good news all around

• The SMC 17mm Fish-Eye has arrived, and its condition is if anything a bit better than the last copy.  Both take excellent images judging from my first efforts: decently sharp, colors and contrast excellent, and the size is so nice for a lens that won't be my most-used.  (Update - turns out this is the 1st-edition 17mm fish-eye, labeled 1:4 17mm not 1:4/17mm.  Also no cute case.  This is no big deal to me, but others have reported the second iteration as the better of the two by a slim margin.)

• The 18-250 Sigma has also arrived, and it too shows great results from early tests.  Good and sharp, far better control of color fringing than the DA18-135, closeups between 1:3 and 1:2, and all in a (relatively) small and light package.  I always liked the first 18-200 from Sigma, and this one is easily as good and has the HSM silent focus.  The DA18-135 seems to focus more confidently while the Sigma double checks itself, but these are very quick tests so that may be situational.  In any case this will serve me better, and I'll shoot with more confidence with the 18-250.

• The home sale is so close I can almost feel it after photos were taken this week.  Gosh it will be nice to pay off medical, car and other pre-retirement debts (and yes I confess, a few pay-later photo buys are out there too).

This post originally included a great deal on an 18-55WR from amazon - alas, the affiliated company sent me an 18-55 non-WR.  Even more surprising it was a version-1 18-55, replaced many years ago by an improved optical formula.  That was not good news, but the refund and return shipment went smoothly enough so no harm done to me.  Now will they get it labeled properly for the next person, that's what I would really like to know.

so if all this were true...

Speculation on how the nearly-reconfigured kit works in different circumstances - mixing & matching for different events!

• the 90-percent kit: 18-250mm Sigma.  This would be somewhat slow at telephoto, but covers the range I'm using at least 90% of the time.  It also does 1:3ish closeups, quite close.
• the 95-percent kit: add the 17 Fish-Eye in a pocket to cover the widest shots!
• the foul-weather kit: DA18-55wr (nyIH = not yet in hand) and a prime or two as circumstances suggest.  The 18-55 focuses pretty closely too, so the also-nyIH 85mm f/2± sounds like a good fit, especially when 55mm f/5.6 is simply too slow.
• the mostly-prime kit: 17, 24, 50 1:2, 105 and occasionally 200mm, or swap in the slow but decent 100-300 for long coverage.  When the ~80mm arrives, maybe 80+135 for longer shots?
• the bird kit: 200, 300, plus nyIH 1.5x TC (standing still), or 100-300 and high ISO (flying)
• the astronomy kit: hopefully the Q plus 1.25" eyepiece mount to Q adapter (we shall see) or K-5IIs plus the nyIH O-GPS1 astro-tracker
• the Backpacking Kit - hmmm.  The safest choice would be the 17FE, 18-55wr, 50 macro and a fast 80-135mm prime.  For weekends when the weather isn't likely to fail the 18-250 can go instead, but in the PacNW the weather can never be fully guaranteed!

That's about it. 

I need no sports kit, speed kit or such as that, and if I need a tiny kit the Q or X-5 will do as it must, with the best mini-kit being the IIs and 24mm and/or 50 macro.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Strange to go this far without giving the DA* 16-50mm any support.  I have owned every kit-like lens except the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*.  I've always liked the 16-45 so why not spend more when the house sale finally happens, and get 'the best'?  It's a thought, but places like photozone.de and even pentaxforums itself do not give the impression that the * lens is in fact best, asterisk or no*.  Given the $500 premium over the 18-55wr, or $400 over the 16-45, it just doesn't win by enough.  Yes f/2.8 all the way is great, but I already have a 50/2.8 with 1:2 macro so that seat is taken, thank you.  When I need weather protection I need it - but I've had great results with the 18-55wr so why not keep a good thing going?  Also, anything moving me away from the 18-250 is a distraction best avoided.  We'll see.

Q and X-5 head to head battle!

Last year during the Pentax Q closeouts, my wife decided this was the right camera for her.  Something very small, quite talented and at a decent price would suit her well.  This was a real surprise to me as it missed out on a few features she likes a lot - but OK order placed.  It wasn't quite that simple, as she wanted us to have identical cameras to work with; that way she could see how I shot the same subject and learn what to do, or (equally likely) find that her ways worked best for her.  So two black Qs soon reached us.  I have enjoyed my time using the Q, though in no way can it replace a K-5 in most situations.


And now the loop repeats, this time with the soon-departing X-5.  Now here are the features my wife likes on a camera: both the tipping LCD screen and some variation of a viewfinder, in this case a basic electronic one.  These two features caused us to begin with two Lumix G1 micro-4/3 cameras before the Qs came about.  I found the silver X-5 for under $120 and figured I would show it to her, just in case.  We could try the Q and X-5 out for a while, compare and contrast, and pick the camera that worked best for her.

Round one!
And... it's over.
Well, it was simple really.  The screen and VF won out over the Qte factor of the Q even before they were powered up.  No drama, no exhausting tests, nothing.  I shall now seek a black X-5 and sell off one of the Q pair.  This tells you just how cute the Q is in person, that my sweetie would choose it a year ago despite its lack of a few features she cannot be happy without.  It turns out that she did not want to change lenses either, so the advantages of the Q was really not for her.

So: now that we have a winner, how are the images?  Oh yes, that's probably worth knowing right?  Thankfully the test shots are quite nice, especially after shifting to spot metering.  Close-ups and far-outs are crisp, details are clear, fringing not bad.  I do wish the X-5 allowed for raw images as the 16mpxl backlit sensor could conceivably do a fine job... alas it's jpeg only.

I'm planning to keep one Q for a while at least, as I want to test its usefulness on a telescope; I bought a Q-1¼" telescope adapter but had to pack the gear away for our upcoming move before giving it a tryout.

. . . . . . .

UPDATE: black body acquired, though it was less of a bargain.  As of now only silver bodies are being refurbished it seems, so a brand new black X-5 will have to do!

one 'last' tweak

No kit 'tweak' is ever the last one, but knowing that I cannot be jinxed!

Well my bid for another SMC 17mm f/4 won out, so the 'fish-eye problem' is solved.  In the interim someone offered their 18-250 Sigma HSM Macro for below the price of my nice-but-not-amazing DA 18-135wr, so the former was purchased & the latter sold.

When my first da18-135 came along its optical performance at telephoto compared poorly to the Sigma 18-200, but had silent focus and WR to even the score; this improved 18-250 has the silent HSM motor, and 1:3 closeups too.  Guess I need to carry a small umbrella with it, oh well I'll manage.  And yet another 18-55wr will join me in the future.

Why pretend the kit-dealing is over?  Well it's house-dealing time instead, so funds are in voluntary lockup (again?) while that goes on.  I'm pretty happy with what I see anyway.

active status: Sigma 18-250 1:3, k17FE, a50 1:2, stk105, m200, tak300
within reach: qr28-70  out of reach: Rok8FE, a24, q28-90 1:2, q100-300
wish list? An O-GPS1, an 18-55wr.. and perhaps a faster mid-tele zoom (hmmm this 28-70/2.8-4 is pretty fast!)

on the other hand

Pentax alone has four ways to achieve the 17mm fish-eye effect: the f/4 Takumar, the f/4 SMC (bayonet mount), the 17-28 f/3.5-4.5 F (autofocus) and the 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 DA of current days.  The first three are full frame/film friendly (FFFF?), the later for aps-c only.  Other primes and zooms can cover 17mm, though I don't believe any of them are fisheye types.  My K-5 bodies really trim off most of the fishiness anyway, but effectively the sides of the frame compare well to 15mm straight lenses - and the primes are very small and light, making them easy to carry along.

My plans are still to pick up a second copy of the SMC 17/4 as I really liked the last one and manual primes are fun to use.  Trouble is, that seems to be the rarest of the lot!  The Takumar is probably the same optics and is no cheaper, but is definitely more common on the used market.  The 17-28 is a smidge faster at 17mm f/3.5 and the 10-17 a mite slower at f/4.5 maximum.  The DA 10-17 has never been seen below $350 so it's the more expensive model, while the 17-28 can be found for under $250 and is the least expensive most of the time.  It's slightly heavier and of course longer than the 17/4, but neither zoom is a massive beast.

I need make no decision in a hurry, thankfully - but when the time comes it will be curious what I end up with.  The F 17-28 might even be fun on the Q, sitting beside the 5-15mm normal lens. ???

comings and goings

In a temporary, cash-grab measure the SMC 17mm has left the building.  I have tried several ways to get below 18mm (DA16-45, Sigma 15FE, Rokinon 8FE and the 17FE) and find the Pentax Fish-Eye oldie suits me best.  The Takumar version is probably the same optical formula and is more easily found, yet ironically it's more expensive; presumably the compact-mirrorless crowd prefers just an M42 adapter to the PK?  Anyway, unless a DA15Ltd appears at the opportune moment I will spend half that price for another SMC 17FE.  Good stuff.

Also leaving the building is the DA50-200wr.  It was once my only WR option but the 18-135 now fills that need.  With the 55-300wr's arrival it seems the 50-200 has lost more value than one might expect; ah well I got enough for it.

Once I am moved and unpacked I can determine any needs for incoming gear.  The 8mm fisheye, SMC-A 24mm and Quantaray 100-300mm have been inaccessible, and their absence caused some surprising shifts in my lineup (e.g. SMC 17 and Tak 'the beast' 300mm, both f/4).  The prime hole between 24 and 50 may or may not need filling, along with the 50-105 space - but Not with f/1.4 mini-Beasts from Rokinon!  I would prefer the Mitakon f/2 at 85mm (or the SMC-M but that tends to be expensive), both far more compact.  A few 35mm f/2 lenses are also out there to combat the Rokinon 35/1.4.  I just feel that f/2 is bright enough and the extra bulk needed to reach f/1.4 is more than I choose to bear.

active status: da18-135, a50 1:2, st105, m200, tk300 
within reach: qr28-70, old heavy MF zooms
out of reach: Rok8fe, a24, q28-90 1:2, q100-300
my wish list? SMC 17fe, faster mid-tele zoom?

more than just a body.. and lenses

A kit isn't merely the focus and capture of images, but bodies and lenses are the big-ticket stuff that get people chatting on forum sites.  A little talk of how to carry it all, some about flashes, and a bit about tripods now and then.  Ah, speaking of tripods: I looked at the 'wrong' moment at a forum & learned of a half-price sale on a good tripod and ball head, and now one is on its way.

My history with tripods is easy to describe: I use them very little, so I pay very little and get along OK.  In general it was one like the Ritz $30 type with a bubble level and enough support for a basic camera and light lens.  Then I moved up a notch and picked up a sub-$60 type which can allow the legs to swing out wide, which allows for very low shots and implies that I could take better macro images.  Both of these had alt-az controls, one for up-down and one for left-right.  If it's good enough for my big telescope it's good enough... right?

Well, the new tripod can also do the wide-spread leg action.  It can support lenses I swore I'd never own because they weighed more than 500 grams, like the Beast = Takumar 300 f/4 that arrived a week or two ago.  And the ball-head means I can move diagonally too, and pivoting for portraits doesn't require a third loose nut to manage.  But wait there's more: the center column doesn't merely go up/down, it can pivot low, between the tripod legs.  This versatility really could make closeup work pretty easy, even with a light lens like my SMC-A 50/2.8 - or any lens with macro abilities screwed on the front or added in the back.  Neat!

So the 'kit' was complete (more or less) but only with regard to bodies and lenses.  The rest of the 'kit' just got better!  And fewer photos might be forced to rely on shake-reduction to be their best.