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...

simply Wow (Kiron 28/2)

The K-01 and Kiron 28 have arrived. The 28/2 is quite impressive, and that just sent the smc-M 28/2.8 packing.  Even at f/2 it's quite sharp and contrasty, and the K-01's focus peaking means I can actually focus the thing where I intend. If wide open is good it means I can use aperture-priority setting rather than going Manual and hitting the green button to meter, which is a speed boost I can use at times. Like all lenses past the age of 20 or so, it's not perfect: the coating allows for plenty of flare to leak into the image from bright light sources, which affects the contrast at times. It's not ideal in a dark room with bright windows, for example.

I also attached the 28-80 Sigma from days past, with 1:2 close focusing.  So far so good with results there too, no surprise as I have owned this lens before a few times (both 28-80 and the Quantaray 28-90 variant).  Each time I've been impressed, yet budget forces a sale sooner or later.  Maybe those days are past - but this one cost $28 even with the K-1 now available to absorb all full-35mm lenses.

So the K-01 can now rest in its 'cabinet' (2 shelves in a closet) and meet the other K-lenses in the group. Those include the 100-300 Sigma DL, 80-200 JCPenney and primes from the 28 Kiron, 50-100-135mm Pentax, 300mm mirror and 400mm Hanimar.  Should be fun!

yes, again!

This one! 

This is my 4th copy.. or 5th, or more? Read on!

In this case I paid a mere $15 not $35 for the Quantaray 28-90 1:2 macro, but the lens had a broken mount.  I had hoped to find another bargain at some point, but seeing few options I bought the Q-ray 28-90 not-macro on the PentaxForums site (after checking that the screws on the mount lined up).

Shortly after all this effort I checked on one last possibility.  Sigma had marketed this lens with the same specs but as a 28-80mm; I had owned one of these briefly also. Lo and behold: a silver 28-80 for .. $27! Cool, never tried it in silver.  Sold, again!

So light, so talented, and 1:2 macro at the long end - which saves me the search for a prime that would do the same thing for $100 or more.  (Yes the prime would be much faster than f/5.6 but depth of field at 1:2 is not much in either case.) My 'walkaround' lens does not need to go back to 18mm, so this is more interesting to me than an 18-55 (unless it's raining). Not to mention that this plus the 100-300mm covers a full range on the newly-produced K-1 both cheaply and conveniently.  Ooops, I mentioned it..

So I'd had at least two 28-90 1:2 and one 28-80 1:2 - and now I have 28-80 and 28-90 with 1:2 and 28-90 nonmacro. No wonder I've lost count? It will be interesting to see how they differ - are they really the same FL of perhaps 28-85, or did Q-ray get a special longer copy?  How much does one sacrifice for the 1:2 closeups, if anything at all?  The broken mount still works if I hold it to the camera body, so as long as I don't micro-examine the side with the loose fit I might learn something before I swap mounts.  Let's face it though: these are all $30± lenses so it's not worthy of any huge and definitive study - but still fun. Here's hoping the silver one wins out!

With all these features - why not, again?

consolation prize

Whenever I'm low on funds and lack any sort of closeup lens, I turn to one of my old reliables: the $30-ish, quick-to-focus but slow-aperture Quantaray 28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 1:2 macro.  Besides the above feature list it's also really light (no more than 240 grams) and has eight aperture blades for decent bokeh.  No one expects much from it so it continues to surprise every seeker of decent-quality images on a budget.  The photo below surprises me every time I look at it; using the 28-90, K-01 and a hose, this was a simple garden shot that I really like!

This wasn't my time for finding a copy of that lens - but I picked up the next best thing.  It may even be the exact same thing - though it's marked as a mere 28-80mm zoom from Sigma with same aperture range and 1:2 close focus.  They're both Sigma lenses but I have only seen the Quantaray labeled as reaching 90mm.  Looks and features are pretty much identical, as was the price: $35 plus a smidge for shipping.

It only goes 1:2 closeup when at 80mm so that's at f/5.6 - but let's face it, something faster like f/2.8 is pretty useless for depth of field, so something nearer f/8 is appropriate in any case.  This will do just fine.

no way I need this: Quantaray 28-70 f/2.8-4

While I am quite happy with my 21-40-70-105mm prime set, some days a zoom fits best.  Those are days when the image isn't known until it's known, or lens changes aren't what I choose to do - lazy days, I guess.  Even so, just tossing any lens on the camera isn't the answer either; too much lost quality or light grasp isn't a good thing!  So I'd been looking over the midrange options, and wondering...

The ~28-70mm lens range has been popular for decades, especially in the film days.  With aps-c it's more like 40-100 which is not much for wide angle, but for urban shooting I haven't found much need to go wide and pull in power lines, traffic and such.  Most of the lenses in this range are either indifferent or built for full-frame digital at f/2.8 throughout, and those are heavy and expensive - not what I'm seeking right now, but a nice idea.  Choices would be the Sigma 28-70 (replaced by the 24-70), the Tamron 28-75 and little else.  Looking into older models I find things like I already have, the Quantaray/Sigma 28-90mm macro - nice but f/3.5-5.6 which is OK but not great.  Anything else?

Hmm, Sigma once made a 28-70mm f/2.8-4.0 in both manual (UC) and autofocus (DG).  The lens looks pleasantly small, though reviews are rather mixed - especially for the UC model.  I found one online and put in a fair bid for the Quantaray variant, thinking DG - but I confused a screw-head with the AF drive pin, so in fact I bid a bit high for the UC model.  The price didn't go that high, so for $35 I picked up an indifferent lens that was bound to fall short of my 28-90.  Drat.

Drat?  Hmm first tests look quite good in fact!  The K-5ii does not drop from f/2.8 in the readout screen, but blank-wall tests show this is f/2.8 to nearly 40mm, f/3.2 to 50mm - much better than I expected and substantially faster than the 28-90.  Yes it's manual focus but with a bright lens that's not a huge deal, and leaving AF enabled allows the AF points to light up when I get to focus.  So much for regret: another $35 bargain lens joins the collection, and the DA21 plus this will cover a lot of focal length!

tests at 50mm

Another common focal length in my collection (and others' as well) is around 50mm.  I have five ways to play right now: Rikenon XR and SMC-M f/2 primes, the DA50-200 (max f/4), a Quantaray 28-90 macro (f/4.5 at 50) and the DA40 Limited is close enough.  Oh rats I forgot the 16-45 at f/4 - so a supplement will follow soon!

Tests were not precise: hand-held and manual focus at the widest apertures, since they will all be fine at f/5.6 anyway.  All were shot with auto ISO and WB, and as DNG raw files with the K-01; no processing other than posting from Picasa so its raw defaults are shown here.

Depth of field was an issue with the f/2 primes, as the center of the bud and the pollen stems are not a match with the petals.  Anyway, in this case the no-surprise winner was the DA40 Limited, which loses a stop to the f/2s but is a modern optical marvel and a mechanical throwback with its all-metal construction.  Second* would go to the 28-90 macro; this lens dares to perform well despite its bargain-bin price of $35-50 most of the time.  If you hit the first Ritz closeout it was under $10, which is what I paid to go with my Sony Alpha A200!

The two 50mm primes did pretty well but contrast was down a bit, likely from their older coatings.  The 50-200 has a fairly long minimum focus that is better suited for flower shots above 100mm.  Still, the image is decently sharp with great color & contrast. 

I've tried the DA40 with a bargain +1 and +2 closeup filter attachment, and while this brings one closer the images are just not the same.  Sure your DoF is razor thin, but it just looks less saturated and less amazing.  No doubt a $100 closeup filter would outperform a $10 one, but we use what we have not what we might consider.  The DA40 Limited does excellent work and can get pretty close, and for me that'll do.

* Update: the DA16-45 is quite good also; exposure was a little brighter but the time of day was different.  Sharpness and bokeh are pretty similar on this shot.  And I got a bee-fly in the scene (lower right), that's pretty cool!  

DA40 at f/4 at the top.

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!