tiny lenses rule!

Whether on a Pentax dSLR or the small Samsung NX bodies, small and light lenses are great to have on hand.  The 16 and 30mm NX are 'prime' examples %( but Pentax also makes small ones - and they even work on full-frame film bodies!

Shown here are the Samsung 30mm f/2 plus Pentax 50/2.8 (1:2 macro!), 100/2.8 and 135/3.5.  The K:nx adapter is similar in size to the 30mm.

These four lenses, along with the nx300 and 16/2.4 lens that took this image, can fit into a mighty small space.. And some day soon the NX 20mm f2.8 will join in.  The other small-carry option is 16, 30 and 50-200 Samsung lenses, the latter with in-lens stabilization (but somewhat slow at f/4-5.6). Nice choices to have!

Don't go there.

Wow: competition for camera gear is scarce right now.  I picked up both 30 and 45mm Samsung primes, and no one even offered a competing bid on the 30mm f2 pancake!   Bids on Pentax gear generally come high and fast* until the auction is closed, so this one-bid deal was unexpected.  Is it lack of Samsung dealing, or perhaps our nearness to the holiday hard-sell weekend holding back buyers? *

Quick tests of the NX 45mm show it to be a very nice lens - yet it needs to go back.  For one thing I'm seeing the same old pattern on a new platform, grabbing items without enough thought.  For another, my wife needs medical tests that cannot be paid for in camera gear - so it has to stop.  I tested the SMC 50/2 on a PK adapter on the same scenes and re-learned that it is also a very nice lens, and one that cost about 1/5 the price of the NX45 (even including the adapter!).

So the list looks like this today:
(K for Pentax, NX for Samsung)

• K17 fisheye, NX30, K50/85/135 primes
•  NX 20-50 and 50-200/OIS zooms
• 100-300 K zoom 
• plus a few other K lenses: Hanimar 400mm, JCPenney 80-200, possibly a K28-70 f/2.8-4

And that will be all for the nx system for the year 2014 and hopefully beyond.


*On the Pentax side things also went quiet.  I received one low offer for the smcM85 f/2, and after some thought I have now removed it from the listing.   Selling the 85mm should have brought me more money than the Tamron 90/2.5 macro and hence more satisfaction that I was breaking old habits - but selling it for a large loss proves nothing. Owning the 30 50 and 85 (all f/2) makes sense for both speed and compactness; even with K-NX adapter the latter two are pretty small and quite bright, and focus peaking helps them to do their best work.

lens testing: 50 vs 50 vs 55 vs... never mind

I recently picked up a Rikenon 55mm f/2.2 for a bargain price.  I was allured by its perfect focal-length fit between DAs 40 and 70, and was not deterred by its relatively slow speed of f/2.2.  However this copy came with some fuzz/fungus or something on the lens elements.  Today I uncsrewed it to pieces, cleaned the elements and put it back together.  I put it on my K-01 at f/4, manually peak-focused on the mailboxes across the street and took a shot.

Hmmm not great, I think.

So out came the SMC-M 50mm f/2, and a Rikenon 50/2 XR(s), and oh why not toss in the DA40 and 70, and the DA18-55wr too?  Chimping at each shot I learned tow things:

• I'm no good at manually focusing the 18-55 even at 40mm f/4.5 with peaking, and
• every shot was better than the 55/2.2 gave me.  Oh well.

So the winning lens is... ?

Well, before I even dumped them to my computer for further scrutiny I logged into pentaxforums, and saw an SMC-A 50/1.7 on the market that trumps them all, for a really good price.  Now to fill a box for the thrift-store, or maybe the dumpster, and make room in the bag for what many consider the best of the Pentax 50mm optical formulae whether in M, A or F series.  I had an f/1.7 for a while a year or so back, and I'm sure I sold it for more than I will pay today.  Sometimes the timing is great, most times not; today feels good.

dominoes

This is what happens to supposedly-stable lens collections: a period of stability and satisfaction ends with a deal that's just too good to pass up.  Whether or not it really was too good the transaction happens - and one deals with the aftershocks.  If it wasn't all that good after all it moves on; if it's really good though, other lenses are re-evaluated for either quality (not as good?) or focal length (this lens FL of x makes an adjacent-FL lens or two expendable) or some other quality (why do I now own so many macro primes?).

The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro seemed my ideal 'last lens' that fit perfectly into the slot between 28 and the 70-150 zoom.  It has AF, it's reasonably fast (both focus and aperture) and 1:1 macro.  But then came the 100mm f/3.5 macro, which is pretty nearly as good at all those things in a longer yet lighter form.  Yes it's just 1:2 without the adapter element, but I seem to be OK with that 90% of the time*.   If it's so good at 100mm I won't carry the 70-150 - but then I have 28 50 and 100 - two of which are macros?  Might as well lighten the load with a manual 50 to go with the all-manual 28!  Yes that makes sense, and here's a 50/1.7 SMC-A for aperture control on the camera, how nice.  A few chats and clicks and it's on its way.

Then shock #2 hits in the form of a bargain used DA40 Limited pancake lens.  One has to see this lens to understand what 'pancake' means in the lens business - and it seems one must try a Limited lens to know what that means!  This will be my first, and seldom does one stop at just one.  The 50/1.7 has not arrived yet but it seems that its place has been stolen away: here is a tiny, sharp and fast-AF gem .. and 'tis said that the DA40 works with film or a future full-frame digital Pentax, so both my 50s are matched even there!

Now far too many dominoes are near to falling - time for 'damage' control, meaning a few choice lenses must go to feed the new beasts.

In any case, the journey continues for "my ideal kit".
I'm fully aware that it's a myth yet I cannot help but seek it...

* hey, that 49mm macro adapter fits on Limited primes!

trying out another macro

Well, here's just one comparison between the 'new' Promaster 100mm f//3.5 and my Sigma 50mm f/2.8.  Both are shot around 1:2 closeup, which is the 100mm native max (but comes with a matched closeup lens for 1:1).  Both look quite nice and sharp here at f/4.5; the Sigma is a touch bluer and lower key but other shots did not show this.  Another shot was more of a bokeh torture test and showed the Sigma looks a bit better in that regard - but at double the focal length so many parameters change!  So often in testing a single shot will show things that will not prove repeatable, so one must learn a little then learn to let go of what one wants to believe is "always true".

This Promaster was surprising, as it looks identical to the somewhat-revered Cosina known as the "plastic fantastic".  That lens has reviews in many places, and once again shows that what is "always true" isn't.  The Cosina feels fragile, sounds like a meat grinder when focusing, and cannot be used in manual focus because of the grip/slip nature of turning the ring by hand.

I will let stand the plastic part, as it does feel like a less-durable plastic than most lenses - but like every screw-drive lens I own the AF is a short buzz and MF has less resistance than I'd like.  I posted at pentaxforums and found another owner with the same result.. so something has changed since those Cosina reviews were released, apparently.  I paid more than the average Cosina price too, but given how it exceeds the reviews I'm OK with that.

In any case, a 205-gram 100mm lens that can do 1:2 closeups with no effort sounds good to me!  It could shake up the kit again around 50mm if this knocks the Sigma off its macro perch.  I expect the Sigma is better overall - but one thing that is "always true" is that no macro lens is a bad lens.  That can't always be true can it? :^)  The Tamron 90 is an excellent lens but at 400+ grams it stayed home too often; at about half the weight for similar results, the Promaster can stick around a while.

the updated kit - today's version :^)

A week after speculating on missing gear I have a 15mm. A month after seeking and finding a 35-70 lens for my manual-focus kit I have my favorite 28-105 again. When does it end? Obviously about two weeks after I'm dead, since I could go suddenly after placing a bid.

 So am I happy? Well, I'm a naturally happy guy so that doesn't quite fit - but I am satisfied, which is the equivalent in gear-lust terms.  The lenses in my possession only lacks a super-zoom and for now that's OK; the K-5 is a camera that still leaves too little missing to cause me any concern.

•  Today's AF kit: Sigma EX15, Pentax DA18-55, EX/DG50 macro, DA55-300. 
• The MF lightweight kit: Rikenon 28P, 35-70P, 70-150XR. 
• The MF 2-lens (or video) kit: Vivitar(Kobori) 28-105 and 70-150XR. 
• The alternate kit: Lumix G1, 14-42 and 45-200 OIS zooms.
• The full-frame-sensor kit? 15, 28, 50 primes, 28-105 and 70-150 zooms!

Good stuff all, and plenty of time to learn it all (assuming  I do not go suddenly!).  And now the film bodies, which now consists of two Pentax MEs and two Ricohs (XR-10 and KR5 super).  The Vivitar 28-105 came with a leather-wrapped ME 'SE', a special edition with diagonal split-image focusing screen.  Pretty cool, and now my lead body for the rare use of film.  I really want to learn more about the XR-10 that came with the 35-70 Rikenon though, it shows some interesting features from the early days of electronic cameras.  I need to download a manual so I can brush up, and to figure out what the button near the lens-mount does!

more coming soon ..

comparing macros: Sigma 50 and Tamron 90 (part zero)

Part zero?!?
Well, this is the part that can be done without touching or using either lens. Just the basic listing of specs to see how they compare.  Note that I chose not to call it Sigma 50 vs. Tamron 90, as they are not intended to compete with each other - Sigma makes other macro lenses closer to the 90mm focal length.  I just want to own one macro lens, so this comparison is intended to help me (and maybe you - no guarantees though!) to pick the most suitable of the two.

For several months now I have owned the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 macro. It is model 172E and not the most recent Di model 272E, but the only difference is in the coatings - Tamron itself says so. Tamron has made 90mm macro lenses for quite some time, and has been very good at it - so making major optical changes isn't likely!

I have enjoyed taking much closer close-up images with this lens, and it has delivered great results.  Let's be clear about that!  However, I decided that 90mm didn't quite fit my 'needs'. (BTW never ask a photographer what their 'needs' are, the answer won't really make sense to anyone else!)  When I want to use AF zooms I have that covered well enough, and in primes I have a 28mm and either a 40 or 50 - several of these in fact, none of which quite meets my 'needs'. I also have a great 70-150 f/4 zoom with prime-like image quality, and that lens usurps the Tamron fairly often. Given these two concerns, I found a Sigma 50/2.8 macro that could prove to be a great fit. I bought it after two people contacted me about the 90 when I put it up for sale, so figuring it was as good as gone I made the purchase. My loss is the web's gain, as I shall have both for at least a few days to compare them!

So on to specs: check the table below for highlights. Both are f/2.8-32, both have aperture rings with the auto 'A' setting in Pentax mount, and both take 55mm filters. Both also have focus-limiting switches to speed AF for general-purpose use. Add to this the various reviews online, where for each "my lens has a lot of chromatic aberration" at least three others have very little - that goes for both lenses, as does the comment that "there are no bad macro primes".

Model	Tamron SP 90 #172E	Sigma EX DG 50
Lenses Construction	10El/9Groups	10El/9Groups
Angle of View	27°	46.8º
Diaphragm Blades	9	7
Min Aperture(F)	32	32(PK)
Min Focus in.(m)	11.4(0.29)	7.4(0.19)
Max Mag. Ratio	1:1	1:1
Filter Diameter	55	55
Weight	420g/14.8oz	320g/11oz.
Diameter x Length	2.9x3.8"	2.8x2.5"
sensor/filmsize	fullframe	fullframe

To no one's surprise the 50mm is smaller and lighter. It also has no manual-focus switch, that's done on the camera body. The Tamron requires the body switch plus a second push-pull cam to achieve manual focus; Canon/Nikon users need only use the cam but Sony/Pentax folks are forced to take two steps. These come across as slight wins for the Sigma 50, but nothing major. My copy is the EX DG model, which means that unlike my Tamron it does have 'for-digital' coatings; we shall see if that has meaning in my shots! They have a different number of aperture blades, which could make a difference - again consulting the web, many people swear that blades affect bokeh far less than optics so let's not get excited over this quite yet.

Many debates go on about which is the better 'portrait' lens. For those who stick to convention the 90 wins here - but on aps-c cameras it takes 135mm-scale images, which is a bit above the traditional length. The 50 is more like 75mm which is on the low end of tradition. But let's be honest: my 70-150 and 55-300 zooms are fine portrait lenses, and at f/4 in the traditional range I'll probably have the entire face in focus, not just eyes. So I have enough portrait options not to worry, and both would do well enough - so to me this debate has no clear winner and is not a factor.

One other point does have merit. To achieve 1:1 macro imaging the 90mm uses a minimum focus that is further from the subject. The 50mm crowds the subject to reach 1:1, which can cause lighting problems and will spook away many creatures with wings or fast legs. Caterpillars may not care, and flowers definitely do not - but in some cases this will matter. People affected by this are probably seeking 150-180mm macros anyway, but it's worth a paragraph and favors the Tamron 90.

So how shall I test two such disparate lenses that do the same things?  It's fair to shoot a few general images from the same spot, to check both fields on their own merit as well as to see the difference generally.  After that, a torture test or two for chromatic issues, then in for close shots of the same items to the same scale at a couple of apertures.  This always proves to be a challenge to me, as at some point I will fail to keep the playing field level for "rigorous" tests.  ISO or white balance will slip to Auto, and when I learn of it I'll be too pooped to replay the games.  Oh well, I'll do my usual best & complain about it later (maybe by part 3).

Speaking for myself (and it is my blog!), my use of macro will not be a full-time passion. It will be far more common to shoot plants than bugs, and I like one less step to go from AF to MF. And as noted before, I have a 'need' for 50mm in my kit more than 90mm, whether to fit in with the 55-300 or 70-150. So it sounds like I have biased feelings here - which leads to another problem, 'new-lens syndrome'. The most common reason for buying a new lens is because something isn't quite right about the other ones. (That's not always true, I admit/confess!) In any case the newest lens always gets strong press and the benefit of the doubt... for a while at least. Despite this I will resist the temptation to declare a winner in part zero!

One more item about me is worth mentioning: I am not a big-lens fan.  I have found that anything over 500 grams gets left home too often to bother with.  The Tamron is only 410 grams, more or less; the Rikenon 70-150 is 40g more and I'm happy to carry that lens.  The macro is quite a bit thicker though, so on some level it feels larger than it is - and that could be a subconscious factor against it for me.  I'll try not to let it be so.

Finally - never ever forget that I am comparing one copy of the Tamron to one copy of the Sigma! One or the other may front focus a smidge, or have elements not precisely centered.  They may both be absolutely perfect; if so I'm one lucky guy!

So - focus speed and noise, sharpness, bokeh and the like await part one of this series, when the Sigma 50mm is in my hand and on my K-5.  For now I can say that the Tamron is reasonably quick to focus, a bit noisy getting there, seldom hunts, and I find it's a pain to take 2 steps to go from AF to MF.  Image quality is excellent, with truly minimal chromatic issues in my cruel tests designed to reveal such issues.

And that's as much as I will say for part zero!