oh no: lens tests again!

 

So, I did it again. I trimmed my kit down, only to let it grow again. I fell for the Costco Principle: look how much I saved by.. er.. buying stuff! ? !! Slow learner, that's me -- assuming I'm learning at all.

I picked up a kit lens the best possible way: from the Ugly bin at KEH.com. I have yet to hear anyone complain after doing this; I am sure that some are quietly returned and no more is said, but what one tends to hear on forum sites is flat-out praise.

Now I'm one of them: in my case, Ugly meant no hood or front cap, but otherwise a great lens in excellent Ugly condition.

Then I began to lose it - first to a student down on his/her luck, then to a person leaving Pentax. So I should get a gold star for promting education (if not a tax break), and putting an ex-Pentax user out of their misery was nice of me too. But suddenly here I am with an 18-55 II kit lens, a DA16-45 and a 17-70 Sigma. I've liked the 17-70 since my Alpha days, and had one for the Pentax (why did I get rid of it, I wonder..). And I love the focal length of the 16-45.. well OK just the 16 part, that 45 part is why I've sold this one Twice before! And the kit? I hear Allan Iverson in an interview room somewhere, saying "we're talking 'bout KIT LENS, man. Really? KIT LENS?". But they're good, and often very good.

So - more tests. I hate lens tests, for two reasons: they are often of things I seldom shoot, and I screw them up. I screwed this test up too, by forcing all lenses to use the same aperture And shutter speed - great to see exposure differences, sure, but a lousy way to let a lens show what it is capable of doing. Oopz - er oops. So I shot all lenses around 50mm (threw in a 55-300 and two Rikenon primes too), then closeups, then as wide as they go. And I looked them over for a good 10 minutes before picking a winner. OK more like 45 minutes.. but it felt like a week. I hate lens tests.

And the winner? Well of course, everyone's a winner - pass out the medals and take a bow! Well, to my profound embarrassment I give the overall prize to the Ugly 18-55. Not excellent at anything much, but the others had certain areas where they failed worse than the kit. I so wanted a 'better' lens to take on my backpacking trip.. but hey, I'm taking a 240g lens that shoots .35x closeups and takes 52mm filters! Those are mighty good points, so I'm satisfied. And I'll be even more satisfied when I recoup 80% of my expenses selling the other lenses.

Now go get some sleep, and when you awake you won't remember this article, and those lenses I put up for sale will sound perfect as your kit-lens replacement.

"we're talking KIT lenses, man!"

change is the only constant

The bank balances dictated a constriction to my imaging deals, with more emphasis on 'outgoing' -- so out went the DA35 and DA16-45 (with great reluctance). In six months I expect to reacquire the zoom, it fits my style very well. I toyed with letting the k-x go, and the 18-200 Sigma, then finally put both together and off they went. The money from that deal went truly sideways though, as a local offer on a k-r was truly too good to pass - so the bank balance dropped but not by as much as planned. A few more deals may trim the 'fat' from my lens collection and make this sting a little less.

So how did the k-r catch my eye? Well, the k-x felt like my ideal camera, and I felt certain that I could wait at least another generation before moving it. However, the k-r catches all of my "but.." issues re. the k-x and with a very small size/weight penalty. The sensor is equivalent if not equal, and that means amazing. Had the k-r been priced $30 higher I'd have looked the other way (albeit with discomfort) - but there it was, and here it is. If the budget breaks further I will more likely let the micro-43 gear go instead, as I have a good amount of Pentax gear at prices that just cannot be duplicated until another generation of cameras is in people's hands. Several $50 primes, a couple of zoom bargains and the k-r in absolutely pristine condition - yes, once again I can say "this will serve me well for years" and believe that I mean it. :^)

welcome back my friends..

I admit it - despite two failed attempts to really like the Pentax 55-300 zoom, I was hunting again. I owned both DA and DAL versions at one point with my K-7. The DAL went a-swapping for a weather-sealed 50-200, and the DA left during the budget crisis that ultimately cost me the K-7 as well. Now I've retrenched with the k-x and find that the better high-ISO performance allows this long zoom to have a better chance to yield blur-free images.
I didn't need this lens badly, so I let a few deals slip away, primarily on the DAL (optically identical but with a few less bonus features). But at last I stumbled into an offer I dared not refuse - so a 'like new' DAL is on its way, and the Sigma 100-300 will move on to cheer up someone else. The 100-300 is a better lens than I had expected, but pulling back to 55mm is a great feature - and f/5.8 beats 6.7 for those hi-zoom lo-light images I persistently try to capture. At least I now have iso5000 available in a pinch!

I find it ironic that my two original favorite lenses are back in the stable. The DA16-45 really caught my eye when I migrated from Alpha gear, and teaming it with the 55-300 and a 50 prime seemed perfect. The K-7 led me in other directions (mostly weather-sealed ones) but the k-x has turned me around. Thankfully the wheeling and dealing was a draw financially, so I'm happy to be back with this pair.

another Rikenon joins the kit

When I saw this at auction, I drew a blank. I knew nothing about the lens, so I did some research. A 70-150 should do well given its short zoom range, the XR line is well thought of, and it's reasonably small at 450g and using 52mm filters. OK then: why not submit a few bucks over the minimum and watch? Well, that was enough.


And its performance is disappointing - in that it makes me wonder why I own so many other lenses!

This is one talented and fun lens. It's also a bit of a pioneer with its separate zoom and focus rings despite being made in the 1-touch era, and more impressive it has an internal zoom mechanism - only focusing causes this lens to change size. It has a sorta-macro mode, less than 1:5 closeup but still handy. I've had a difficult time wrestling it off my k-x, it's that much fun and the images are that good.

Here's the image folder in Picasa: enjoy! I know I enjoyed making them.

assembling primes, part 2

a follow on to this post

I've had some more luck recently on the auction markets, most notably for a 24mm lens. I found a deal on the forum website for a Vivitar 24mm f/2 - exactly what I had hoped for, a very nice price, and in great condition. Since then I also won out on an SMC-M 200mm f/4 in quite excellent condition. And to top it off I caught a winner on a 'Sears' 50mm f/1.4, which is a clone of the Rikenon XR model. Those have generally won high praise online, and I concur: it's a very nice lens, as long as flare is not allowed to ruin the contrast.
So I now sit at 24 - 28 - 35da - 50(x2)- 100macro - 135 - 200mm. More than enough for now, more precisely one more than enough; that Chinon 28 can go. I'd prefer a manual 35mm lens, but the DA35 is in fact cheaper than any manual that I have managed to track down. Guess I cannot complain, but I seem to want to!

kit-like zooms, Pentax style

Something about the 18-55wr keeps calling me back - I've had two now. It's the overall package that's hard to ignore: really light weight, quick shift, weather seals (even if the k-x has none it's reassuring) and quite good image quality. Also takes smaller filters than lenses that try to replace it; when matched up to my 50-200wr with a 49/52mm step ring, one set of 52mm filters can do it all!

Something about the 16-45 keeps calling me back - I've had two now (boy that sounds familiar..). It's bright at f/4 through its range, fairly light weight, and its 16mm f/4 setting keeps me from spending all my cash on the 15 Limited :^) It also has quick shift, which I find quite handy. Color and contrast are very good, and the latest one was well treated and at an excellent price. Part of its issue before was that I was trying to go with 16-45 and 55-300, and that gap sounds small but seemed to be something I need. I've closed a part of that gap with the 50-200, and I will just crop as needed (or maybe that 18-200 Sigma will be attached to the camera that day?). I feel better about this lens now that I've tried so many alternatives, and for outdoor/mountain scenery I feel the wider range will be valuable. Again: we shall see..

kit-like zoom commentary: Sigmas first

What I liked about my three Sigmas, and why they could be expendable.

The 17-70 is a great do-it-all lens: very good focal range, decently bright, good sharpness and bokeh, and extremely good at close focus. I have already let this go though.. what happened? Well, it's a bit heavier on the k-x than I liked (I am an admitted weight weenie), and the 16-45 is cramped in focal length but goes a smidge wider and focuses nearly as close. I perfer the color and contrast a bit more on the DA lens, and the quick shift is something I missed. And this is one of those Sigmas that zoom in the other direction relative to most other models; of course the DA16-45 extends the opposite of others' so this is a relatively small knock. Other than not going out to 70mm, the DA16-45 is just more matched to my needs, it seems.

The 18-200 is another reverse-spin zoom, but boy does it have range. Think of it as an 18-170 f/3.5-5.6 and you'll see why the kit zoom moved on despite the quick-shift and light weight. My 18-200 weighs in under 400g and is good with sharpness and bokeh. Its downfall is that Pentax reports all over 170mm as f/6.7, even worse than the stated 6.3 (splitting hairs here though). It may stick around as the ideal quick-snap option though, the one lens to carry when you are not out to do imaging but just capturing opportunities. It could use a bit of PP to really sharpen up relative to the Pentax lenses I have (16-45, 50-200wr). And when focusing close with the 18-200 (which it does well) the effective FL up close is more like 170 than 200 fully extended. All hi-range zooms do this though, one of the 'compromises' that these lenses inflict on users. We'll see if it stays around..

The 18-50 f/2.8-4.5 is a new and curious lens. The price is quite nice, it does not change size while zooming or focusing, focus is nearly silent, and it's mighty fast. It's only f/4.5 from about 45-50mm so it isn't one to go faint quickly, another positive. It also has stabilized optics, which Pentax users don't need but my tests suggest it does a slightly better job than SR in low light. As an indoor lens it would beat out the 16-45 for silence and brightness is used wide open.. but that isn't a common use for me. Its close-focus talents are not close to the 16-45, and its range is more cramped. Sounde like this one will not be staying.

testing a mess of kit-like zooms (executive summary)

I've caught a few amazing deals recently online and at auction, which allowed me to try out several wide to mid-tele zooms on my k-x. I had not intended to do this, but fell victim to the proverbial offers that I could not refuse! Let me retrace my steps:

• Had a very nice 18-55wr with my K-7 but let both go.
  
• Found a used k-x at one site, a used 17-70 Sigma (1st generation) on another.
  
• I then found a great deal on another 18-55wr, which is substantially lighter than the 17-70! Weight is important and the price around $100.
  
• I placed a bid of just over $200 on an 18-200 Sigma, and to my surprise it won. I had this in my Alpha days (the 17-70 too!), and find it's still a good match with the 12-Mpixel sensor.
  
• A sub-$250, gently-used DA16-45 called out to me.. and I answered. I let the 17-70 go to pay the bill. I tried the 16-45 on my K-7 but didn't love it as much as I expected.
  It's a bad sign when you own the same lens twice; a straightjacket that keeps me away from online sites is starting to sound like a good investment :^)
  
• Last but not least I hit a Fathers Day deal on the new 18-50 Sigma with HSM (whisper-quiet focus) and OS inside (in-lens SR). It also doesn't change size during focus or zoom - cool. At that point the 18-55wr left again.

So that's it. 18-55, 17-70, 18-200, 16-45, and 18-50 - all in the space of about three months! I will gather my thoughts soon and provide more detail, and talk through which one or two will stay. Each has merits, few have demerits (other than redundancy), and all have image quality that earns my coveted "more than good enough" award. We'll see.