eric_tastad

<p>Sometimes people ask me why I would buy a 50-135 mm f/2.8 lens for a crop sensor. My reply is always, why would I buy a 70-200 mm for FX? I am not going to buy a 70-200 for DX and handicap myself when 50% of my shots are in the 50-70mm range at a typical wedding. Shooting two bodies might be a different story, but still, most of my shots are between 50 and 70mm, so I don't really want the gap right there.<br>

I ordered the 50-150mm OS for Nikon because I wanted a lens in that range with OS and that is my only option. Size and weight are a bit annoying, but if it performs well most people will forgive those. I think Sigma might have made it so large on purpose as well, some clients like to see those big lenses for paid gigs. I like my Tokina 50-135mm size wise, but the lack of OS is a pain.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Sorry, forgot to follow up on my original post about the V500 and V600. I didn't notice an appreciable difference between the two from a quality perspective, but the V600 definitely comes with a better scanning tray for medium format film. It can scan more images at once.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>I have an opportunity to compare the V500 side by side with the v600 (given to me for reviewing purposes). Any specific tests you would be interested in? I won't be able to do anything for a couple weeks, but some input on comparisons to run, what settings to use, etc would be helpful.<br>

My background is I shoot some 120 film and 4x5" film for fun. I scan the 4x5 film using a custom built (okay, a piece of cardboard with a nearly 4x5" whole cut in it) and merge the two scans together afterwards. I don't do a lot of 4x5. I don't have any resolution charts or anything, but could do side-by-sides of some slides/film I have. I do have some Efke 25 negatives, etc that might work well for resolution.<br>

I generally don't get too involved in the scanner settings, instead I set the resolution and let the auto curves work. I do more specific curves in Lightroom, but unless the auto curves are way off I leave them alone (in part because the V500 software is not easy to mess with).<br>

Let me know,<br>

Eric</p>

<p>double post, sorry.</p>

The DA 40mm is by no means "sub par" for a Pentax prime. It is sharp corner to corner and has excellent performance characteristics. Even the bokeh is nice. The only real drawback to the DA 40mm is the small size is awkward and the max aperture is relatively slow. However, since it is very usable from f/2.8 it isn't as slow as it seems.

 

Sorry I am responding to this 2 year old thread, but I am looking at getting either an DA 35mm Macro, DA 40mm, FA 35mm, or FA 43mm along with a K2000 for a compact camera, and was trying to decide which one I wanted to get. And also those of you saying the 35/2 was going out of production, I see B&H still sells it 2 years later.

 

Anyone have any recommendations to which 35-45mm "standard" lens to get for the K2000? Is the FA 43mm too tight of field of view? I really liked the field of view of the DA 40mm, is there much practical difference?

I have a feeling it won't focus to infinity on the Nikon because it was originally an M42 screw mount lens. I imagine someone converted it to a Nikon mount, and the register distance (distance from mount to sensor) on the Nikon is longer than the M42, so you lose infinity focus (but will be able to focus a little closer).