testing 1,2,3 zooms to 200mm

I stood on my porch with my K-01 and tested three xx-200mm zooms at 135mm, 200mm and for close focusing.  They each did the job pretty well, which is no surprise nowadays.

I locked aperture and ISO but the left one does not show the 0.7EV exposure boost that I thought they all had - and no stopping the clouds in any case!  Anyway, the 18-200 Sigma looked best for colors, the Promaster 28-200 perhaps a touch sharper, and the DA50-200WR the least color-fringed.  No surprise since it's the zoom with the least range to compensate for, and a later test looked sharper than the first go.  The 28-200 is an older copy of this oft-remade Tamron lens, and color fringing has been its weak point for quite a while in my experience, which goes back to my Alpha days in 2008.  This version has 72mm filter threads and is about 100 grams bulkier than the more recent models.

One thing is clear in close-focus: the longer the zoom's range the closer you can get, but the least like 200mm the scale becomes.  Long-reach zooms must be made this way to do what they do, and it's very clear when popping off the 18-200mm and sticking on the DA 50-200WR; I had to step quite a way further back to reach focus, but the resulting image scale is actually larger!

No major surprises revealed, but good to know.

bad timing

Once the K-01 arrived, I hit the perfect time to send the K-5 away for a maintenance check.  It has the 'dreaded' mirror-flop issue, where a fully charged battery overloads a circuit and causes the shutter to click extra times - it doesn't take extra photos, just sounds like it's doing so.  Apparently a cicrcuit-board swap will take care of it, and other inspections will probably detect anything else that needs knowing.

But now it's summertime, and having a rugged camera is more important!  I can manage fine with the K-01 as long as the weather is stable, though the screen-only preview is harder in bright sunlight - but it's too bad the timing isn't better.  I have the extended K-5 warranty, and perhaps the local Pentax shop can turn it around faster with this summer timing.  Anyway that's the next camera expense to plan for, even if it's just postage to and from the shop.

the Kit - this time I mean it! mean it... mean it... me

OK, a final flurry of shopping and the kit is reshaped.  Here is the core* of my photo gear as of late June.

Mounted on the K-5 is yet another fine copy of the DA16-45.  That lens was one of the big reasons I went back to Pentax as a digital choice after letting Sony go reinvent itself without me.  I have been forced to sell it once, and chose to a couple of other times - this is my fourth copy so this is truly the voice of experience speaking -- and I dearly hope I've learned from it all!  If nothing else my pension checks will dictate that it stay around, I expect...

To cover the midrange I have the DA40 and DA70 Limited duo (hiding in their fine leather pouches).  These are absurdly good lenses and I hope never to part from them, unlike other lenses I have owned.

In the WR and telephoto department I will carry the DA50-200WR.  This lens is plenty good enough and much easier to carry than the well-regarded 55-300mm (another lens I have owned at least three times), and on a wet hike it will be the on-camera option for max moisture resistance.  It has the additional ability to make use of 49mm filters like the Limited primes!

On the occasional day when more reach is needed, the 100-300 Quantaray/Sigma will join me.  Other than being quite slow optically (f/6.7 at 250mm +) it's talented, compact and lightweight, and is faster to focus in good light than the DA55-300.  When lighting and weather are at their best, I can cover quite a bit with 16-45, 40, 70 and 100-300.

* Not appearing above because they won't get much use:

• Sigma 15mm fisheye, good enough to get more use but less vital with 16-45 in the bag
• SMC-A 24mm f/2.8, a nice lens but the 16-45 excels in this zone with greater versatility
• SMC-M 50mm f/2, which cannot compete with the Limited pair & has 'limited' resale value
• Sigma 18-200DC gen-1, a quite decent all-purpose lens that will be on the K-01 often
• Quantaray 28-90mm w/1:2 macro, a great $35 lens that is hardly worth the price to ship! :~)
• Hanimar 400mm f/6.3 preset, for emergency wildlife only!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
early-Aug update: the 28-200 and 18-200 are gone, as is the venerable Vivitar 28-105.  The 15-fish and 28-90 remain available but no takers yet.  The primes will not harm me if they stay, and if I take them to goodwill I fear that I might return home with more! :~)
mid-Aug: the 15mm fisheye is gone, sad to say.

another old friend returns

Prodigal lenses surround me!

First it was the 28-90 Sigma/Quantaray (top), then a  100-300mm of the same vintage (left).  While seeking a wide option I rediscovered the Tamron 17-35 (right).  And now a used-but-effective 18-200 Sigma has reappeared (bottom).  I have many good memories from these lenses, from backpacking to general bikeabouts; the 18-200 is decently sharp for its type, shows far less chromatic fringing than the DA18-135, and reads f/5.6 out to 170mm before dropping to f/6.3 beyond that. Yes that means it's 5.9 with rounding but good enough for me!  Truly one could take prize-winning shots with such a lens, but I do not plan to dump everything else upon its arrival.

Depending on its focus speed it could be ideal for the K-01, and this plus a Limited prime in each pocket will do great things any time.  It's only 1:4ish for closeups, but I have just allowed my macro lens to leave the nest; seems I very seldom do more than 1:2 so extreme closeups are not my 'thing' and the 28-90 can do that.  At least I tried and I know my macro interest now, after trying out three dedicated macro primes!

So while this could be a kit-rearranging move, I expect that the budget is more likely the item that will cause changes.  As a newly retired human with smaller checks in my future, I may need to think about what gets used often and what just looks nice on my shelf.  We shall see!  In the meantime I can comfort myself with the knowledge that the four lenses cost me a total of just over $400 - and that's quite a lot of versatility for a relatively small price!

News Update 6/28

Well I did it again, but for a very good reason: a sub-$200 DA16-45 became available.  Compared to the Tamron 17-35 I gain coverage both wide and long, and shed 10mm off the filter size and 80 grams off the bag weight.  In exchange I lose full-frame/film coverage, f/2.8 at the wide end, and an  aperture ring.

 This change voids the last month or so of acquisitions, as the 28-90mm can go too: the DA16-45 goes nearly 1:3 on closeups at f/4 with smoother bokeh, so the 1:2 at f/5.6 is less amazing.  For that matter, even the 15mm fisheye is now at risk from the 16-45!  I'll probably keep the 28-90 for $35, and it can join the $25 100-300 as the film-capable lenses.  The 18-200 can stay too, as it's hard to beat as my casual lens.


In other news, the two excellent Rikenon lenses have moved on. They are both deserving of more time.  The 28/2.8P and 70-150/4 XR served me very well!  The Promaster 28-200 is also on the runway awaiting final instructions.

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!

shouldn't couldn't wouldn't --- did.

Time to disconnect the auction site from my bookmarks now.  For just over $70 I picked up a (Tamron) Promaster 28-200 lens (which I 'promise' not to use past 120mm).  It will be faster than the recently-grabbed 28-90 (Sigma) Quantaray, and of course in 'emergencies' can go to 200.  We'll see, but only one will stay.

Did I pay too much?  Maybe.  Oh forgot to mention, that price included a (Sigma) Quantaray 100-300, one that I've owned and liked before.  Twice.  So let's say each was $35 - and that I feel that I did well!

Except for the new lens cabinet I might need to build... :^)

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.

Kit update - yes, again

Enough tweaks have occurred since the last update a few short months ago - so here we go again!

APS-c and Compact Bodies:

• K-5, still amazing after nearly 1½ years in my bag.  No real complaints, though it will need to go in soon for a solution to the full-battery mirror flop issue.
• K-01 (white), great fun since November.  It's definitely a different way to achieve similar goals, some better and some worse.  I find I can manage a few things I didn't think I'd ever be willing to try, which is seldom a bad thing.  I am sure glad it's here so the K-5 can visit the shop!
• Q: his and hers black ones, with 02 zoom lenses.  Tiny, fun and as good as a 1/2.3" sensor can do.  Nice to have the 'standard' dSLR menu on a compact, that's for sure.  I've still not purchased an adapter  or the PK lenses, but I'm wavering... 

Lenses, in approximate FL order.  
Just for amusement I've added (ff) to those that are full-frame friendly, meaning all but ONE.  Even the Limited primes that I own are deemed FF-tolerant, much to my surprise.  I am not planning to grab a full-frame Pentax dSLR any time soon, but if a windfall were to strike I'm well protected.

• (ff) Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye: yes the DA15 would be smaller, but this has so many good things going for it that I have no complaints.  It's not all that large in any case, and it's faster, focuses closer and works with full-frame (film) cameras. Oh yes, often a bit cheaper too on the used market!  Great fun and very talented, and really not all that fishy for landscapes on an 16×24mm sensor.
• (ff) Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0: part of what makes this nice is that it doesn't crowd any other lens.  Overlap can be a good thing most of the time, but a Limited lens deserves breathing room.  I owned this in my SonyAlpha days, it was my first really good lens.  If anything it could crowd the fisheye out of the lineup!
• (ff) Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 macro: another SonyAlpha veteran lens that I liked four years ago.  Dirt cheap, feather light but decent imaging and 1:2 macro at 90mm when you want such things.  An excellent one to have on the camera when you have nothing planned or you want something you won't mourn over if damaged.
• (ff±) Pentax DA40/2.8 Limited - yes it's true what others say: absurdly small, absurdly talented and worth owning.  For many it's the first Limited because of its price; I got such a good deal that I cannot repeat it, and it's a real keeper even had I paid $100 more like most other owners.  Sharp in focus and smooth elsewhere, thanks to great optics and nine-blade aperture, and too small to justify leaving behind.
• Pentax DA 50-200 WR: the perennial underdog telephoto lens for Pentaxians, this featherweight and weather-resistant zoom only suffers by comparison to the 55-300 models.  For now I prefer the compactness of this one, and on the K-01 it is a very good copy - now that I know that the K-5 will either need to match or get its first lens ± adjustment.  This is a great zoom for the K-01 as it's small and light - nearly a clone of the macro that's a bit further down the list.
• (ff±) Pentax DA70/2.4 Limited - ditto at least, except that this one was not to be found cheaply.  It's still worth the price.  Something about this feels illegal, to be a bit telephoto yet tiny and fast - and let's not forget the nine aperture blades to make the images really snap.  Live and learn: Limiteds are worth having.
• (fF) Rikenon XR 70-150/4: when I put down my bid at auction I barely knew this lens existed.  It's been with me quite a while, relatively speaking, and other than its old-school lens coating it's a real marvel.  I don't recall seeing many 2-ring internal-zoom lenses in my 1980s film days but clearly a few were out there, and this one is smooth and sharp.  It's a bit dense and at 440 grams it's heavier than all but the 400mm - but fixed f/4 through the range, 52mm filter threads and a built-in shade are nice to have.  Optically it's of prime caliber and can sorta do close focusing in its 'macro' mode.  O What Fun!
• (ff) Promaster 100mm f/3.5 macro (AF): I had tried two other macros, and felt like Goldilocks.  The Tamron 90 was excellent but too bulky, the Sigma 50 excellent but I had to get sooo close for real macro images.  The Promaster only goes 1:2 on its own - but I have the original 'matched' multiplier to achieve 1:1 shots (49mm, so it fits the Limiteds and 50-200), and it's well under half the size and weight (and price!) of the Tamron.  This does very well for my mid-tele and macro work, and is another small wonder.  I've made it pretty clear that I like that in lenses!
• (ff) Hanimar 400/6.3: and then there's this thing.  A preset T-mount lens (with 16 aperture blades!) it's a curiosity that was handed to me by my father-in-law; for the price of a K-mount adapter any 400mm lens is hard to beat.  I need to use it more but it's done quite well on my few test outings.

Compared to earlier times, that's not many lenses - but it's more than I can use at any one event that's certain.  Most events can go with perhaps two primes and a zoom, and seldom would more than four go anywhere with me.  A very compact, thrifty and comfortable kit.  Again.

This set leaves me with some excellent mix-and-match sets:

1. 17-35 + 40 + 70 + 100m for best of the best, with 15f optional
2. 17-35 + 40 + 50-200wr for most compact & fewest changes (probably the backpack kit)
3. 28-90 + 50-200 for when wide angle isn't going to be a big deal
4. 28 + 40 + 70 ultimate compact trio that covers many circumstances

Add the 15mm fisheye to any of these for ultimate width, or make other combos to address specific wishes (macro prime lens for example).

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

Software:
 I now own Elements 10 and Premiere 10.  Plugins include NeatImage for noise reduction, SmartCurve for lighting adjustments and ReDynamix for redistribution of dynamic lighting with easy controls to temper the  HDR-like effects. I also use Picasa software for the easy changes and quick text additions.  No Lightroom or other powerhouse software will appear until my computer is massively updated, which I don't foresee any time soon.