convergence

Two different paths come together this week - and a new/old friend will come of it.

First path was one in search of a new-ish prime lens for the µ43 system. I figured it would be a Lumix 20 or some variant of a 25mm (of which many are available). With the 14mm and the Pentax 40 and 70mm Limiteds in hand, what would be the better fit?

Another path was an old, familiar one: backpacking. I had been contemplating a Sierra trip to a familiar area - well it was so in the mid-90s at least. It was a short hike to pretty country, and a pony ride would be available to carry my wife.. and maybe some nice extra camp comforts? Hmm..

This path led me to reconsider my dear old hiking slides that were wasting away inevitably in a corner of our garage. I'd really like to revisit that trip - but of course the slide projector has been dead for a decade or more. Time to reconsider the task of digitizing the slides?

My plan for that has been in the works for a few years. In fact I had planned to use an Olympus E500 and the 35mm digital Zuiko macro. That pairing was long gone, but I did have a 4Thirds adapter for my EP5 and G85. Wonder how much that lens costs now?

Convergence occurred - and off I went to look over sale copies of the 35mm f/3.5. I put up a bid and today it worked in my favor. The lens will arrive soon, and for well under $75! Just for old times' sake I looked at the imaging-resource lens tests, and remembered why I bought a copy before. This is an excellent 1:1 macro lens, even more so for such an absurdly low price.

This purchase tells me that the 20mm will be a better future fit than a 25mm lens. It also fits nicely with the nagging thought that I should let the 40mm Limited prime depart with some other Pentax gear. The 70 will remain however!

Time to take another look at those old 1990s Sierra hike slides..

castaways (spousal considerations II)

With the recent appeal of the GM1, my wife and I decided the Samsung NX pair can go.
Easier said than done nowadays, as everyone knows it's an orphaned system - but it is still excellent gear capable of impressive images.  The NX300 has a 20Mpx APSc sensor with PDAF sensors within, so its hybrid CD+PD system focuses quickly. The touchscreen allows for quick selection of where to AF in stills and video. I had tried to sell my copy several times recently with no success.

Today it sold!
I shall miss the uniqueness of the NX system, and how it captured colors just a bit differently from any other system I've tried. Blues and browns were somehow stronger, and images of Duncan may never quite be the same.

So the New Kit XVII has surfaced:

• Lumix / micro43 body (GM1 for now)
• Lumix 12-60 sealed power-IS lens (24-120mme)
• Lumix 45-150 tiny telephoto zoom (90-300mme)
• Olympus 17mm/2.8 pancake prime

clockwise: usb charger, Oly 17, Zuiko 35 macro adapted,
45-150 on GM1 and Lumix 12-60

At some point a few more small lenses will drop in; hopefully the Sigma 60/2.8 and a fisheye type of some sort. The higher-end primes are quite amazing, but my wife isn't the only one here who prefers their gear to be small. Besides, I am not a big user of 50mme so I don't need one of the many 24/25mm lenses. I have fast Pentax primes at 100 and 200mme so indulging in µ43 telephoto primes with few additional features feels unreasonable.

I'd like a weather-sealed body to go with that 12-60 but the GX7 is a good choice for now. Images should match the GM1 but with advanced controls & features like a viewfinder, better grip and tip screen. No rush on a second body though -- going by my track record that means "within a month", sadly. Not sad to own: sad that I'm so predictable! 

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

Oh yes: the emergency-backup kit remains for now. These lenses can be adapted to micro cameras, but AF is dreadfully slow that way. Still, using in MF isn't all that bad, and it's nice to have a 1:1 macro now and then.. not to mention 400mme for distant critters!
Olympus e500 dSLR (4Thirds)
Zuiko 14-42 zoom gen.2 (28-84mme)
Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 1:1 macro (70mme)
Zuiko 18-180 superzoom (36-360mme)
Sigma 55-200 zoom (110-400mme)

Given the resale value of ten-year-old digital cameras, and that the E500 uses a Kodak CCD sensor, it's hard to find a reason to give it up. CCD sensors have a different 'look' from CMOS; not many can state what that difference is, but many prefer CCD when the ISO setting can be kept at its base setting. Why not have the option? I also plan for it to be my slide-duplication setup, as 8Mpx will be plenty of data without totally jamming up a few hard drives.

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?

Fun with numbers III

Yes even with Roman numerals!

I feel like Portland's NBA franchise right now as I wheel and deal in search of the Right Fit.  They are doing this right now to fill behind the dearly-departed LaMarcus Aldridge .. so why not join them?

As noted previously, I allowed a DA* zoom to depart, traded for two Limited primes.  The DA15 is ideal for me (mind control, already?) and the DA40 is a great little lens.  It's clearly better than my humble A50mm f/2 - but are other needs more glaring, like maybe the big gap from 50 to 135mm?  While the DA70 pairs nicely with the 40 it's too near the 50mm for my tastes.  Perhaps find an excellent 85-100mm prime, keep the 50 and allow the 40 to go in another trade?  Like a base-salary bench warmer the 50 and 135mm lenses have no decent market value, unlike the DA 40.

Hmmm: right on cue: someone is selling their Tamron 90 macro in order to buy Limited primes.  That sounds like a fine trade opportunity that would fill my largest gap and bring 1:1 macro back into the bag, so I'd be picking up a two-position lens with great versatility.  *Update* - the trade negotiations did not pan out so instead I picked up an 'experienced' former star: a KEH "Ugly"-grade smc-M 100/2.8.  No macro but talented and small, which I always like!


The M100 and I have a history, in fact I traded another copy away last season.  This and the M85 f/2 compete for the mid-tele slot much like the DA55-300 and Sigma 100-300 have dueled in the past for the telephoto zoom position.  I'm convinced now that the 55-300 is superior despite its slower focusing, and that the 85 and 100 are sufficiently similar not to worry (or spend!) too much for 15mm and one-stop difference.  For now this is a fine fit for me, so my work here is done.

And so here, yet again, is my kit!
Pentax primes: DA15/4 - K24/2.8 - DA40/2.8 - M100/2.8 -  A50/2 and M135/3.5 in reserve
Pentax Zooms: DAs 18-55WR, 55-300L --  for sale: DAs 10-17, 17-70
off-brand zooms: Vivitar 35-105 f/3.2-4 one-touch, JCPenney 80-200 f/3.5



OK that's enough fake 'roundball' talk.  It isn't my favorite sport, not even top-3.. but for pro sports it's all Portland has. 

a gathering of smc-M teles

Once again I forgot the age-old rule of lens buying: seek and your shall find.  Many have used that quote over the years for purposes beyond camera gear, so it's true in many areas of life!

 I really was OK with A50/2, M100/2.8 and M150/3.5.  Honest! Until I did a quick check on the M85mm f/2, a lens that I really liked, and found it for about $125 cheaper than my previous deal. Whoa, must have!  And off goes the pattern..good thing the 135mm was still in my bag.  My best rationale for the 85 is that it spares me the cost of a DA70 at some point..right?  So three cheers for the trio of 50, 85, and 135: hip hip hoo

Until I browsed for deals on macro lenses, and an F-graded smc.M 100/4 1:2 appeared for well under $50.  Oops, wasn't supposed to see that!  It was characterized as showing "light haze or fungus" and for the price why not?  It arrived today and is far better than expected (more on that below) so ..hooray for 50-85-100-?? The 100/2.8 is clearly expendable now, but of the 135 and 150 which to sell?  And when will I break down and get another 200.. :-?

So here they are..hmm where's that 50?  The 85, 135, dirty 100/2.8, 100/4 macro & 150/3.5.  Note that as of today the hazy m100 macro is a like-new A100 macro!  I've contacted the seller since this is clearly not a sub-$50 lens.  I cannot allow a misconception that large to pass without comment so the ball is in the seller's court as they say.

Note also that another mini-crisis hit our wallet, and the da40xs, fa.j 75-300,  f17-28 and 50/2.8 macro were returned for refunds.  A sub $50 lens was OK, the m85 barely worked but the others combined cost well over twice as much.  And now, back into sell mode.

old friends and acquaintances

We've celebrated some financial freedom by bargain shopping and scoring on some of my 'best-of' lenses.

In the last post we welcomed my 3rd copy of the smc-A 50/2.8 macro, a 1:2 wonder that gets high marks everywhere.  This copy is as good as the other two and might focus a bit more smoothly.  Next up is the F 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye zoom.  I really like the K17/4 Fish-Eye but this does as well and I finally found a sub-$200 copy; that's a real surprise in the new post-anouncement, imminent-36×34 'FF' Pentax dSLR environment!  The zoom has AF and data contacts and somehow goes slightly wider than the K17, so those features will ameliorate the loss of extra-close focusing that the prime does so well.  In most places the K24 will do for wide enough, but the F17-28 gives me back the ultrawide option.  Hoo Ray!

F17-28, DA18-55wr, K-r with A50 macro, K24, and another K-r (faux K-x)

The 17-24 seems a bit looser in the zoom ring than my previous copy, but thus far images look fine.  The 18-55wr was a $50ish toss-in deal, so about half what I usually paid; now at least the two bodies have that zoom in common.

Two more surprises next week, an old friend and a new oldie! :^)

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.

the ins and outs of gear-swapping

A few new arrivals over the recent weekend = other departures.  

What's now in, and what's free to travel:

IN: Samsung 20mm f/2.8 pancake, this will compete with its 16mm sibling!

OUT: Samsung 20-50, tiny talented but slower than the primes.

IN: Samsung's 16mm pancake, f/2.4 and tiny.  Very convenient!

OUT: Pentax 17mm fisheye, a great lens that is less vital for wide shots.

IN: Pentax smc-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro, my 2nd copy and I've missed it.

OUT: Pentax smc 55mm f/1.8, excellent but I like at least 1:2 capability.

IN: Vivitar 35-105mm f/3.2-4, a fun PK one-touch zoom that's fairly small.

OUT: ProSpec 28mm f/2.8, because the NX 30mm pancake is really that good!

One offer pending.. *UPDATE* smc-M 100mm f/2.8 coming soon!

So the kits as they stand.. at the moment!
4 Samsung = 16, 20, 30, 50-200
6  7 Pentax = DA 18-55 and 50-200 WRs, A50/2.8 macro, M100/2.8, M135/3.5
plus Vivitar 35-105/3.2-4, Quantaray 100-300/4.5-6.7
2 random mounts: JCPenney 80-200/3.5 M42, Hanimar 400/6.3 T-mount

---
13 total, plus several in the sell/donate bag..

Note that all Pentax lenses can be adapted to Samsung but the two DA zooms would have no aperture control.

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!

the 90 arrives

We were planning a trip that would be ideal for the Q - more precisely the Q and an 06 telephoto lens.  I bought one at a good price and liked it a lot, but then the trip was called off.  While looking for ways to economize on the larger kit I encountered a trade offer of a Tamron 90 f/2.5 for an 06 zoom.  The deal was made, and now the 90mm macro has arrived!

Since this particular version of the Tamron 90 macro (the model 52E) was unknown to me, I read up on it before making the trade offer. Until now I thought that all f/2.5 models were manual focus, so this must be their first AF model.  I also thought all Tamron 90s were 1:1 macros but this one is 1:2.  So much for my general knowledge of early Tamron macros! :^)  It also lacks the bizarre AF/MF clutch that both Sigma and Tamron think are so clever, which may be true with non-Pentax systems.  That alone makes this appeal to me, as I really dislike the two-step focus change!

So this lens has AF, aperture ring and a limiter switch, and takes 52mm filters.  With the limiter set the lens snaps into focus down to about 1:4 which isn't a bad place to change over.  And it really does snap; focus speed is very fast even with no limit set - but it definitely helps to stop the spinning if it isn't needed.  The image quality is extremely good even wide open so it can be used as a general low-light lens and not merely for good closeups.  And if I feel really bold it can be a 180mm f/5 supermacro with the Vivitar macro/TC attached, though I haven't tried this to say how the results might look.

This serendipitous find allows the 85mm f/2 to find a new home, which will pay off a few items on the lens account.  Like the SMC 17mm before it, I find myself forsaking all-manual lenses for AF/auto-aperture and saving some money in the process.  This along with the F17-28 and DA20-40 are very good lenses so whatever happens I'll be just fine.

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 stab at macro + my first Tak

I have mentioned before that I tried several dedicated macro lenses in the recent past.  A Sigma 50/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, Promaster 100/3.5, Sigma 105/2.8 and a manual SMC-M 100mm took turns, but nothing quite convinced me they would get enough use.  The most convincing was the Sigma, which was a nice 50mm lens with bonus 1:1 coverage.  In the end they all left, and now I have several close-up filter-type diopters and a Vivitar 2x combo teleconverter and extension tube.  These too have not caught on, and I have pretty nearly despaired of taking 'real' closeup shots.

On a parallel track I've been seeking a few good manual-focus primes.  The SMC 17/4 Fish-Eye and SMC-A 24/2.8 are a very good start.  I have a decent SMC-M 50/2 but had hoped for something more 'versatile' whatever that might mean.  I have the DA40xs for autofocus, so a 50mm lens is not vital - but having a set of well-spaced MF primes might catch on.

from bdimitrov.de site

Looking back at me this evening was an SMC-A 50mm f/2.8 1:2 macro at a decent price.  Hmm that would be OK, and would instantly be my best close-focus lens... but I won't bother if it's not any good.  Yikes, this thing scores 9.6+ out of 10 at pentaxforums - that qualifies as really good!  Many owners say it's their sharpest lens, so I'm convinced.

So farewell to the M50, and here's to my one last attempt to use a macro lens.  I've read often that manual focus is as good as AF for really close work, and I did not give the SMC-M 100mm enough time to get used to it, as I was still an AF addict at the time.  Maybe this one will be the answer - or equally likely, after this time I will desist from asking the wrong question!

Hopefully one more MF prime will round it out, though if I find an 85mm I may be forced to add another for the long end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
4/11 update - and for now that 'one more prime' is a 105mm f/2.8 Takumar M42 lens.  Serious retro pickup, and a well regarded lens probably from the 1960s.  This copy has lived a full 50 years and it shows, but mere age does not stop a Tak!  Well, so they say; I shall know soon.

This means I have a a Tak, one K-series and two A-series Pentax.  Maybe I should keep the M50/2 around so I have one of each?  Or maybe later I shall find a tweener M - who knows?  Never I, that's certain...

what a difference...

a few days (and early holiday sales!) makes.

Last week at this time the primary kit =  κ-01, DA16-45/70, and Sigma 50-150, no backup.
Once the packages arrive it will become κ-5ii, DA21/50/70, and Sigma 105 macro, κ-01 backup!  No doubt a step up, though the wide zoom is now a white DAL 18-55!

Strange days indeed.

The DA50 has arrived; it's quite a nice lens and feels better than most when focusing manually. I had heard that, now I know it! It also focuses rather close relative to other AF primes I have tried.   I'm not certain this can find a place so close to the DA70, but for now it's a nice addition; perhaps the DA35 will turn out to match better with the 21 and 70, or a DA40xs might make a timely appearance.  To look at it another way: with 1/2 stop more light and very good images, will the DA50 allow the 70mm enough room to shine?  

Whatever wins out, for the next few months it will not be allowed to bother me.

DA21 and the II are now here.  First camera tests are promising, I took a photo in deep shade and focus locked nicely with the 50/1.8.  So far so good!  The DA21 has a bit of a reputation as a less-than-razor-sharp lens that does best at closer focus, and this copy seems to be the same.  I shall try some AF adjustments to see how it goes, but razor sharpness does not make an ordinary image into a great one (and software can assist) - so I do not expect this to go badly.  The 21 looks enough like 18mm to be acceptable as the widest lens other than my fisheye 8mm, so the 18-55 can pretty much stay locked to the K-01.

Farewell to the Forty.. and ??

I had not intended to let any Limited lenses get away... but that was before the DA16-45 began crowding them out.  I had unsuccessfully marketed the DA70 a couple of times - keeping the 70mm makes much more sense than the DA40 given the 16-45, and the 70mm is slightly faster and nearly as small.  This injection of camera funds helps alleviate my financial remorse over the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 as well.  I had felt that the 70-150's arrival made the 70mm expendable, but the huge size/weight difference really doesn't make for a fair comparison of the two on 70mm images alone.

So yet again, the kit has shifted.  Maybe at some point a 100-135mm prime will go along with the 16-45 / 70 / ?? for hiking trips (the 50-200WR is great except at the edges, where the 50-150 bests it handily).  I have diopter attachment lenses for decent closeups, but of course a 100mm or 105mm macro would be even better - but after the K-5 has been serviced.  Perhaps I can find a manual lens to fill in for now.

Rumors swirl around a Pentax 20-40mm Limited zoom, which may be WR and/or have DA motor; that would be fun to own, but it definitely will not be a cheap lens!

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

And hello 105...
The 50-150 tests are in, and results are clear on several levels - and the truth hurts.  Without doubt it's an amazing lens, sharp right to the edges below f/4, silent focus, plenty of good.  At the same time, that 750+ grams could be used to carry several other items.  One that has stood out as an ideal match is a 100mm± macro lens.  Yes, guilty as charged: I recently sold off a Cosina-made 100/3.5 but it had no focus limiter and focus was loud & crazy.  In this case a Sigma 105mm EX.DG finally came up at a good price, and here it comes now to complement my 16-45 and 70 Limited as a top-notch hiking trio.

This means the 50-150's purpose has lessened, as the less-edgy but far lighter DA50-200WR can reclaim its position as both good telephoto and foul-weather choice.  Yet that makes less sense when attached to a K-01, and my K-5 sits in the moving van awaiting both unpacking and servicing for a few age-related issues.

The easy answer is to trade the 50-150 for an updated K-5 so I'm ready for the wet season.  I'm more convinced now that the II-series has features I would really like, notably the improved AF and crisper screen.  So the Sigma is on the block for cash or a K-5II trade; if I am cashed out I shall await a good post-Thanksgiving fire sale.  As to the II versus IIs debate, I am satisfied that the IIs may be sharper overall but the color moiré is a risk (though a slight one) and my skills are more in play than the AA filter by a long shot.

Now for the silly part: I also have the K-01 on the block.  That's just silly, both because I really enjoy it and also because all of its boxes and manuals are packed for our move and wildly inaccessible!  I shall not be aggressive with the sale or lower the price, so we shall see where that leads.

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!

90 v 100 on a few subjects

The Quantaray/Sigma 28-90 arrived today, so I put it to a few tests against my well-liked Promaster 100mm macro.  Both do about 1:2 closeups in native mode; the Promaster includes a 49mm filter-type multiplier to achieve 1:1 but I seldom use it, so 1:2 seems sufficient for me.  The lenses don't compete on speed, since it's 100/3.5 vs 90/5.6, but what the heck we'll put them head to head anyway.

A few quick tests at 1:2 were not definitive so I shot the neighborhood to see the results.  In the climatis-and-mailbox shot the Q-ray image was decidedly better in exposure, avoiding the major blowout of highlights that the Promaster displayed.  Just a single shot but a clear difference.  Looks like a flower horse, but truly it's not!

Later I shot a closeup of our porch post with many things behind; both shots have rather nervous bokeh on display, so again no clear victor.  I shot these through a window, which helps neither lens show off to its best effect.

Let it be noted that the Q-ray focus is slower and feels more precise, and it covers its full range in about 1/4 turn.  The Promaster nearly goes full circle, meaning if it misses you'll be waiting a while for it to get close again.  Enough victories that maybe the 100mm will be sent packing.

In the wide department the same could happen with the Sigma 15mm fisheye.  It takes some excellent and fun images, but the 17-35 Tamron non-fisheye is clearly a winner and both are f/2.8 - still counting votes on the result there.

2013 begins!

And so the new year sweeps in.  Portland had no frost until the 29th, then three straight frosty mornings; winter arrived at last.  I pulled out the Promaster 100mm macro and visited the fungi in the front yard, and got a few keepers.  Some day I will do this with a tripod and 2-second mirror lockup... oh wait this was shot with the K-01, no mirror to lock up!  Funny how old habits and reflexes go, some slide past with no regret while others stay locked into memory and refuse to budge.  Shooting macros handheld is an old habit that I've yet to shake - just often enough, it works well enough.

The K-01 is clearly a different way to work compared to dSLRs, but it's not a bad way.  Many things I felt sure of were not important to getting an image, and some are nearly fun (like time-lapse movies, though that will take more practice).

In any case, 2013 should be a fun year to take pictures!

a month's trials and a fine hike

I took a pretty walk early in October, trying out several lenses in turn.  The bag carried the DA18-135 for simplicity, plus a Sigma 15 fisheye, Rikenon 28 and the DA40.  The Sigma 50 stayed in the car, victimized yet again by the DA40.  Sadly the Promaster 100 macro stayed at home; it would have been a fine complement to the other primes.  Also sadly, the 49-52mm step ring did not come, so the DA40 had no polarizer like the 28 and 18-135.  While I'm filled with regrets, the Rikenon 70-150 f/4 really should have been there too!

At first the 18-135 got all the shots and I found it satisfactory - especially since it was my only 'telephoto' option! - but weather conditions were perfect at the time, so its weather sealing was of no value here.  No need for silent focus either, as I was essentially alone and 6500 feet up!  So after taking a shot at  around 40mm I popped on the Limited prime and enjoyed it for a while.  The smaller camera/lens combo was most pleasant!  It alternated with the all-manual Rikenon at times, which with the cPL filter took several powerful images.  I must say that overall I preferred the primes as my way to shoot.  Having fairly large FL gaps is not big to me, and 15-28-40 felt just fine; I would like to add the DA70 some day to fill the space to the 100, but I also have a Rikenon 70-150 zoom that would have served very well - sadly it also stayed home. 

At the turnaround point on my hike I broke out the 15mm fisheye, and it was great fun.  Starpoints made the sun into an artistic light source, and the larch and huckleberry shrubs were great color features.  I'm always impressed that the sun can be in an image yet exposure doesn't overcompensate with a black foreground!  Soon the 15mm went back in the pack, and the DA40 was back on.  The 40 and 28 got plenty of use on the way back.

So what did I learn?  (And will it stick?)
I think the 18-55WR is enough WR range for my purposes, and the $300 saved can go back in the fund for a DA70.  I will need to try that 70-150 f/4 with the other two primes first however - as the Rikenon 28 makes the DA21 less vital to my plans, the 70-150 may restrain my 'need' for the DA70.  I'm still on the fence for a macro, with two fine choices: the Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG has been sidelined by the DA40 and the Promaster 100/3.5 lost its chance to shine this trip.  So a few more tests to winnow the set are needed.

More shots from this trip on Picasa!

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.