Of those lenses, I only used three - 24, 50, and 77. I forced myself to use the 24 more than the others, I think, at least for a more widely varied range of situations.
I will be posting a gallery, hopefully tomorrow, with all of the shots from today that weren't horribly blown out for not paying attention to metering. Some of them turned out quite nicely, I think, but I'd like critique on the basic: considering how I prefer abusing wide-angle lenses, what do you think?
More coming as it develops (ha ha get it it is a photo blog)
[edit] MORE HAS DEVELOPED! The picasa gallery is here.
Some highlights from the 24:
I'm interested to see the results.
ReplyDeleteDid I mention I found an excellent instant backdrop for quick object photography? When I first moved here I discovered that the tennis court in the apartment complex has mini-stadium lights, and that a-hols play tennis at 2 in the morning. So... I went to Wal-Mart and picked up a blackout shade. It is flat black on the room side, but relective white on the window side (to keep the room cool). If I open one side, but leave the other side over the window, and place the object being photographed in front of it, I get an instant cliche blackout with excellent side-lighting softened by the venetian blinds.
JPS
There are, of course, more photos and a few that are zoomed out a little, so to speak, in the gallery. I uh... everything is a subject, I guess. It makes sense that I was testing for that, I suppose, since any POS lens could take photos of landscapes in this range. Or something.
ReplyDeleteYou pulled out two of the photos I was going to say I liked, the stir-fry and the last black-eyed susan. Good examples of using a wide lens up close.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that you abuse wides, but a lot of nature photographers use wides for closeups, since the perspective is great, and they often have very good close focus distance. I use my 17-40 and 10-22 for plant in-situ photos where I want to show the surrounding habitat, because I don't have to be twenty feet away. ;)
Is this a 24 you already own, or did you buy it already, or am I just confused? Anyway, I like this lens.
This is the one I already own - the one that boasts the "it takes four shots to get anything metered correctly" functionality.
ReplyDeleteI've come to realize I can't really get rid of this one, either, if I want to maintain my extreme close-up capacity, since it reverses onto the body - a feat I don't predict will be duplicable on the FA lens.
It gets a little confusing in the background, but it's a good lens overall, hence why it got me into photography in the first place.
You wouldn't know it's common for folks to use wides for close-up based on the Pentax sample galleries at pbase... but I'm happy to hear I'm not alone. Maybe I should trawl around some other manufacturer areas. Anyway, yeah, the abuse factor comes from the context - any idiot could buy a tamron 90mm macro and get close-up pictures of something, but it doesn't seem to be high on anyone's list of actually describing the object. The 14 is AWESOME for that, as is the fisheye (speaking of taking lenses out and forcing myself to use them... don't worry, GMT, I will not post that gallery here). That's what I call the abuses though - most people tend to favor UWAs for shooting either large objects with no room in front of them or kinda generic landscapes, neither of which require much nuance other than having the equipment in the first place. One of the things I found most exciting about both the fisheye zoom and the 14 was the close focus. The FA 24 doesn't get me quite as close as the K 24, but we're talking 11 inches against 9 inches, so I guess there's that. I also suppose that, where the general rule with telephoto internal focus is that the closer you focus, the shorter the actual focal length of the system, you'd see the opposite with retrofocus wides. I don't know, though.
I really just need to shut up and buy something. If I hate it, I can always return it, right?
Welp, I shut up and bought the lens. I'll have images beginning on 9/23, assuming KEH isn't lying.
ReplyDeleteso now you'll have HOW many lenses?
ReplyDelete-GMT
Okay, assuming I get rid of both the 16-45 and the K24, 14, 24, 43, 50, 50, 77, 135, 50-200, 10-17.
ReplyDelete9, nine lenses, and only 3 in the 50mm class!