surprising $35 lenses

That $35 number seems to be a rather magical one for me in recent times.

The Rikenon 28mm f/2.8 was maybe closer to $39, depending on Canada-USA exchange rates - but close enough for my work here!  An excellent all-manual lens that has given me several great images like this one:

I recently picked up a $34.99 Sigma/Quantaray 28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 1:2 'macro' lens, and for about $70 both a Promaster 28-200mm and Sigma/Quantaray 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 telephoto.  The two Quantaray lenses are familiar from my SonyAlpha days when they served me well.  The 100-300 put out great color and decent sharpness, but its contrast was a bit low; this often looks like softness but is quickly fixed in nearly any software.  Come to think of it, the 100-300 also put in an appearance in Pentax mount for a while - it was used here, though this is quite heavily cropped:

I paid $50-75 for earlier copies, so $35 feels like quite a steal.  

As to the 28-90?  Well it's quite small and very light, and can do 1:2 closeups - which is pretty much as close as I've done with my dedicated Promaster 100mm f/3.5, since it requires a filter-mount adapter to do 1:1 imaging (and then cannot focus to infinity).  While f/3.5 is quite a bit faster, one learns swiftly that macro imaging often uses more depth of field to do its work, so it's a toss-up which would serve me best.  I am not a true Macro type, so foregoing 1:1 imaging will not do me harm - but giving up on a prime lens for a zoom?  Test images on more typical (non-macro) images show the Q-ray to render better, showing more natural colors and decidedly gentler contrast.  Closeup tests will come soon - but hey we're comparing a $35 zoom lens to a $180 prime, after all.


Then there's this 28-200.  I owned a Tamron XR Di IF &c &c in my Alpha days, and above 120mm I did not like it much - images softened and color fringing burst forth.  I figured this could attempt to match the 28-90 and have the high end for emergency use, since Promaster lenses are Tamron/Promaster generally, a lot like Sigma/Quantaray in that regard.
This lens surprised me though: it's actually an older throwback than I had expected, with 80 grams more weight and 72mm filter threads (so much for my lonely 62mm c.Polarizer).  I shall have to do more work to see where the weaknesses are with this copy, but its 1:4ish closeups are no decent match for the 28-90.

Still, it's a $35 lens - and that seems to be a sweet spot for me.  We shall see.

Next time: surprising $70 lenses, featuring the Rikenon 70-150 f/4?

shouldn't couldn't wouldn't --- did.

Time to disconnect the auction site from my bookmarks now.  For just over $70 I picked up a (Tamron) Promaster 28-200 lens (which I 'promise' not to use past 120mm).  It will be faster than the recently-grabbed 28-90 (Sigma) Quantaray, and of course in 'emergencies' can go to 200.  We'll see, but only one will stay.

Did I pay too much?  Maybe.  Oh forgot to mention, that price included a (Sigma) Quantaray 100-300, one that I've owned and liked before.  Twice.  So let's say each was $35 and that I did well.  Except for the new lens cabinet I might need to build... :^)

90 v 100 on a few subjects

The Quantaray/Sigma 28-90 arrived today, so I put it to a few tests against my well-liked Promaster 100mm macro.  Both do about 1:2 closeups in native mode; the Promaster includes a 49mm filter-type multiplier to achieve 1:1 but I seldom use it, so 1:2 seems sufficient for me.  The lenses don't compete on speed, since it's 100/3.5 vs 90/5.6, but what the heck we'll put them head to head anyway.

A few quick tests at 1:2 were not definitive so I shot the neighborhood to see the results.  In the climatis-and-mailbox shot the Q-ray image was decidedly better in exposure, avoiding the major blowout of highlights that the Promaster displayed.  Just a single shot but a clear difference.  Looks like a flower horse, but truly it's not!

Later I shot a closeup of our porch post with many things behind; both shots have rather nervous bokeh on display, so again no clear victor.  I shot these through a window, which helps neither lens show off to its best effect.

Let it be noted that the Q-ray focus is slower and feels more precise, and it covers its full range in about 1/4 turn.  The Promaster nearly goes full circle, meaning if it misses you'll be waiting a while for it to get close again.  Enough victories that maybe the 100mm will be sent packing.

In the wide department the same could happen with the Sigma 15mm fisheye.  It takes some excellent and fun images, but the 17-35 Tamron non-fisheye is clearly a winner and both are f/2.8 - still counting votes on the result there.

Kit update - yes, again

Enough tweaks have occurred since the last update a few short months ago - so here we go again!

APS-c and Compact Bodies:

• K-5, still amazing after nearly 1½ years in my bag.  No real complaints, though it will need to go in soon for a solution to the full-battery mirror flop issue.
• K-01 (white), great fun since November.  It's definitely a different way to achieve similar goals, some better and some worse.  I find I can manage a few things I didn't think I'd ever be willing to try, which is seldom a bad thing.  I am sure glad it's here so the K-5 can visit the shop!
• Q: his and hers black ones, with 02 zoom lenses.  Tiny, fun and as good as a 1/2.3" sensor can do.  Nice to have the 'standard' dSLR menu on a compact, that's for sure.  I've still not purchased an adapter  or the PK lenses, but I'm wavering... 

Lenses, in approximate FL order.  
Just for amusement I've added (ff) to those that are full-frame friendly, meaning all but ONE.  Even the Limited primes that I own are deemed FF-tolerant, much to my surprise.  I am not planning to grab a full-frame Pentax dSLR any time soon, but if a windfall were to strike I'm well protected.

• (ff) Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye: yes the DA15 would be smaller, but this has so many good things going for it that I have no complaints.  It's not all that large in any case, and it's faster, focuses closer and works with full-frame (film) cameras. Oh yes, often a bit cheaper too on the used market!  Great fun and very talented, and really not all that fishy for landscapes on an 16×24mm sensor.
• (ff) Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0: part of what makes this nice is that it doesn't crowd any other lens.  Overlap can be a good thing most of the time, but a Limited lens deserves breathing room.  I owned this in my SonyAlpha days, it was my first really good lens.  If anything it could crowd the fisheye out of the lineup!
• (ff) Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 macro: another SonyAlpha veteran lens that I liked four years ago.  Dirt cheap, feather light but decent imaging and 1:2 macro at 90mm when you want such things.  An excellent one to have on the camera when you have nothing planned or you want something you won't mourn over if damaged.
• (ff±) Pentax DA40/2.8 Limited - yes it's true what others say: absurdly small, absurdly talented and worth owning.  For many it's the first Limited because of its price; I got such a good deal that I cannot repeat it, and it's a real keeper even had I paid $100 more like most other owners.  Sharp in focus and smooth elsewhere, thanks to great optics and nine-blade aperture, and too small to justify leaving behind.
• Pentax DA 50-200 WR: the perennial underdog telephoto lens for Pentaxians, this featherweight and weather-resistant zoom only suffers by comparison to the 55-300 models.  For now I prefer the compactness of this one, and on the K-01 it is a very good copy - now that I know that the K-5 will either need to match or get its first lens ± adjustment.  This is a great zoom for the K-01 as it's small and light - nearly a clone of the macro that's a bit further down the list.
• (ff±) Pentax DA70/2.4 Limited - ditto at least, except that this one was not to be found cheaply.  It's still worth the price.  Something about this feels illegal, to be a bit telephoto yet tiny and fast - and let's not forget the nine aperture blades to make the images really snap.  Live and learn: Limiteds are worth having.
• (fF) Rikenon XR 70-150/4: when I put down my bid at auction I barely knew this lens existed.  It's been with me quite a while, relatively speaking, and other than its old-school lens coating it's a real marvel.  I don't recall seeing many 2-ring internal-zoom lenses in my 1980s film days but clearly a few were out there, and this one is smooth and sharp.  It's a bit dense and at 440 grams it's heavier than all but the 400mm - but fixed f/4 through the range, 52mm filter threads and a built-in shade are nice to have.  Optically it's of prime caliber and can sorta do close focusing in its 'macro' mode.  O What Fun!
• (ff) Promaster 100mm f/3.5 macro (AF): I had tried two other macros, and felt like Goldilocks.  The Tamron 90 was excellent but too bulky, the Sigma 50 excellent but I had to get sooo close for real macro images.  The Promaster only goes 1:2 on its own - but I have the original 'matched' multiplier to achieve 1:1 shots (49mm, so it fits the Limiteds and 50-200), and it's well under half the size and weight (and price!) of the Tamron.  This does very well for my mid-tele and macro work, and is another small wonder.  I've made it pretty clear that I like that in lenses!
• (ff) Hanimar 400/6.3: and then there's this thing.  A preset T-mount lens (with 16 aperture blades!) it's a curiosity that was handed to me by my father-in-law; for the price of a K-mount adapter any 400mm lens is hard to beat.  I need to use it more but it's done quite well on my few test outings.

Compared to earlier times, that's not many lenses - but it's more than I can use at any one event that's certain.  Most events can go with perhaps two primes and a zoom, and seldom would more than four go anywhere with me.  A very compact, thrifty and comfortable kit.  Again.

This set leaves me with some excellent mix-and-match sets:

1. 17-35 + 40 + 70 + 100m for best of the best, with 15f optional
2. 17-35 + 40 + 50-200wr for most compact & fewest changes (probably the backpack kit)
3. 28-90 + 50-200 for when wide angle isn't going to be a big deal
4. 28 + 40 + 70 ultimate compact trio that covers many circumstances

Add the 15mm fisheye to any of these for ultimate width, or make other combos to address specific wishes (macro prime lens for example).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Software:
 I now own Elements 10 and Premiere 10.  Plugins include NeatImage for noise reduction, SmartCurve for lighting adjustments and ReDynamix for redistribution of dynamic lighting with easy controls to temper the  HDR-like effects. I also use Picasa software for the easy changes and quick text additions.  No Lightroom or other powerhouse software will appear until my computer is massively updated, which I don't foresee any time soon.

Everything changes II - going retro

Well, I sought a deal on the DA16-45 and failed several times on auction copies.  As the going rate climbed toward $250 I revisited a few sites for the off-brand options like the Tamron 17-50 (add $100) or a similar-spec Sigma (very few on the used market at any price).

Now stop me if you've heard this before (too late!) but there's the ideal lens for my kit sitting lonely on a virtual shelf: the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.  I had this on my Sony A200, my first really great lens - yes range is thin for 440g and it takes 77mm filters.  On the other hand it doesn't prevent the DA40 from playing, it's fast and decently wide, and I liked its images a great deal four years ago.

And hey guess what: it's full-frame capable.  That may not interest me now, but it may interest others in a year or so.  If money comes at me and I cannot duck, even I might care - but it will serve well on the 18×24 sensor in the meantime.

Retro part II

After adding it to my cart and then deleting it, I re-added a Sigma 28-90 with 1:2 macro.  The label says Quantaray but it's the Sigma 28-80 by any other name, and was another of my A200-veteran lenses .  Yes it has a plastic mount, yes just f/3.5-5.6 - but also yes close-focus ability at almost 1:2, yes 8 aperture blades, and oh yes 220 grams and a low price of $35.  When I don't need to go wide this lens can do most of what I do on not-really-out-for-imaging days; when I want to be serious the Limited primes will do the job best.  It will be fun comparing the Promaster 100 to this at 90mm, as both can do about 1:2 closeups.

And hey guess what II: it's also full-frame capable.