Lens opinions

[andrew_ng7]

Appologizes in advance for being long winded.

 

Currently in the midst of searching for and purchasing a new lens, but the

debate of how wide do I want to go is lingering. Speed is of utmost concern as I

like to shoot in low light conditions without a flash if at all possible.

 

Coming from a 35mm background, I use to almost always use a 24mm f2.8 for

everything. Birthday party's, landscape, close up etc... But, the problem is

with the k10d's crop factor, is 24mm wide enough?

 

In my bag I have the 18-55mm kit lens, the DA 50-200mm and the FA 28-80mm. On

the side I have a slew of MF lenses including a couple screw mounts. All of

which are f3.5 with the exception of the 24mm f2.8 and a 50mm f2.4.

 

So while browsing around on B&H, I found a few lenses that I would like to add

to my bag.

 

1. SMCP-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited

2. P-FA 35mm f/2.0 AL

3. Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX (out of stock but I'll keep it on the list)

4. Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX

5. DA 40mm f2.8 Limited (Pancake lens but not on B&H)

 

Can anyone help offer some opinions or suggestions? At the moment I am leaning

towards getting the Sigma 24mm f1.8.

[ronald_moravec1]

A 16mm will translate to 24mm film exactly.

[andrew_ng7]

Yeah, I understand that part with the 1.5x crop factor. Affording a fast 16mm is the problem.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do people prefer for a prime lens? How does one choose without getting stuck with a lens that's too long or too wide?

 

As you can see with the selection of lenses I posted above, speed is more of a factor.

 

I don't know anymore. I want them all. :p

[renatoa]

Speed shouldnt be a concern, because you have SR which change totaly the game rules !

Now the new rule of thumb is no more exposure = 1/f, but 10/f, so you gain 3 f-stops as a minimum.

At least this is my experience, now I afford to shot night street photo with the 18-55 kit lens and with exposure of 1.3 sec at 18mm on my knee obtain incredible shots.

I guess you want fast lenses for low light reason, not for dof. And your subject does not move (so fast :)

[andrew_ng7]

You make a good point about having SR but in some of my recent shoots, I haven't had much luck in keeping in focus. It has been some time since I have shot regularly so it just might require a bit more time getting back into it. I'm still in the learning phase of going from 35mm to DSLR. It's hard to keep in mind that ISO is as flexible as shutter speed and aperture. I still shoot thinking that ISO is fixed like it was with film and only push in severe situations.

 

DOF isn't that critical to me at the moment. It may change down the road but I'd just like to get more of my subject in focus. Adjusting exposure with Lightroom helps but is limiting due to quality when pushed too far.

[mc2imaging]

Have you considered the Sigma 10-20? If wide is your style, this sounds like a good option.

I do not have one, but there are a few regulars around here that swear by them, and I have

seen many nice shots from them.

 

I used to shoot 24mm alot on film too, but I am saving my pennies for a DA* 16-50, and

perhaps the DA 12-24 or the DA 14 prime for the WIDE stuff after that. (I already have the

10-17 fisheye...)

[paul_norheim]

You say you "want them all".

If money was no issue, I think I would have chosen two lenses.

First the 21 Limited Pancake f/3.2, which is, after all, wider than the 28 you are

considering (given your preference for 24 mm in film terms. It guess it would serve you

well as a general purpose lens outdoors.

Then I would go for either the 31 f/1.8 Limited (around 50 mm FOV on a DSLR) or a 50

f.1.4.

The 31 mm. is expensive, and, according to the reviews, fabulous. And the 50mm is

also said to be very good. The 21/50 would be a nice and very compact combo, giving

you a moderate wide angle and moderate tele. But if you prefer a wider lens for indoors, I

would guess that the 31 mm is the best you can get.

 

FYI, I shoot Canon with a Canon 24 f/2.8, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Canon 50 f/1.8, but I also

bought a Pentax 43mm f/1.9 and use it with an adaptor, so I have been thinking about all

this myself (low light shooting is an important part of what I do too).

 

The 43 is lousy at 1.9 and fantastic from 2.8.

 

For more info, and at the same time feeding your "metaphysical doubt about lens

choices", you can have a look at the very good reviews of Pentax, Sigma, and other lenses

at

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

if you haven?t already done it.

 

Good luck.

[paul_norheim]

If money is an issue, I guess I would take a look at the FA35mm f2 as an alternative to

the 31 mm Limited.

 

21mm and 35 mm ? or:

21 mm and 50 mm.

 

I envy you Pentax guys for having such compact high quality alternatives when it comes to

prime lenses... We Canon owners only have the choice of not-so-good compact f./2.8 or

excellent but big and bulky f/1.4 lenses, if we want something wider than 50 mm. On the

other hand, we have excellent choices between different 50, 85, and 135mm lenses.

 

Still, I am happy with what I have. And I can use a lot of nice Pentax, Nikon, Zeiss, and

Leica glass with adapters, if I want to.

[andrew_ng7]

Matthew:

Yes, I've considered the Sigma 10-20 but @f4, I don't think I could justify the cost. The DA 14 would be something I'd would want sometime down the road. If I was to invest in the DA* 16-50, I'd probably sell of the kit lens in a flash as to not have 2 too similar lenses in the bag. At roughly 7-9 times the cost of a brand new kit lens, that idea is on the shelf. Already, I need to get rid of the 28-80 as it is cause I don't use it. Originally intended it to be a general use lens but I've stuck to the kit lens. How do you find the 10-17 at the wide end? Is there a lot of the fish eye effect?

 

Paul:

Thanks for your input. Yes, I'd love to have them all but I know it's not going to happen. The 21 f3.2 might become to slow for some of the situations I would use it in. I'm glad that you mention the 50 f1.4 as I just came across it after posting here.

 

 

So many options and not enough money to have them 'all'. Keeping with the speed factor, I'm thinking that one or both of the 24mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4 will be the primes that will eventually be using. The DA 14, DA* 16-50 and the possibly the 10-17 will have to wait unless they are found for a reasonable price on ebay.

[andrew_ng7]

Yes, the 35mm is very well an option. I believe Matthew mentioned it in another thread. It would be a decent option seeing as the 35mm is near enough to the old standard 50mm film lens that was used as a general purpose lens.

[michael_kuhne]

You can fix your 18-55mm kit lens at the different focal lengths of the lenses you are considering to give you an idea of what their field of view will offer in various situations.

 

I have the Sigms 24mm f/1.8 which is a very nice lens and still somewhat wide and versatile at about the same as a 35mm lens on a DSLR. 35mm focal length has long been a favorite moderate wide for film camera general versatile use.

 

It is hard to go as wide or wider than the 21mm Limited on a DSLR and also get more speed. The difference between f/2.8 and 3.2 is not significant. Your kit lens is still good for times when there is good lighting and you need the light weight. The Pentax 16-50mm may be worth its cost to you because of all it offers, but you might also consider the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for its greater range.

 

FA 35mm f/2 is excellent for a standard, not wide or tele, view.

 

I have also the 43mm f/1.9 Limited and the FA 50mm f/1.4, and both are excellent. The 50mm is excellent as a moderate tele and the 43 as a short tele. I find the 43mm a bit more versatile for more uses as it can accomodate single portrait uses or for small group and many other situations. Very handy and small. Great build and nice lens hood. Most fast lenses are not at their best wide open. The 43 is not lousy at f/1.9, but loses some quality there at infinity focus, particularly in the corners. At closer focus, however, it is very good to excellent throughout.

 

Speed can definitely still be a factor with SR because of subject movement.

[andrewg_ny]

Yes, DA 10-17 has significant fisheye effect, especially at the wide end. Milder at the "long" end. The FA35 f/2 is a great choice, pretty good even wide open--though for wide angle your choices are much more limited, especially for primes. Some of that wide-angle 35mm-compatible Sigma glass is pretty beastly in terms of size & weight. If you're looking for something a little cheaper than DA* 16-50, have you considered Sigma 18-50 f/2.8?

[michael_kuhne]

To clarify, by closer focus with the 43 limited I mean near focus and closest focus.

[andrew_ng7]

This is turning into a great discussion and resource for wide to standard range lenses for me. I'm learning so much and also finding that there are so many options to mull over.

 

My short list has been made now. Thanks everyone. I'm watching an ebay auction for one of them as it will be local shipping, so I might splurge and have 2 lenses by next week. ;-) But, I have to remember that this is just a hobby and not a profession and not purchase what I want but what I need to take great photos within my budget.

[andrew_ng7]

My brother in law just threw me a curve ball. Considering that I already have 18mm on the kit lens, eliminates a need for a fast lens for outdoor wide angle landscapes for now. He suggested that with a 24mm, there is going to be some distortion on the edges and it won't as nice to frame and square up portraits.

 

On the other hand, a 50mm will tend to be too long for indoor pictures. So I'm now looking at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as it would be a well rounded lens and not nearly as expensive as the 31mm f/1.8.

 

Now the 30mm states that vignetting will occur if the lens is used with digital cameras with image sensors larger than APS-C size. The K10d is APS-C sixe, not larger correct?

 

Is there a review for the Pentax version of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

[mc2imaging]

If you are CONSIDERING a 35mm f2 lens and want one NEW, I'd go ahead and pick one up

from B&H. I was going to put that $300 into a DA*, but the fact that it has been discontinued

prompted me to pick one up while I could and it is my FAVORITE prime. I'm sure I'll use it

plenty, even after I get my DA*. Who knows how many more they have...

[andrew_ng7]

So you think the 35mm f2 is worth while as it's discontinued?

 

Any thoughts on the Sigma 30mm? The Sigma is an HSM lens so it's quiet with high speed focusing which would be a bonus.

[david_kelly13]

I ought to urge your immediate purchase of the DA 14mm f2.8, as I have a like-new one up on the Portland Oregon Craigslist at a very low price. But in all honesty you should go first for the FA35mm f2. It's simply superb, and IMHO the greatest bargain among all Pentax lenses. It keeps going out of stock and then coming back. Eventually it will vanish, I suppose, because there is a motorized replacement in the roadmap, but I bet it won't be cheap

[andrew_ng7]

hmmmm... weird, I just read the photozone review of the sigma and it doesn't appear to ustilize the HSM system on the pentax version.

 

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

[paul_norheim]

Andrew,

it looks like the choices have been narrowed down to a couple of "normal" field of view

lenses: the FA 35/2 and the Sigma 30/1.4?

 

If so, I would simply advise you to go to a shop and try them if you can. At least the

Sigma 30 should be easy to find in almost any photo shop. I have it, on a smaller camera

then yours (Canon 350D/Digital Rebel), and I think it is a bit heavy, but this is not a big

issue. However, if compactness is an issue for you (and we are talking about a "normal"

lens that you will use much and carry around in a lot of circumstances) I think this is

something to take into consideration. But I would guess that the Sigma will balance better

on the K10D than on a K100 or the smallest Canon and Nikon cameras.

 

The other reason why you should go to a shop and try it, if you are considering a Sigma

30, is because some of them have back focus issues. I am not the only one complaining

about this, (mine is not so bad after all; some are worse, and some people does not have

any focusing problems with theirs), but this is a question of being lucky or... not so lucky.

So I will urge you to try it, focus from different distances and go back to the shop if you

got a bad one.

 

Michael Kuhne: concerning the Limited 43 at 1.9, you were right. Since I use it with an

adapter, I have not used it that much, and I just tested it a bit, based on your info.

Focusing on infinity, there was a remarkable difference in sharpness between 1.9 and 2.8.

Then I tried at 4 meters, 2 meters and 1, and saw that it was no big deal on those

distances. After all, this makes the widest aperture quite useful in a lot of situations.

Thanks a lot!

[mountainvisions]

Wow you gotta be quick on these lens suggestion threads.

 

I second what everyone else above said.

 

Get the 35mm 2.0, get the 10-20mm. The others I can't speak for other than to say Sigmas aren't "usually" sharp wide open. So consider those fast sigmas f/2.8 or f/4 before you can count on sharpness.

 

The 35mm is one of the best lenses made for the money. Works on both film and digital and is probably 95-97% as good as the heralded 31mm FA for 30% of the price.

 

No lens other than the 2 Pentax DA* use HSM motors on Pentax. HSM only arrived with the K10D, and Sigma takes some time to reverse engineer the mount. Also, I should note, ONLY sigma makes in lens motors and not for all lenses of any brand.

 

The HSM/SDM is nice but shouldn't be a deal breaker on a wide angle lens. I'd be more cautious on a telephoto where it definitely is an advantage.

[daniel_tong1]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=17658788

 

Go with those people who were facing the same situation you are in. Obviously you do not mind manual lens.

 

Daniel, Toronto

[andrew_ng7]

Following opinions and suggestions I will try out the 35mm f/2. I will also consider the other lenses for future purchases if I find that the 35 isn't cut out for it. Next up in the near future will be the 50mm f/1.4.

 

Thank you to Matthew, Paul and Justin for the plethora of detailed information, suggestions and direction.

 

I'm surprised that many online stores advertise the Sigma lenses for Pentax having the HSM motors even though it's not available. The Sigma site has no reference to it and made it unclear. A little disconcerting but I'm glad I found the information here.

[steve graham]

I was also a 24mm shooter back in my film days using a FA* 24mm F2 for a lot of my photography. Since moving to digital a couple of years back I did initially miss having an eqivalent wide prime however having invested in the Sigma 10-20mm for wide work and a Pentax DA 16-45 F4 for general purpose I'm a lot happier. While I'd like the 16mm F2.8 it costs as much as those two zooms combined plus at F2.8 it's still not all that fast.

 

I've owned a few of the other lenses mentioned as well 35mm F2, Sigma 28mm F1.8 - however here's my suggestion for meeting your requirements:

 

1) Get the DA 16-45 F4 for general purpose - it's equivalent to 24mm at the wide end and massively better than the 18-55 in every possible way. Ok at F4 it's still quite slow but the SR makes up for a lot of that.

2) Get rid of the DA 18-55 and FA 28-80 - I've got both and neither are much good.

3) Forget the DA Ltds - they're too slow and optically not fantastic optically either

4) Forget the FA Ltds - they are (mostly) fantastic optically but too expensive

5) If you want a fast "normal" lens then consider one of the Sigmas you mentioned (or the FA 35mm F2). The Sigma 30mm F1.4 is the fastest but I've seen reports that the edge/corners are soft. The 28mm F1.8, which I've had, is pretty good though - no idea about the 24mm F1.8.

 

I'd also be inclined to ditch the DA 50-200 (which I've found to be less than impressive) and replace it with the much versatile Sigma 70-300 APO which is also faster where the focal lengths overlap plus considerably better optically as well.

[mountainvisions]

I gotta disagree with some of stephen's statements.

 

The the 16-50 2.8 is a 24-75mm 2.8 which is a standard professional zoom. It's payed the bills of many a photojournalist around the world for a long time. 2.8 isn't mind boggling fast, but it's the standard "fast" for a zoom.

 

The DA limiteds are nearly on par with the FA limiteds but offer quick shift and a more compact package. No they aren't super fast, but none of them are slow. Even the 21mm 3.2 is reasonably fast. Sure, I own and appreciate 1.4 and 1.8 and 2.0 glass but generally don't need to shoot wide open all the time, and the SR, and higher ISO capabilities of digital make a stop of difference not as critical as in the days of film where shooting at or above ISO 800 was something you rarely did.

 

Also, the build of the Limiteds is such that these lenses will last a long time. The FAs will last a long time if you treat them well, the DA and FA* and limiteds will last a long time with less then perfect use.

 

Sigma fast glass is not sharp at the corners (but, I've peeked at Canon 24mm L at the corners wide open and wasn't really all that blown away, it was soft). So saying it's not sharp doesn't mean it's a crappy lens, I say that to note that those 1.4 and 1.8 lenses are bigger but not always usable at the larger apertures. I consider my Sigma 20mm 1.8EX a 2.8 unless it's critical to use that f1.8.

 

But I agree the Sigma 70-300 is a good lens. At least my copy is sharp, and still good both wide open and at the long end. $70 wasn't a bad deal.

 

The 10-20 is a good lens as well. No glaring flaws for super wide angle zoom. I've been very happy with it. It's not fast either but most of the time you are not trying to isolate with a 10mm lens, and 10mm lets you handhold at around 1/10th of a second, with SR and ISO 640 (well within the K10D sweet spot) it gets you rediculously long but sharp exposures. I've shot close to 1 second with the SR and the 10mm FL. Sure that won't stop motion but make the motion work for the shot and it won't appear soft if the static objects are sharp.