how about this - pick either your 3 most used/favorite primes, based on coverage of what you 'need' to shoot and optical performance based on output, or 1 zoom and 1 outside-the-zoom-range prime, ditch everything else, and be happy.
this coming from a guy who still has too many cameras, but getting better...
That is one expensive fixed focal lens, for a wide. A few years back when the Yen and Dollar were more amenable to Canon sales, my 17-40 4L barely cost that much NEW. Y'all get ripped off because Pentax insists on placing their gear mid-way between consumer and pro lines from Canon and Nikon.
Just to share, my usual kit consists of my 10-22, 17-40, and my 100 macro. For weight, sometimes I ditch the 10-22, and if I'm going somewhere dangerous or crimey, I leave the 17-40 at home. I very rarely carry my 400, but I sometimes use it for wildflowers. My 28-80 and 100-300 5.6L are mostly wet area gear along with a camera other than my 40d, since they are B kit. I have a 70-300 Qray I haven't used in years. My 50/1.8 plastic fantastic is only for low light and occasionally for portraits on digital,my macro gets film portrait duty. My 18-55 kit lens is used as a body cap.
My area of need is something in the 28-35mm range as a normal prime for 1.6x. I also lack a good lens between 50 and 100.
We also suffer from having both a tight supply of new glass because Pentax isn't as liberal (mostly because they are unable to be) with manufacturing as well as a drought of old autofocus glass due to the explosive popularity of their cameras.
Apparently, the FA* 300mm f4.5 was running over $3,000 before the current DA* 300mm f4 began shipping. That lens sold new for between $800 and $900 in early 2006. The DA currently commands $1,200, if I recall correctly.
and i thought i was bad with a little bit of Leica glass! the 3 pieces i have - 40/2, 50/2, and 73/1.9, each cost less than your 24/2 - MUCH less for the 40 and 50 - each came WITH a body for less total than your lens cost. the 73 was close tho, and it's in.... interesting shape... but they're not so common.
that said, if you want wide, 24 is about as wide as you can get without it REALLY showing, and f2 is FAST for such a thing. use this as a reference to make your lens seem REAL cheap (and a bit slow:
i'm mostly happy with f2 glass in 35mm, even after having much faster in the past, just for the size. now in MF, i want fast, which ain't so common. looking for a pentax 105/2.4 for the 6x7 at the moment.
The funny thing about f/stops is that while you guys are looking at the low f/stop range as a selling point, I've actually made a lens decision once based on the high end.
Between my waterfall photography pushing me to long exposures, and my wildflower macro photography pushing for extreme dof, I've gotten accustomed to not caring about the speed of the lens. Where it hits me is I take snapshots for some reason and realized my lenses are too slow.
What'll really kill you is large format lens prices and speeds. My optar is a normal lens at f/6.3!
I, meanwhile, LOVE depth-of-field separation and base most of my artsy-fartsy photography around it. The Pentax system is great for that, especially if you have the now-$1,300 to blow on the 31mm f1.8 limited. That thing has the best 3D separation of them all.
I do think, though, that I may need to start keeping the 67mm ND filter on me at all times to better help me use the 24 to its character. I'll find out tomorrow, though - lens passed through Hagerstown about five hours ago.
Speaking of which - you guys are a pretty good judge of what I look for in a photograph, so I'll ask you - should I get into event photography? I need more money, I seem to enjoy using my system to its fullest extent, and I have sort of a unique collection of crap to work with, which might serve to get folkssses attention.
No, I'd find another way. Everytime I've used my photography for anything other than fun it destroyed my interest in it for a while. My shift to wildflower photography was mostly due to trying to capitalize on my waterfall work (actually, I wasn't even trying to make money) and taking it too seriously. I haven't seriously headed out for waterfall photography in years. All because I turned it into a project.
pretty much what Josh said about turning fun stuff into anything other than just pure fun stuff. i'm not a mechanic by trade because i still ENJOY taking things apart and such - though all the friends and family with broken rides keeps me from my own most of the time. same with photography - my sister is getting married next year, and i've been asked to take specifically black and whites, but i'm not the hired guy who 'has' to get all the shots. it's rare that people can do what they enjoy for any sort of living or otherwise trivial profit - sanity check that before anything else.
as well, you post alot of pictures, but 'event photography' is about the last category i'd peg looking through the galleries - do you do it, enjoy it, or have talent at it? these details make a slight difference.
last guy i know who turned it into a job did it all digital, and now has no decent digital camera and hardly shoots his film stuff. yet for every bunch of guys like that, there's a Diane Arbus.
as for loving DOF separation, wider glass will of course hurt you badly for that, but you knew that. smaller image size does as well. such is life i suppose. oddly enough, i think i have mostly slower glass than you, and can prob get more separation. the nice 3d rendering of the older Leica glass doesn't hurt either - biggest reason my main lens went form Nikon 50/1.2 AIS to Leica 50/2 Summitar.
how about this - pick either your 3 most used/favorite primes, based on coverage of what you 'need' to shoot and optical performance based on output, or 1 zoom and 1 outside-the-zoom-range prime, ditch everything else, and be happy.
ReplyDeletethis coming from a guy who still has too many cameras, but getting better...
-GMT
Well that's easy - 17-70 f4.
ReplyDeleteBut where's the fun in that?
wait - you mean this 24/2, that costs more than any single piece of photo gear i own cost me:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Autofocus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-AP06999028535J?r=FE
-GMT
Now to be fair, I got the one that was in mere EX condition for $599.
ReplyDeleteAlso for what it's worth - that 24 is the FA* series, so it's roughly comparable in concept to L glass.
buh buh buh but digital's cheaper!
That is one expensive fixed focal lens, for a wide. A few years back when the Yen and Dollar were more amenable to Canon sales, my 17-40 4L barely cost that much NEW. Y'all get ripped off because Pentax insists on placing their gear mid-way between consumer and pro lines from Canon and Nikon.
ReplyDeleteJust to share, my usual kit consists of my 10-22, 17-40, and my 100 macro. For weight, sometimes I ditch the 10-22, and if I'm going somewhere dangerous or crimey, I leave the 17-40 at home. I very rarely carry my 400, but I sometimes use it for wildflowers. My 28-80 and 100-300 5.6L are mostly wet area gear along with a camera other than my 40d, since they are B kit. I have a 70-300 Qray I haven't used in years. My 50/1.8 plastic fantastic is only for low light and occasionally for portraits on digital,my macro gets film portrait duty. My 18-55 kit lens is used as a body cap.
My area of need is something in the 28-35mm range as a normal prime for 1.6x. I also lack a good lens between 50 and 100.
We also suffer from having both a tight supply of new glass because Pentax isn't as liberal (mostly because they are unable to be) with manufacturing as well as a drought of old autofocus glass due to the explosive popularity of their cameras.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the FA* 300mm f4.5 was running over $3,000 before the current DA* 300mm f4 began shipping. That lens sold new for between $800 and $900 in early 2006. The DA currently commands $1,200, if I recall correctly.
Pentax ain't cheap outside the basics.
and i thought i was bad with a little bit of Leica glass! the 3 pieces i have - 40/2, 50/2, and 73/1.9, each cost less than your 24/2 - MUCH less for the 40 and 50 - each came WITH a body for less total than your lens cost. the 73 was close tho, and it's in.... interesting shape... but they're not so common.
ReplyDeletethat said, if you want wide, 24 is about as wide as you can get without it REALLY showing, and f2 is FAST for such a thing. use this as a reference to make your lens seem REAL cheap (and a bit slow:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/586206-USA/Leica_11_601_24mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M_Aspherical.html
i'm mostly happy with f2 glass in 35mm, even after having much faster in the past, just for the size. now in MF, i want fast, which ain't so common. looking for a pentax 105/2.4 for the 6x7 at the moment.
-GMT
The funny thing about f/stops is that while you guys are looking at the low f/stop range as a selling point, I've actually made a lens decision once based on the high end.
ReplyDeleteBetween my waterfall photography pushing me to long exposures, and my wildflower macro photography pushing for extreme dof, I've gotten accustomed to not caring about the speed of the lens. Where it hits me is I take snapshots for some reason and realized my lenses are too slow.
What'll really kill you is large format lens prices and speeds. My optar is a normal lens at f/6.3!
I, meanwhile, LOVE depth-of-field separation and base most of my artsy-fartsy photography around it. The Pentax system is great for that, especially if you have the now-$1,300 to blow on the 31mm f1.8 limited. That thing has the best 3D separation of them all.
ReplyDeleteI do think, though, that I may need to start keeping the 67mm ND filter on me at all times to better help me use the 24 to its character. I'll find out tomorrow, though - lens passed through Hagerstown about five hours ago.
Speaking of which - you guys are a pretty good judge of what I look for in a photograph, so I'll ask you - should I get into event photography? I need more money, I seem to enjoy using my system to its fullest extent, and I have sort of a unique collection of crap to work with, which might serve to get folkssses attention.
I'd but fewer lenses. ;)
ReplyDeleteNo, I'd find another way. Everytime I've used my photography for anything other than fun it destroyed my interest in it for a while. My shift to wildflower photography was mostly due to trying to capitalize on my waterfall work (actually, I wasn't even trying to make money) and taking it too seriously. I haven't seriously headed out for waterfall photography in years. All because I turned it into a project.
Ymmv.
pretty much what Josh said about turning fun stuff into anything other than just pure fun stuff. i'm not a mechanic by trade because i still ENJOY taking things apart and such - though all the friends and family with broken rides keeps me from my own most of the time. same with photography - my sister is getting married next year, and i've been asked to take specifically black and whites, but i'm not the hired guy who 'has' to get all the shots. it's rare that people can do what they enjoy for any sort of living or otherwise trivial profit - sanity check that before anything else.
ReplyDeleteas well, you post alot of pictures, but 'event photography' is about the last category i'd peg looking through the galleries - do you do it, enjoy it, or have talent at it? these details make a slight difference.
last guy i know who turned it into a job did it all digital, and now has no decent digital camera and hardly shoots his film stuff. yet for every bunch of guys like that, there's a Diane Arbus.
as for loving DOF separation, wider glass will of course hurt you badly for that, but you knew that. smaller image size does as well. such is life i suppose. oddly enough, i think i have mostly slower glass than you, and can prob get more separation. the nice 3d rendering of the older Leica glass doesn't hurt either - biggest reason my main lens went form Nikon 50/1.2 AIS to Leica 50/2 Summitar.
-GMT