I'm already leaning towards the 20-40, but variable aperture is one of
the things holding me back.
--
MaritimTim
My private photo blog: http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
To err is human
to arr is pirate
The old DA* has let me down now and then because of lack of sharpness.
Maybe my copy was a bad one, or maybe I expect to much.
I've never had actual problems with the size and bulk of the DA*. But
I feel more free and playful with the FA 20-35. Kind of hard to
explain.
---
BTW. I see
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:34 AM, David Mann dmann...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't decide between two lenses it means you need both of them.
I went the other way. I couldn't decide between two lenses, so I
bought a third lens instead, spending as much as the two would have
cost!
Dan Matyola
The Tamron and the Sigma has both been at my radar.
Alas they are not sealed, and at my part of the globe sealing helps my
worry less. That's good for my blood pressure.
So sealed lenses is doctors order. That's my story, and I'll stick to it.
--
MaritimTim
My private photo blog:
On 12/06/2014 3:59 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Long time no see. I need help from the best Pentax crew.
Subject line pretty much sums it up.
I know that 16 mm is wider than 20 mm, and that f:2,8 is faster than
f:4. I also know that smaller and lighter is smaller and lighter.
Hi Tim: I have rather
I finally bought myself a 17-70 and I think its superb. If you can
forgo the f2.8 I think its totally the way to go. It has some caveats,
but nothing really deal breaking for me. Its also far sharper wide
open (f4 of course) compared to the 16-50. The extra 20mm or reach is
extremely handy for
I haven't tried the 20-40, much as I'd like to, but I think your
choice comes down to whether you can put up with the additional size
and weight of the 16-50 it's wider at the wide end and longer at the
long end and faster beyond 20mm. As a working tool that makes it the
clear choice for someone
By the way: If I had money to burn I'd buy the 20-40 Limited in a
heartbeat, even though I have the DA 16-50. The Limited would make an
excellent middle lens to use in a 3-lens travel kit (with the DA 12-24
and the 55-300).
--
Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
Keep in mind that if you like to stack filters on your lenses (like I
do), you are likely to get vignetting with the 16-50. I don't know
how the 20-40 performs in this respect, but I've never had a problem
with the 16-45/4.
At 11:30 AM -0400 6/13/14, Mark Roberts wrote:
I haven't tried the
I see you compare the size of the 20-40 with the 31 Bill. That's a
zoom compared to a prime. I see it more as a compact zoom. Take a look
at the top picture here comparing it to the kit lens.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-20-40mm-limited/construction-and-handling.html
It is
Speaking of FA 20-35. Sometimes it isn't wide enough. But I don't find
that a big issue. I just shoot a two vertical shots pano stitching it
afterwords.
--
MaritimTim
My private photo blog: http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/2014 3:59 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
My understanding is that it is still having problems wit the SDM motors to
this day.
As evident with my two bad 17-70's.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 6/13/2014 2:02 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/2014 3:59 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
My understanding is that it is still having problems wit the SDM motors to
this day.
As evident with my two bad 17-70's.
Dave
--
I’ve had the DA*s 16-50, 50-135, and 60-250 since shortly after their
respective introductions. Never an issue with SDM.
I have the 20-40 ltd. If I carry the 12-24 and the 16-50, the two together take
way too much room in any of my camera bags. So the 20-40 has become my
preferred travel lens
Also the 20-35mm is a constant aperture, which makes strobest style
photography a bit easier.
On 6/13/2014 1:36 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Speaking of FA 20-35. Sometimes it isn't wide enough. But I don't find
that a big issue. I just shoot a two vertical shots pano stitching it
afterwords.
--
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com wrote:
Long time no see. I need help from the best Pentax crew.
Subject line pretty much sums it up.
I know that 16 mm is wider than 20 mm, and that f:2,8 is faster than
f:4. I also know that smaller and lighter is smaller and
I never said I was looking at the same lenses you were looking at.
In any event it was a 35 limited macro.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com wrote:
so I bought a third lens instead, spending as much as
If you can't decide between two lenses it means you need both of them.
Cheers,
Dave
On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:59 am, Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com wrote:
Long time no see. I need help from the best Pentax crew.
Subject line pretty much sums it up.
I know that 16 mm is wider than 20 mm, and
On 12/06/2014 10:34 PM, David Mann wrote:
If you can't decide between two lenses it means you need both of them.
Mark
This is a classic quote that will stand the test of time.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
19 matches
Mail list logo
