plus 3

using center-point autofocus

That seems to be a good bias for the K-5 autofocus system with my recently-(re)acquired Sigma 100-300 'slowpoke' tele-zoom.

A reasonable color match!

Yes I own one of those again - but this time in silver to match the K-5 Special. A few quick tests and application of +3 AF adjustment for this lens only, and results look better than before. Yay!

Speaking of Sigma - today they announced their first L-mount body. It's tiny, cubic and using a Bayer RGB filter array (i.e. Not Foveon) so it's an unusual Sigma camera in many respects. We shall see how it fares once price and performance are fully set.

aftermath of the Shadow's passing

cropped and re-leveled but not really processed.. yet!

Since the eclipse on 21.August, several changes have occurred in many types of gear.

• Our largest telescope has sold, 
• an eyepiece and the Canon A720is sold at the star-party swap meet - and 
• the K-5 that took the photo above (and many others) has moved to Carolina.

In some ways this was ideal! I got to use the 'scope before it sold and the K-5 was the superior imaging system to have on-site. The GX1 isn't bad by any means, but the K-5 has the better sensor for dynamic range and pixel size - so no complaints here.

and I have the silver 14-42mm lens!
from imaging-resource.com review

These changes allowed me to pick up another bargain GX7. The GX85 and GX8 are tempting in different ways, and I even considered the current deal on the YI-M1 + 12-40mm lens - but for now the familiar and lower-priced GX7 will serve very nicely while other debts are paid down. I enjoyed the GX7 in black but prefer the look of the silver model.

What next for my µ43 kit?
I'd like the set of 7.5/14/20/30 for primes, meaning that a 7.5mm fisheye and 20mm f/1.7 Lumix might be sought in the near future. I've learned of the 7Artisans f/2.8 fisheye which is competitive with the Samyang in many ways for a somewhat lower price, so when the time comes we'll see what prices look like. Also there's no denying the appeal of the 60mm Sigma and even the 100-300 Lumix.. but the 45-150 is both talented and tiny so it will be sufficient for now. I still have a K-mount copy of the Quantaray 100-300, which is less convenient than the Lumix version but somewhat stabilized on the GX7 so that's fine too.
Also: focus peaking is back, how nice!

fall classic comebacks

Yes it's game three of the World Series tonight - and yet I do not refer to fall-classic comebacks like the Cubs. I am referring to a pair of lenses that are heading this way.

When I first considered a move from Sony's α A200 to Pentax I recall seeing the DA 16-45mm f/4 and thinking it the ideal lens for my use. A wider 24mme zoom, f/4 throughout the range, and close focusing abilities are definitely superior to the typical kit lens.

I've bought and sold a few copies, each less expensive than before. Its main drawback is the lack of weather seals, though flash users will also be annoyed by its shadow intruding at short focal lengths. The DA* 16-50 f/2.8 was built to higher specs, but in reality its performance is not highly acclaimed - and in fact many reviews give the 16-45 a higher overall rating. Now the HD 16-85 has taken over the 16-45 domain, and while it's proving its excellence I don't have $500 to spend on it. I won a copy of the 16-45 with a bid below $150 - and this time I will be keeping my bargain 18-55WR, so when it's wet I am still able to play outside with no regrets. This suggests the 15mm fisheye is expendable; while undoubtedly wider than the 16mm I just don't venture that wide often enough to justify keeping both of them.


My favorite zoom of the many manual classics that I've tried was a Rikenon XR 70-150. Every now and then I look for a copy, and this week I found one for a nice price. Despite the manual entry for focal length I'm looking forward to having this again.

I've also been trying an smc-A 70-210 f/4 zoom and it works really well with nice sharpness and very smooth bokeh. It's pretty convenient with its auto-aperture setting.. yet the focal length still needs to be correctly entered for Pentax' internal IS to work properly. This lens is a beast though, so it wouldn't get as much use as the lighweight DAL 50-200WR. I'm not yet sure if I will keep the WR telephoto for backup, perhaps it will be sent off to get more use elsewhere.

 It will be interesting to compare these telephoto zooms as both are f/4 throughout the range for nice subject isolation and have a closeup setting (at 70mm!) and have built-in hoods to minimize stray light and flare.  Will the extra range on the Pentax justify that additional bulk?  We'll see soon..

 - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - update!

I am working on a deal to pick another 50-300mm HD/WR zoom. Doing this would really clean up my telephoto stockpile

This updated kit sounds familiar, and it should: that trio was my original K-mount kit!  I returned to Pentax SLRs after my film|digital makeover partly because of the 16-45 which was pretty unique at the time. I began with a K100d and a Sigma 50-200 but ultimately this 3-pack came about, and its simplicity was hugely convenient. My only change could be a macro 50 instead of a fast one.

One problem of course: once I picked up a weather-resistant K-7 body these unealed lenses were less ideal. Now six years (and a half-dozen WR bodies) later I have the K-5 and the newer HD/WR telephoto, plus an 18-55WR backing up the 16-45. Most likely the A50/1.7 is much better than my Rikenon 50/2 but between 50s the line is pretty thin.

I'd really like to have a prime group, but sadly Pentax doesn't play much with WR primes so: drat. They did seal up the 55-300 so hopes remain high for future products.

 - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - update!

A shopgoodwill bid came through and for $25* I have

• another copy of the Quantaray 100-300mm f/4.5.6.7!
• another Q-ray 28-80mm, this one not 1:2 macro - but swap mounts with my broken 28-90 1:2 and score!!
• a Pentax ZX-30 camera from the Late 35mm Film Epoch, meaning it makes use of AF/AE lenses!
• and another bag.

Here's an earlier review of the 100-300. Generally speaking it's a near match to the 55-300 except for a few items:
tighter range (the 55-100mm zone is quite handy!)
slightly slower (4.5-6.7 not 4.0-5.8)
no quick-shift manual focus
Faster to focus - or faster hunting in poor light. Quite a bit faster!
Full-frame friendly and aperture rings, so more versatile in the Early Digital Epoch
no weather seals compared to the HD 55-300
- but I believe that I mentioned the price difference right?

I have never owned a Late Epoch SLR, having stopped with the Program Plus in the late '80s. The ZX-30 sure does look like a digital, with AF/MF switch right where I'd expect it and a control dial just like the K-r or other sorts. It will be curious to try this out with AF, power winding, a Date Back(!) and digital controls.

 - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - update!

So much for the 50 macro: the DA50/1.8 went on sale for about $70...

two ways to 300

Both of my recent Pentax telephoto deals have now arrived, so comparing the two will be interesting!

First came the Spiratone 300mm mirror lens.  I have been curious about this type of lens but never won a bid until last week.  At f/5.6 this one has a better chance of AF systems working with it, compared to the slightly slower f/6.3 Tokina.  That lens is micro43 only, while this is conceivably film-friendly  - and arrived PK adapted and stabilized on the K·50!

My first shots with it were surprisingly contrasty and pretty well focused.  These lenses are often criticized for low contrast so that was a nice surprise.  More tests are needed, and the 'donut bokeh' has yet to be featured in the few shots I've taken with it.

Today the Sigma 100-300 arrived.  This is my fourth copy I believe so it's very familiar to me!  AF speed is really fast, telephoto optical speed is dreadful at f/6.7 - this is why the Pentax 55-300 and this lens alternate in my bag.  The other good side is price; the 55-300 is an excellent deal at $100ish, while the Sigma came for $9.99 plus shipping and handling (about $22 all told).  The Pentax is a bit more crisp and contrasty for the most part, but really with minimal retouch the results are very nice with either lens.

I have a PK-m43 adapter coming, but perhaps a T-m43 would also be useful.  That 600mme closeup should be fun to pull off in good light!  In the meanwhile though, the 45-175 should arrive soon to take the mic43 system to greater lengths, even though the internal-zoom lens won't get any longer!

BlackFriday decisions

Looking at the first wave of pre-Christmas deals was enough to make the call between the G7 and LX100.

Sales on both cameras are in play - and the G7 is still almost $100 less.  Today's G7 Genuine Deal is an impressive one: $200 off + $100 store credit and bundle-now&save deals all at once!  So that's the current buying plan: silver G7 plus 14-42 II and maybe $50 more for the 25/1.7 'normal' lens bundle. The credit can go for a microphone ± spare battery or something else.   For a similar price one can have a "$250 value" stereo microphone in lieu of $100 gift card, which is also a great deal.
Sorry LX100 - the G7 price & features are too good to ignore.

Friday also featured a used-gear shop with lenses going for 30% off  and a Lumix 45-175 was available.  Two copies in fact, and thank goodness: I tried to buy the black one but no purchase button appeared, and when I returned to the lens page it was gone - apparently it sold 10 seconds before I could reach it!  So I selected the silver copy instead.  It won't quite match the G7 silver-grey shade, I suspect, but I'll survive.  A deal on the 7.5mm fisheye will expire Tuesday, so that will have to come later.

The G7 will go from 28-350mme stabilized in-lens, plus an adapter can let the Pentax lenses play on it out to 600mme with the Spiratone 300/5.6 and 800mm with the 400/6.3 Hanimar.  The original plan was to buy 14-42, 45-175, 300 Tokina and 7.5 fish-eye, plus maybe a prime in the 14-20mm range; so far so good with the first two plus a 300mm in Pentax mount.

Speaking of Pentax the DAL 50-200wr arrived today. The K·50 is now weather sealed from 27-300mme and sensor-stabilized.  This 50-200 seems sharper than previous copies and it's a nice tight fit; too bad it doesn't come in red!  The silver band and lack of focus distance scale mark it as DAL and not DA.

O what fun!

Double dealing (plus 1)

*1*

The best surprise is one that you give up on (some times).
My list of micro4:3 items includes the Tokina 300mm f/6.3 mirror lens. I've wanted a lens like this for a long time in Pentax mount but they are very rare and bids were too high. This Tokina is tiny and cheap ($90ish refurbished) so even if I don't like mirror lenses in the end it's not a big investment.

 Today I was buzzing through eBay to check on the status of a refund. My mind and mouse wandered a bit.. and here's a Spiratone 300mm f/5.6 in K mount for a very similar price. It's a T-mount lens so K and m4:3 can each adapt to work with it. The Tokina is an all-manual lens anyway so why not get the K/T/m43 all at once? This will be 450 mmme on the K-50 (and stabilized!), 600 mme on the G7: watch out birds here I come! The speed difference is small but many focus sensors begin to fail above f/5.6 so that's another point in the old lens' favor.

In fact all 300mm mirror lenses  are small for the amount of telephoto they offer, so this will be full-frame-film compatible with a bit of a bulk penalty.  I was happy to seek it a few months ago without success, so forsaking the smaller Tokina won't be a major bummer.  Now to learn if I can tolerate 'donut bokeh' in my images!

*2*

The SD/Flucard sold this afternoon, and now interest in the 55-300 is growing. The general idea is to get a WR replacement for it at some point. What to do in the meantime though? Prices are decent on both the 50-200 & 55-300wr but the budget is.. about what I got for the Flucard. Anything else?

 Yep. 
Shopgoodwill was dumping a Sigma 100-300 with no bids and 4 minutes left. PK mount yes, so Sold!

Yes, it's that lens again.  It always battles the 55-300 for a spot in my bag since it focuses far faster.  The range of the Pentax and brighter telephoto keep the seesaw in motion.  This has always been my favorite $35 telephoto option, but this time it's my $10 option! OK add $22 shipping and handling.. Still a silly/good deal that is sufficient for filling in the tele space right now.

 So along with the 300mm Spiratone that's two fine deals today on 36×24 telephotos!

*3*

Make it three deals: I just won a dirt-cheap bid on a DAL 50-200wr.  
I'd prefer the 55-300 but again, the budget cannot do that just now.
Now the rain can return.. and of course it will do so, in about 10 hours...

just saying 'NO'

Every now and then I encounter a sale post or internet deal that reels me in and holds on tightly.  The old habit is silly from both practical and financial points of view, as my current gear will give me 18-200mm coverage in both Pentax and Samsung native lenses (weather resistant on Pentax), up to 300 with the 100-300 K lenses and nx adapter.  I can add the 17mm fish-eye and 400mm megatele to either kit as well.  This is more than sufficient coverage .. yet still I walk the virtual streets seeking something else.  Why is that?

The most common reason I give myself is a better level of closeup ability.  I have no true macro lens, not even 1:2 types and I like being able to take closeups!  Well yes, I do have a TC/extension combo that turns my 55mm f/1.8 into a nice 110/3.5 as well as several closeup diopter filters in different diameters.  I have also owned at least six macro primes capable of 1:1 or 1:2 scale - and sold them all.  Obviously that's not relevant or I would not keep stepping out into Internet traffic, waiting for a deal to strike me... The latest temptation is a Sigma 70-300mm with apochromatic lens element and 1:2 macro built within.  Hooray: a decent telezoom with faster f/5.6 optics at 300mm and good closeups!  Yes it is probably double the weight of my 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 and will cost at least five times what I paid for that lens.  But look at the closeups - who could say no to that?? 

  

Both images taken with Quantaray (Sigma)
100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 .. cropped

Apparently that would be me - for now at least! 

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

So wish me luck: it seems I shall need it in lieu of even a small pinch of self-control.  Clearly it's time to take my Quantaray 100-300 out for a walk so it can remind me yet again of its great mix of very good image quality, light weight, fast focus.. and sub-$40 price tag!

take a chance..

The one shaky area in my kit is/was the telezoom end.  I really like two lenses, the Quantaray 100-300 and the Pentax DA±L 55-300 - and I've owned each several times.  Why?  Well the Pentax lens has more range, faster aperture at tele (f/5.8 vs 6.7) and in some cases includes quick shift; the Q-ray is decently sharp, faster to focus, and both smaller and lighter.  Each has its merits, so I keep alternating.

I just found a mount-damaged DAL for $67.  We'll take the chance that it may be irreparably damaged but hopefully I can rip parts out of another lens for it.  At that price, and the approximately $30 net that I paid for the quantaray: why not own both? :^)

brokedown

• As in "I brokedown & bought an SMC-M 135/3.5" to complete any reasonable set of manual primes.  The set is currently 8-17-24-30-40-50-85-105-135-200-300-400 but 8 and 105 will probably go, and the 40 is a Limited AF in truth.  After testing the 300mm Takumar against my 100-300 zoom, it could move along also; we shall see.  The AF kit would be 18-250, 18-55, 100-300; that's plenty as the K17 fisheye is like 14.5mm rectilinear, and the 85/2 can fill the 55-100 gap marvelously.  The 18-250 works pretty well for me in most cases, but when times are wet (and they will be!) the 18-55wr is very important to have when the budget isn't certain.

• Also see "I brokedown and bought a Nikon 1 J1" - simply as a scientific experiment of course, it means nothing :^)  This 1" sensor and 28-80ish zoom will slug it out against Pentaces Q and X-5 (in some cases even the K-01 ); the result will be fewer cameras and more comfort about which does what best for me/us.  For $140 in like-new condition, why not learn something... right?

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.

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?

the Kit - this time I mean it! mean it... mean it... me

OK, a final flurry of shopping and the kit is reshaped.  Here is the core* of my photo gear as of late June.

Mounted on the K-5 is yet another fine copy of the DA16-45.  That lens was one of the big reasons I went back to Pentax as a digital choice after letting Sony go reinvent itself without me.  I have been forced to sell it once, and chose to a couple of other times - this is my fourth copy so this is truly the voice of experience speaking -- and I dearly hope I've learned from it all!  If nothing else my pension checks will dictate that it stay around, I expect...

To cover the midrange I have the DA40 and DA70 Limited duo (hiding in their fine leather pouches).  These are absurdly good lenses and I hope never to part from them, unlike other lenses I have owned.

In the WR and telephoto department I will carry the DA50-200WR.  This lens is plenty good enough and much easier to carry than the well-regarded 55-300mm (another lens I have owned at least three times), and on a wet hike it will be the on-camera option for max moisture resistance.  It has the additional ability to make use of 49mm filters like the Limited primes!

On the occasional day when more reach is needed, the 100-300 Quantaray/Sigma will join me.  Other than being quite slow optically (f/6.7 at 250mm +) it's talented, compact and lightweight, and is faster to focus in good light than the DA55-300.  When lighting and weather are at their best, I can cover quite a bit with 16-45, 40, 70 and 100-300.

* Not appearing above because they won't get much use:

• Sigma 15mm fisheye, good enough to get more use but less vital with 16-45 in the bag
• SMC-A 24mm f/2.8, a nice lens but the 16-45 excels in this zone with greater versatility
• SMC-M 50mm f/2, which cannot compete with the Limited pair & has 'limited' resale value
• Sigma 18-200DC gen-1, a quite decent all-purpose lens that will be on the K-01 often
• Quantaray 28-90mm w/1:2 macro, a great $35 lens that is hardly worth the price to ship! :~)
• Hanimar 400mm f/6.3 preset, for emergency wildlife only!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
early-Aug update: the 28-200 and 18-200 are gone, as is the venerable Vivitar 28-105.  The 15-fish and 28-90 remain available but no takers yet.  The primes will not harm me if they stay, and if I take them to goodwill I fear that I might return home with more! :~)
mid-Aug: the 15mm fisheye is gone, sad to say.

another old friend returns

Prodigal lenses surround me!

First it was the 28-90 Sigma/Quantaray (top), then a  100-300mm of the same vintage (left).  While seeking a wide option I rediscovered the Tamron 17-35 (right).  And now a used-but-effective 18-200 Sigma has reappeared (bottom).  I have many good memories from these lenses, from backpacking to general bikeabouts; the 18-200 is decently sharp for its type, shows far less chromatic fringing than the DA18-135, and reads f/5.6 out to 170mm before dropping to f/6.3 beyond that. Yes that means it's 5.9 with rounding but good enough for me!  Truly one could take prize-winning shots with such a lens, but I do not plan to dump everything else upon its arrival.

Depending on its focus speed it could be ideal for the K-01, and this plus a Limited prime in each pocket will do great things any time.  It's only 1:4ish for closeups, but I have just allowed my macro lens to leave the nest; seems I very seldom do more than 1:2 so extreme closeups are not my 'thing' and the 28-90 can do that.  At least I tried and I know my macro interest now, after trying out three dedicated macro primes!

So while this could be a kit-rearranging move, I expect that the budget is more likely the item that will cause changes.  As a newly retired human with smaller checks in my future, I may need to think about what gets used often and what just looks nice on my shelf.  We shall see!  In the meantime I can comfort myself with the knowledge that the four lenses cost me a total of just over $400 - and that's quite a lot of versatility for a relatively small price!

News Update 6/28

Well I did it again, but for a very good reason: a sub-$200 DA16-45 became available.  Compared to the Tamron 17-35 I gain coverage both wide and long, and shed 10mm off the filter size and 80 grams off the bag weight.  In exchange I lose full-frame/film coverage, f/2.8 at the wide end, and an  aperture ring.

 This change voids the last month or so of acquisitions, as the 28-90mm can go too: the DA16-45 goes nearly 1:3 on closeups at f/4 with smoother bokeh, so the 1:2 at f/5.6 is less amazing.  For that matter, even the 15mm fisheye is now at risk from the 16-45!  I'll probably keep the 28-90 for $35, and it can join the $25 100-300 as the film-capable lenses.  The 18-200 can stay too, as it's hard to beat as my casual lens.


In other news, the two excellent Rikenon lenses have moved on. They are both deserving of more time.  The 28/2.8P and 70-150/4 XR served me very well!  The Promaster 28-200 is also on the runway awaiting final instructions.

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 distant images show the Q-ray to render better, showing more natural colors and decidedly less destructive 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.

p.s. The 28-200 is indeed a curious one!  This is an older design than the XR Di IF &c Tamron that I used before, 100g heavier and takes 10mm larger filters.  Despite all that (?) it performs a bit better at the long end.  The Tamron with my Alpha A200 was notably soft after 120mm, and this shows less softening.  It does have similar fringing characteristics, sad to say; it could use a rinse with software to remove the color edges.  Not bad, but I have other lenses to do this work that I like better.  I'm keeping the 100-300 for sure though!

welcome back my friends..

I admit it - despite two failed attempts to really like the Pentax 55-300 zoom, I was hunting again. I owned both DA and DAL versions at one point with my K-7. The DAL went a-swapping for a weather-sealed 50-200, and the DA left during the budget crisis that ultimately cost me the K-7 as well. Now I've retrenched with the k-x and find that the better high-ISO performance allows this long zoom to have a better chance to yield blur-free images.
I didn't need this lens badly, so I let a few deals slip away, primarily on the DAL (optically identical but with a few less bonus features). But at last I stumbled into an offer I dared not refuse - so a 'like new' DAL is on its way, and the Sigma 100-300 will move on to cheer up someone else. The 100-300 is a better lens than I had expected, but pulling back to 55mm is a great feature - and f/5.8 beats 6.7 for those hi-zoom lo-light images I persistently try to capture. At least I now have iso5000 available in a pinch!

I find it ironic that my two original favorite lenses are back in the stable. The DA16-45 really caught my eye when I migrated from Alpha gear, and teaming it with the 55-300 and a 50 prime seemed perfect. The K-7 led me in other directions (mostly weather-sealed ones) but the k-x has turned me around. Thankfully the wheeling and dealing was a draw financially, so I'm happy to be back with this pair.