going with the easy answer

A good kit doesn't come much more simple than this: three talented zooms covering 10-300mm.

For ultimate image quality the kit should have more primes, faster glass - and 24Mpix or greater camera to make best use of them.  For the amount of shooting that I do right now and in the near future, such investments make no sense - and today's Pentax primes are not weather resistant.  The 10-17 can focus to point-blank range, capture anything I want to shoot and its fishiness is great fun; sadly it's not foul-weather friendly like the other two lenses.  The venerable 18-55 DAL WR has really never let me down; its markdown features like distortion at 18mm certainly are irrelevant compared to the fisheye at 17mm, and the red kit lens also gives me 1/3 lifesize images.  These two lightweights will keep the rather bulky 16-85mm zoom out of my bag.. for a while, at least! Hmmm, I'd save 50 grams in the bag, lose $250 in the wallet and 10-16mm coverage, and an occasional lens change.  Nope, not for a while.  If anything would prove more convenient it might be the new 18-50RE, with its silent focus and 58mm filters that match the HD55-300.  The new red-ring HD is the newest version of the best Pentax-fit telezoom in its price range, and none speak ill of it other than its leisurely speed to focus.

These are not my only lenses; the 50mm f/1.7 A can be useful when light fails, the 300mm mirror lens is small and creates unique images and the manual zooms are fun at times.  In general though, for what I shoot (and how seldom I print big) the three AF zooms can handle anything that I need a camera to manage.  The K50's higher ISO abilities make faster glass less crucial (and only the 150-450mm beast is WR) so the balance of bulk and image quality is just right for me.

The 100-300 Sigma DL now can keep the NX adapter mounted and become the unstabilized NX300 telezoom for a while, where its old-school aperture ring will be useful. I've never tried keeping both the 100-300 and 55-300 before; it's nice to have them both yet not crowding each other!

we do as we must

As October winds down we should be signing papers to refinance our home and crush some debt, which in the future would allow a new WR body to drop in.  However we have not yet been invited to sign, and life's expenses continue.. so with more than a bit of reluctance, a few favorite lenses have been put on the block.

First to go is the DFA 50 macro.  I really like this lens.  I've tried Sigmas 50 and 105, Tamron 90, Promaster 100/3.5 over the years and the DFA is my easy favorite.  I got this at a really good price, so maybe it will return.  Sadly though, 50mm is such an easy spot to fill that it's not ideal for a refill.

I've often said that I've tried every macro but the DFA 100 and Sigma's 70mm.  Yet again my blind spot is in play: I have not tried the Limited 35mm and it's much loved despite the absurd distance from front element to subject to shoot 1:1 closeups.  It's something to think about though.  The concept of obtaining DA21 + 35 macro to go with my A50 f/2 and M100/2.8 would be a good primal setup.

The other lens on the block is the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4.5.  I don't want to let this go either, but again my price was excellent so I can find one again.  Better still: get the HD 16-85 and call my zoom set complete (along with 55-300).  Maybe some day I'll get the 150-450.. or maybe not!

We'll see where this leads in the end, but my path is reasonably straight on this -- for now!
Update - looks like both may be on the move tonight.

The 'dream kit' (all I ever do is dreeeeaam..)
zooms: HD-WR 16-85, DA∙L 55-300mm (maybe a HD-WR later)
primes: Ltd DA21, Ltd DA35 1:1 macro, smc.A50, smc.M100
Bodies: K-r for now, we shall see in the K-3ii vs K-s2 contest!

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! :^)

group photo, at last

Everyone that I'm expecting has gathered at last!  Here's a shot with the nx300 and 50-200 III, which as noted has an uncertain future here - the Pentax primes are faster and lighter so may win out despite their lack of stabilization.  Note that the lens hood on the 16mm fits all three NX primes

I've added a new contestant to the group: the Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/2 refuses to be sold, and is more compact and brighter than its macro cousin.  If I were to go with dipoter lenses for close focus, why not go smaller?  The 150mm at far right has displaced the 135mm f/3.5 for better spacing from the 100mm; yet another surprisingly good price for the 150 makes it happen.

This lineup simply must do for now - even the minimal tax return is spoken for in other places, and the gear collection must get only smaller.  Acquisition is far more fun, that's for sure!  The Pentax 135 and maybe the 50 macro could go, as well as the 50-200 III.  I'm also not convinced that I need 16 20 and 30mm NX lenses, but the 16 became available while the 20 worked its way to my home.   More tests (50 v 50, 16 v 20) will be needed!  Gosh I suck at  lens tests, far more fun to read than to perform properly.

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!

cutbacks

Well I had not planned for a property-tax bill in October, but here it is.  Given that new reality I felt compelled to visit the KEH buyer (who was in Vancouver WA this week) and parted with some well-liked gear.  Some items they offered little or nothing for, so I didn't lose all my best items - but the DA40 and A50 macro are gone, replaced by an SMC-A 50mm f/2.  Faster and more compact, but no more 1:2 shots except with the Quantaray 28-90; thankfully that lens does 1:2 quite well so no major issues.  Another option is the macro TC which yields 100mm f/4 at the macro setting of my choice!  The offer price for my other f/2 lenses (28 and 85) were not worthy so my kit didn't change much.  They had no interest in the Quantarays so they are still here too.

Despite the low offer for the K-5, I let that great camera go: it needs repair for the mirror-flip which would take longer to fix than the tax bill allows, and may in fact be deemed outside of warranty and cost me more money to fix!

Despite all this activity, the kit still looks good :^)

• bodies: just K-50 for now, plus film bodies and Q
• primes: 17-28-50-85-135 and 400
• zooms: Pentax 18-55 DA wr, 55-300DAL + Sigma 21-35 + Quantarays 28-90 1:2, 100-300 + JCPenney 80-200/3.5  (all of the above lenses except the Pentax zooms work for 36x24 imaging)
• extras: Pentax  AF280T flash, O-GPS1, and -- well, I have a nice tripod around here somewhere...

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.

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.

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...