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...

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?

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? :^)

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?

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!