involves
> horses, and when I need a bit of magnification, it often goes a little way
> beyond 135mm. On the other hand, the 18-55mm is often not quite enough and
> 20mm more would be useful at times. I think that's the way I might go.
> Thanks Brian.
>
> Malcolm
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Darren Addy wrote:

> Clearly you need to purchase both.
> :)

Aaah!! You mustn't make comments like that! Horrifying thought :-)

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Larry Colen]

While it is not weather sealed, the Tamron 18-250 is a surprisingly sharp lens. 
It's the lens equivalent of what motorcyclists call a UJM. It's not swimmingly 
good at any one thing, but does almost everything well enough.

On October 29, 2015 10:01:37 AM PDT, Malcolm Smith  
wrote:
>Darren Addy wrote:
>
>> Clearly you need to purchase both.
>> :)
>
>Aaah!! You mustn't make comments like that! Horrifying thought :-)
>
>Malcolm

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Igor PDML-StR]

Malcolm,

I haven't used any of these lenses, but I was thinking about a similar 
question.
Just in case you haven't seen this review, - it might give you some 
impression of this lens, and answer some technical questions, including 
some comparisons between different lenses in this range:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/general-image-quality.html
(It is spread over many pages, - this is just one of them, so use the 
arrows to go "left" and "right".)


My lens is 17-70/4. I like it. It is not perfect: it is good at the wide 
end, but becomes less sharp in the 50-70 range.

But I've stopped carrying 18-250 which is more "universal" in favor
of 17-70 which provides better quality for me, and I always have 50-135
for when I need the higher quality for 50+ mm.
I value the extra "17" vs. "18"mm, and the constant f/4 aperture. (f/5.6 
becomes a bit too slow for my needs.)


So, as other people pointed out you'd probably need to figure out what 
your most frequent subjects/scenes demand, and go from there.. 
Alternatively, you might buy just the lens that you _want_ to have. :-)


HTH,

Igor


On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:


I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
something that makes one worthwhile?

Thanks,

Malcolm




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Igor PDML-StR]

Alan,

I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited 
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have 
constant aperture and be parfocal (as opposed to varifocal).
(Of course, those criteria were in addition to the great optical and 
build quality.)


The recent introduction of 20-40 f/2.8-4 lens broke both of those rules.
So, I think both of those designations now mean close to what "reserve" 
means for wines: "We thought we can charge extra for this product, and we 
hope this designation will help the sales".


Also, I thought the lenses had to be fast in their class. But 21mm-f/3.2 
was pushing that criterion as well.


Still, I would be surprised to see any of those designations on a 
f/3.5-5.6 lens.


Also, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is suspiciously similar in the specs to 
the one from Nikon. By any chance, - do they share the design?

(I.e. is it possible that the lens optical design was done by the same
3rd party? I do not see any discussion about that upon a quick search in 
Google.)


Igor


Alan C Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:10 -0700 wrote:

Very erudite reasoning. I also have the 18-55/55-300 combo which gives 
perfectly acceptable results in most circumstances. Although I do have 
other lenses, they are all inferior optically except for the Pentax M 50mm 
1.7 & the Sunactinon A 28mm 2.8. The 16-85 is so highly rated one wonders 
how it missed "limited" or "*" status.



Alan C

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Darren Addy wrote:

> Rereading your original post...
> I like to look at my lens line-up as a "team" that I am constantly
> working to upgrade, sometimes in incremental ways.
> What you are describing gives you the opportunity to upgrade yours:
> The 18-55mm you have is essentially just a kit lens with WR. The 16-
> 85mm is a superior lens and is greater at both the wide end and the
> long end (giving you some overlap (55-85) before you HAVE to switch to
> your longer zoom.
> 
> So it would clearly be a Good Move to purchase the 16-85mm and sell the
> 18-55 WR for whatever you can get for it. Now instead of a 18-300mm
> range (with no overlap) you have a 16-300mm (with 55-85 overlap). As a
> bonus (or maybe the entire point of this exercise) you've improved the
> quality of the 18-55 range you previously shot with the WR kit lens.
> 
> How's that for a friendly shove "down the slippery slope"?
> :)

Rats. That is a very good point!

I'll be making the decision later today.

Thanks (I think) Darren,

Malcolm




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Brian Walters wrote:

> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens. My 16-45 has got
> very little use since I got the 18-135.  Maybe my IQ standards are not
> as stringent as those of other people but I have absolutely no problem
> with the lens.
> 
> Having said that, reviews suggest the 16-85 is superior but I'd find
> that too short on the telephoto end.

I've taken on board what folk have said, and I think if I hadn't got the
55-300mm which I use a great deal at shorter end, there would benefit to me
going for the 18-135mm. A fair bit of the photography I'm now doing involves
horses, and when I need a bit of magnification, it often goes a little way
beyond 135mm. On the other hand, the 18-55mm is often not quite enough and
20mm more would be useful at times. I think that's the way I might go.
Thanks Brian.

Malcolm  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Bipin Gupta]

Hello Malcom, choice of lenses have always been the most difficult
decision for most of us. So how do we finally decide.
Ask simple rational question like:
a) Genre of photography
b) Predominantly wide or tele user.
c) Bright or Low Light photography
d) Percentage of use for a particular zoom or prime lens
e) Consumer Reports
e) Weight, length, ease of use
f) Do you change lenses often
g) Cost of course and how much can you afford.
h) Others, Miscellaneous

Example, I am a wide shooter, Travel photography being my genre, and
even that 1 mm matters when I am in Europe. So the natural choice is
the 16-85, all others being equal.
Of course I use the Sigma 10-20 EX DC 50 % of the time in my travels.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 30 %
In bad weather all the lenses get replaced by the 18-135 WR + a very
high quality auxiliary Wide Angle + 1.4X & 1.7X TCs.

I note from internet reviews that the 18-135 is a good all around lens
with sufficient reach hand held.

Now I have a fetish for sharp lenses mostly zooms - never buy limited
or "star" lenses. So I will go on buying the same lens till I find one
that is brutally sharp.

I hope I have been of some help, though the points I have raised are
all obvious common sense.

Enjoy.
Bipin

Buy a Leica, get the full Leica Experience? - a quick reduction of
funds in the bank a/c.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Alan C]

Interesting comments, Igor. I should have realised that "fast" was one of 
criteria. If these lenses are in the "reserve" group, all mine are "plonk".


Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Igor PDML-StR

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:57 PM
To: PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question



Alan,

I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have
constant aperture and be parfocal (as opposed to varifocal).
(Of course, those criteria were in addition to the great optical and
build quality.)

The recent introduction of 20-40 f/2.8-4 lens broke both of those rules.
So, I think both of those designations now mean close to what "reserve"
means for wines: "We thought we can charge extra for this product, and we
hope this designation will help the sales".

Also, I thought the lenses had to be fast in their class. But 21mm-f/3.2
was pushing that criterion as well.

Still, I would be surprised to see any of those designations on a
f/3.5-5.6 lens.

Also, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is suspiciously similar in the specs to
the one from Nikon. By any chance, - do they share the design?
(I.e. is it possible that the lens optical design was done by the same
3rd party? I do not see any discussion about that upon a quick search in
Google.)

Igor


Alan C Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:10 -0700 wrote:

Very erudite reasoning. I also have the 18-55/55-300 combo which gives
perfectly acceptable results in most circumstances. Although I do have
other lenses, they are all inferior optically except for the Pentax M 50mm
1.7 & the Sunactinon A 28mm 2.8. The 16-85 is so highly rated one wonders
how it missed "limited" or "*" status.


Alan C

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Boris Liberman]

Malcolm,

Sorry to join late...

If you *absolutely* have to have WR lens, then I think that 16-85 is 
preferable. The difference between 18 and 16 mm on wide end is 
significant. It will give you more interesting compositional 
opportunities. The difference between 85 and 135 mm on the long end is 
less significant, because both are part of 55-300 range.


However, if WR is not mandatory, then I should suggest that neither of 
these lenses is interesting. At least to me they are not. I prefer 
faster lenses, for these reasons: possibility to get sharper images at 
wider apertures, more play with DOF, more options for low light 
photography without having to raise the ISO too much. To that end I 
suggest Sigma 17-70 lenses. If you can, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 Contemporary 
is said to be very good. If you cannot (shameless plug here), I can 
easily enable you with very cheap Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 as I am going to 
upgrade to Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 Contemporary anyway.


There is another option - you could buy Tamron 28-75/2.8 or Sigma 
24-60/2.8 (another shameless plug, as I want to sell mine to finance 
that upgrade, I mentioned above). They would give you widest aperture 
and get you ready for incoming full frame camera, should you ever want 
to upgrade. Both are inexpensive these days and having had the former 
and having the latter, I should say - they are quite excellent.


Sorry for the plugs... HTH

Boris


On 10/28/2015 23:29, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
something that makes one worthwhile?

Thanks,

Malcolm





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Boris Liberman]

Igor, personally I translate "limited" designation into "unusual and 
therefore costly". And the "*" designation to "professional and hence 
expensive".


Boris

On 10/29/2015 22:57, Igor PDML-StR wrote:



Alan,

I don't know if it was just a rhetorical question or not.
Until recently, I had thought that "Limited" designation was limited 
[sic!] to primes lenses. And for the "*" designation zooms had to have 
constant aperture and be parfocal (as opposed to varifocal).
(Of course, those criteria were in addition to the great optical and 
build quality.)


The recent introduction of 20-40 f/2.8-4 lens broke both of those rules.
So, I think both of those designations now mean close to what 
"reserve" means for wines: "We thought we can charge extra for this 
product, and we hope this designation will help the sales".


Also, I thought the lenses had to be fast in their class. But 
21mm-f/3.2 was pushing that criterion as well.


Still, I would be surprised to see any of those designations on a 
f/3.5-5.6 lens.


Also, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is suspiciously similar in the specs to the 
one from Nikon. By any chance, - do they share the design?

(I.e. is it possible that the lens optical design was done by the same
3rd party? I do not see any discussion about that upon a quick search 
in Google.)


Igor


Alan C Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:10 -0700 wrote:

Very erudite reasoning. I also have the 18-55/55-300 combo which gives 
perfectly acceptable results in most circumstances. Although I do have 
other lenses, they are all inferior optically except for the Pentax M 
50mm 1.7 & the Sunactinon A 28mm 2.8. The 16-85 is so highly rated one 
wonders how it missed "limited" or "*" status.



Alan C




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Daniel J. Matyola]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Brian Walters  wrote:
> I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens.

the same is true for me.  It is very versatile and convenient, and
produces good results.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Alan C]

Very erudite reasoning. I also have the 18-55/55-300 combo which gives 
perfectly acceptable results in most circumstances. Although I do have other 
lenses, they are all inferior optically except for the Pentax M 50mm 1.7 & 
the Sunactinon A 28mm 2.8. The 16-85 is so highly rated one wonders how it 
missed "limited" or "*" status.


Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Darren Addy

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:32 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

Rereading your original post...
I like to look at my lens line-up as a "team" that I am constantly
working to upgrade, sometimes in incremental ways.
What you are describing gives you the opportunity to upgrade yours:
The 18-55mm you have is essentially just a kit lens with WR. The
16-85mm is a superior lens and is greater at both the wide end and the
long end (giving you some overlap (55-85) before you HAVE to switch to
your longer zoom.

So it would clearly be a Good Move to purchase the 16-85mm and sell
the 18-55 WR for whatever you can get for it. Now instead of a
18-300mm range (with no overlap) you have a 16-300mm (with 55-85
overlap). As a bonus (or maybe the entire point of this exercise)
you've improved the quality of the 18-55 range you previously shot
with the WR kit lens.

How's that for a friendly shove "down the slippery slope"?
:)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Malcolm Smith <rrve...@virginmedia.com> 
wrote:

I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage 
I

would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm 
missing

something that makes one worthwhile?

Thanks,

Malcolm


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.




--
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
something that makes one worthwhile?

Thanks,

Malcolm 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Larry Colen]

Malcolm Smith wrote:

I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR&  55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
something that makes one worthwhile?


I'm quite interested in hearing about the relative merits and drawbacks 
of all of the weather sealed lenses, as my 16-50 is my only lens in that 
category.




Thanks,

Malcolm




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Larry Colen wrote:

> I'm quite interested in hearing about the relative merits and drawbacks
> of all of the weather sealed lenses, as my 16-50 is my only lens in
> that category.

I don't generally worry too much about taking equipment out in poor
conditions, WR or not, but on one occasion I got caught out and I got stuck
briefly in a nasty downpour. Both the camera and lens were fine however,
much to my surprise, and no problems have been found with either since that
time over a year ago.

As my little part of the world is now getting regular rain again - and
torrential it was this morning, with the end of my garden still flooded - a
WR lens gives me peace of mind whilst out and about, particularly as I take
loads of photos in forest land where trees drip hours after the rain has
stopped.

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

P.J. Alling wrote:
 
>  From what I understand the 18-85 WR is a superior lens of it's type in
> every way, except manual focusing, in that respect it takes after the
> FA 17-70, which gives all the tactile feedback of a, I was going to say
> dead fish, but that actually give tactile feedback, the 17-70
> reportedly gives none at all.
> 
> I did a some research, for a friend, on various manufactures
> competitors in the ~17-135mm range, and by all accounts the Pentax was
> worst of the lot, not a bad lens, mind you, of it's type, just not
> quite as good as anybody else'.
> 
> By all accounts the 55-300mm you already have is one of the better
> lenses in it's class, you would have to spend a lot more to get better
> results.  So I guess I'm saying if you just want to step up just get
> the 18-85.

The 16-85 isn't a particularly fast lens, but with the amount of glass in
it, that's no real surprise. This does tempt me more for days that I go out
with just one body and lens and strikes me as useful for portraiture/street
photography. Do I really need it though.? Hmm.

Malcolm


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Malcolm Smith]

Darren Addy wrote:
 
> I'm not sure where the "discount" is coming from, or how much of a
> discount it is, but if it is sizeable enough that you could turn around
> and sell the lens and make a profit - it would be worth doing just for
> the "free money" aspect of it. In that case, I would look at what NEW
> ones are selling for recently (not just listing for, but SOLD
> for) and purchase whatever one gave you the most profit opportunity.
> But maybe you aren't a "wheeler-dealer" like I can be.
> :)

It's enough to tease me into considering a purchase for myself Darren, but
given the hassle of selling on eBay (or wherever), packing, fees etc, I
doubt there is much in it. No local interest either, as I don't know anyone
around here who uses anything other than Canon/Nikon equipment.

Malcolm 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Darren Addy]

I'm not sure where the "discount" is coming from, or how much of a
discount it is, but if it is sizeable enough that you could turn
around and sell the lens and make a profit - it would be worth doing
just for the "free money" aspect of it. In that case, I would look at
what NEW ones are selling for recently (not just listing for, but SOLD
for) and purchase whatever one gave you the most profit opportunity.
But maybe you aren't a "wheeler-dealer" like I can be.
:)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:
> I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
> lens to my collection at a discount.
>
> In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
> the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
> would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
> boxes, I want things that will get regular use.
>
> Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
> something that makes one worthwhile?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[P.J. Alling]

From what I understand the 18-85 WR is a superior lens of it's type in 
every way, except manual focusing, in that respect it takes after the FA 
17-70, which gives all the tactile feedback of a, I was going to say 
dead fish, but that actually give tactile feedback, the 17-70 reportedly 
gives none at all.


I did a some research, for a friend, on various manufactures competitors 
in the ~17-135mm range, and by all accounts the Pentax was worst of the 
lot, not a bad lens, mind you, of it's type, just not quite as good as 
anybody else'.


By all accounts the 55-300mm you already have is one of the better 
lenses in it's class, you would have to spend a lot more to get better 
results.  So I guess I'm saying if you just want to step up just get the 
18-85.


On 10/28/2015 5:29 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:

I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
lens to my collection at a discount.

In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
boxes, I want things that will get regular use.

Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
something that makes one worthwhile?

Thanks,

Malcolm





--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Larry Colen]

Malcolm Smith wrote:

Larry Colen wrote:



As my little part of the world is now getting regular rain again - and
torrential it was this morning, with the end of my garden still flooded - a


I envy you. We are now getting sporadic rain, which is a definite 
improvement, with a bit of sprinkling last night and today.



WR lens gives me peace of mind whilst out and about, particularly as I take
loads of photos in forest land where trees drip hours after the rain has
stopped.

Malcolm




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Brian Walters]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 08:29 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
> lens to my collection at a discount.
> 
> In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already
> have
> the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what
> advantage I
> would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
> boxes, I want things that will get regular use.
> 
> Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm
> missing
> something that makes one worthwhile?


I have the 18-135 and it's become my most used lens. My 16-45 has got
very little use since I got the 18-135.  Maybe my IQ standards are not
as stringent as those of other people but I have absolutely no problem
with the lens.

Having said that, reviews suggest the 16-85 is superior but I'd find
that too short on the telephoto end.


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/

-- 
--

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Accessible with your email software
  or over the web


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fighting enablement - lens choice question

[Darren Addy]

Rereading your original post...
I like to look at my lens line-up as a "team" that I am constantly
working to upgrade, sometimes in incremental ways.
What you are describing gives you the opportunity to upgrade yours:
The 18-55mm you have is essentially just a kit lens with WR. The
16-85mm is a superior lens and is greater at both the wide end and the
long end (giving you some overlap (55-85) before you HAVE to switch to
your longer zoom.

So it would clearly be a Good Move to purchase the 16-85mm and sell
the 18-55 WR for whatever you can get for it. Now instead of a
18-300mm range (with no overlap) you have a 16-300mm (with 55-85
overlap). As a bonus (or maybe the entire point of this exercise)
you've improved the quality of the 18-55 range you previously shot
with the WR kit lens.

How's that for a friendly shove "down the slippery slope"?
:)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Malcolm Smith  wrote:
> I have the opportunity to add either an 18-135mm WR lens, or a 16-85mm WR
> lens to my collection at a discount.
>
> In the past I would have jumped to add another lens, but as I already have
> the 18-55mm WR & 55-300mm WR lenses, I am struggling to see what advantage I
> would gain by acquiring either of these. I don't want equipment to sit in
> boxes, I want things that will get regular use.
>
> Is there any point in considering either of these, just in case I'm missing
> something that makes one worthwhile?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.