moving on...

In both good and  bad news, the house has sold!  This means debts are nearly gone and our scattered boxes of lifestyle will be regathered soon in one place.  It also means we must figure out where that New Place actually is, and soon!

Tours of our next possible home have been ongoing, and for the most part the 17mm Fish-Eye has overtaken the 18-250 as the most-useful lens for such matters.  I did not expect to use the superduperzoom over 50mm often for this task, but 18mm isn't quite enough either.  Since the Fish-Eye shoots with distortion allowed its horizontal field is wider, a bit wider than the DA15 - so that's wide enough for me, and while the distortion is clear in many cases it doesn't distract me from what I want to see with these images.  If anything it's rather cool!  And as the shot here shows, the color & contrast are quite excellent.  This house this was shot from wouldn't take a contingency offer on a sure-thing sale - too bad for them.

Of course, one of those packed boxes scattered to the four winds holds an 8mm Rokinon fisheye,
something I was sure I wouldn't be needing before the move - and really I still think the 17mm is better for home scrutiny as the 8mm would make details too small to get more than a general sense of how these prospective homes look.  As I've noted before, I believe the SMC 17 has effectively removed the Rok 8 as my widest lens, or the lens that will get enough use to justify its place in the bag.  Someone else can enjoy it soon.  The same could be said of another box, which holds K-01 and K-5 bodies that have been benched during the move and now find themselves less valued.  I really should have seen that coming...

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.

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?

first impressions galore

Having just scoured out my kit and added several primes, it's time to say what I think.  Hmm, I should find something negative to say too though, we shall see...

In order of purchase, most recent first:

• Takumar 300/4 M42 mount.  The negative here is easy, it's 1500 grams and that's a lot.  What I get for my pain is a like-new lens with one spot on an interior lens that will make no difference to images given the really long minimum focus.  I've read that this was the version made from 1958-62, this thing is just about my age and looks great!  Every aperture setting is circular thanks to 16± blades, and it has a mount collar for tripod or monopod use.  Images are quite impressive, and almost two stops faster than my f/6.7 zoom; that one is about 400g though so it will still get some use!
• SMC-M 200mm f/4.  Looks to be in great shape, but the rear element does have a nasty scratch across the center.  How could that happen, I wonder, as it's so deeply recessed?  Anyway I cannot really see any issues resulting from this other than a possible loss of contrast; it's still sharp and colorful and contrast is decent even so.  I was torn between this, the tiny SMC-M 135/3.5 or holding out for a 150mm prime - but for the $32 winning bid I feel this was a good choice even with the scratch.
• Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8, M42 mount.  This one supposedly has small scratches on the front element, which a quick glance didn't reveal to me; the price I paid relative to its typical price makes it all worth while.  And again, this is a lens with a long minimum focal length so the front element markings will only affect purist shooters and not images!  I was really surprised at how tiny this lens is; the DA70 clearly has some good genetic history to explain its size!  Images look very nice and I'm a happy guy.
• SMC-A 50mm f/2.8 1:2 macro.  As noted elsewhere this is not my first macro lens, but it could be my last as I don't need true macro ability in my shooting.  I tried to bump it up my priority list and it didn't take.  At f/4 this would have stayed behind, but f/2.8 made it worth a larger bid.  This one cost me more than the above three Combined, but I am still glad I have it.  More tests are needed as the others came soon after to take away camera time, but I liked what I saw with the first few images - bright, sharp, excellent results.  Yay!
• SMC 17mm Fish-Eye f/4.  This goes back a whole two months so it hardly fits in the new-purchase list :^) but however old it's a very nice lens.  Its horizontal field falls between the DA14 and DA15 and that's wide enough for what I do, so the 8mm fisheye will not be long in my bag.  I really like how closely this lens focuses.

the 17mm arrives

I now have a rare 17mm f/4 Pentax SMC Fish-Eye lens, complete with its original case!  (You can tell it's old because fisheye is hyphenated.)  It definitely takes one beyond the 18-135's widest views, and with a twist thanks to the interesting distortion though on aps-c sensors the distortion is relatively low.  This is a late-70s lens¹ from the original Pentax bayonet-mount cameras, before the M series (and A, F, FA, and finally modern DA series) so manual focus and aperture/metering only.  Among other interesting things this lens focuses very closely at just under 8 inches, which leads to decent bokeh and great composition opportunities.  It works with film bodies too!

First images compared to 18mm on the DA 18-135 show the reach difference especially to the right and top on this test shot.  Exposure is a bit brighter too, and the coatings result in a loss of contrast which loses details especially in the outside shed.  The fishiness is also quite clear here along the outer edges of the frame.  Still it will be great for outdoor vistas, if not so much for indoors like this :^)

This lens could crowd the 24mm a bit, we will see.  The 8mm Rokinon will definitely suffer with the 17's arrival, so that one may go before it sees much use at all.


¹ It seems I have the 2nd edition of the lens, but it's still a classic from the earliest K-mount days!

still adjusting

The extra-wide prime lens lineup has always been sparse, and for good reason: film users seldom needed 20mm or less for a focal length, and such lenses were hard to make in those days so prices were very high & production limited.  Now that aps-c sensors need 18mm focal lengths just to be reasonably wide, the 10-20mm zone is filled with several zoom lenses - but primes are still somewhat rare.  Many curious beasts dwell here, like the Zenitar 16 fisheye and a new Samyang 16mm f/2 (not at all a humble lens at 570 grams!).

In the distant past Pentax made a 17mm f/4 fisheye.  The 17/4 is curious in many ways as it's really wide, very small and it's a fisheye.  These have been superseded in modern times by the much-liked DA15mm Limited prime, also f/4 but without the distortions of a fisheye.  I knew these 17mm lenses existed but hadn't really looked very hard for a copy.  Now that I have some exceptional zooms that go no wider than 28mm, a wider prime became of more interest to me.  At a selling price of less than half the Limited's going rate, this lens has some merit!  Sure it would be nice to have aut0-aperture, modern coatings and more than six aperture blades, but it's small and light and the price is right.  And thanks to its vintage my ME film camera will enjoy it too.  It even has internal filters - that should be curious on a dSLR.  Since much of the fishiness is falling outside the aps-c sensor, even the distortion is not a major effect (though it should be fun on film).

As you may have guessed by now, one will be joining me here soon!  It will be quite interesting to try out, as I have not owned a DA15 but did have a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye that I really liked.  This is still $100 less than my copy of that fisheye, so the contest is closer between those.  Really, this plus the 28-70mm f/2.8-4 make an interesting manual-focus team, and a manual telephoto would not be difficult to find - say a Pentax 70-210mm f/4?  We shall see...