Budget High-Performance Pentax Lenses

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
yardcoyote
Senior MemberPosts: 2,430Gear list
Like?
Re: Lens cap for XS?
In reply to britcam, 10 months ago

I figured somebody here would know the answer.  I can't say my Fujifilm lens cap is a thing of beauty, but it is very convenient and cheap.

 yardcoyote's gear list:yardcoyote's gear list
Pentax K-30 Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
new2pentax72
Regular MemberPosts: 118
Like?
Re: Lens cap for XS?
In reply to britcam, 10 months ago

Please look on eBay you can get 27cm plastic lens cap for 1 or 2 usd.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jamesm007
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,444Gear list
Like?
Re: Budget High-Performance Pentax Lenses
In reply to kriztian, 10 months ago

Hello kriztian!

This is not directed to you only. Its a fact that copies (same model) lens vary in IQ. But there is a fairly wide tolerance range before we start calling parts of a picture not so good. And there are two factors in that tolerance. First and foremost is its IQ you see when taking a picture through your dSLR through out the frame; does it get blurry, soft, sharp.... Next is manufactures tolerance; of course to make it short that is, is it a good copy or bad. Most people don't get bad copies. But that means folks do get bad copies! Just to note, how bad the lens quality is (IQ) varies as well.

Now the first factor can be controlled somewhat by the photographer. Are you out of focus, are you in a bad spot of the zooms range. Most zooms have one or more spots in the focal range that give poor performance. A first time dSLR user may have a good copy but not know where and how to set shutter speeds, f/stops.

I assume you know all in the paragraph above.

So that leaves a copy that's not up to par. How does a person know they have a copy not up to spec? You don't unless you can get copies from all over the country or world and compare them! So no one lens review can ever hope to be even close to accurate. No one can say look at Photozones review. Nope one copy tested to manufactures spec or not is not anywhere near scientific. Its all elementary school stuff that we all know.

"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study"

Quoted from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_and_the_scientific_method

Its a quote but most of us learned this in elementary school. So one person testing a lens is no where close to giving enough info on a lens to help you decide to buy it or not. Even the camera test body the reviewer owns might be on the edge of manufactures tolerance and when the reviewer uses that body to test a manufactures lens, the results will vary. Want proof of this? Read lens reviews from one web site to another. A lens review is closer to a personal opinion than a fact.

There is the obvious. If a lens tests good at a web site. Readers make comments and most like the lens (note there will be some who don't) being tested. You buy a copy and it works for you as you expected. You in your mind just verified the findings of the review. This is what happens most of the time as most lens are within spec. So the odds favor this scenario.

Sometimes I see a lens on eBay for example, that I may want to bid on, but what's its IQ. I have no idea how a normal copy of the lens performs. I look at reviews and test pictures and aggregate the results to form about 40% of my decision. Next and most important I look at user reviews and full size pictures taken with that lens in conditions I would want to use it (landscape, indoors, portrait). Try to find websites with lots of user reviews on the lens your looking at. I use that for about 60% of my decision. Sometimes its surprising how much user reviews will go against the official review of the lens at that website. Its also very surprising in what we individually consider a good picture. It varies person to person by more than you would think! For example the DA50-200mm WR I bought this year. Its review it pretty bad at some site. But user reviews are more mixed and overall more positive. I went with that and that is what I got. The lens is not bad at all. No its not a DA55-300mm, but its small size and WR along with really being the replacement for a 70-300mm in FF makes it a nice little package with decent enough IQ. Users where more accurate then reviews.

Now with all of the above. If I get a lens and it does not perform like I thought. Well I assume I got a below average copy and send it back to the seller (if not eBay). I am not saying the DA18-55mm is a great lens. I am not saying its a bad lens.

I was going to post a pic from it but what good would it do?

 jamesm007's gear list:jamesm007's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
britcam
Senior MemberPosts: 2,020Gear list
Like?
Re: Lens cap for XS?
In reply to new2pentax72, 10 months ago

new2pentax72 wrote:

Please look on eBay you can get 27cm plastic lens cap for 1 or 2 usd.

I found one on eBay in the UK thanks

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
britcam - Rich S

 britcam's gear list:britcam's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Ricoh GR Digital IV Fujifilm X-E1 Pentax K-5 IIs Fujifilm X-A1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
Re: +1
In reply to ccd, 10 months ago

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

And this 16mm?

The 18-55 out performs the 16-45 on many aspects, its also much more budget, which is the point of the post.

In what aspects are those? I

Chromatic aberrations, wide angle distortion, and its weather sealed. Sharpness too I think is very much on par or slightly better when tested on the same body.

Beyond that, there is budget and there is value.

Great, this thread is about bang for the buck, dollar for performance. The lenses I picked are very difficult to argue against.

That being said, I will go somewhat hypocritically go against the grain and recommend the much maligned 50-200 over the 55-300. Not only is it considerably cheaper

Which 55-300mm are you referring too? The DA L is almost exactly the same price as the 55-200mm WR.

I done thought my post through before I done posted it ;).

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
Re: +1
In reply to britcam, 10 months ago

britcam wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

fakuryu wrote:

GossCTP wrote:

I would think the DA 35 should be on that list as well.

-- hide signature --

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

The DA 35 f2.4 attached to any Pentax DSLR body could be enough for everybody... it is an excellent lens too!

-- hide signature --

There is no such thing a "Pro" level gear, just Pro level work.

It's a good lens, but not as bright or versatile as the 50mm (also the price is higher most of the time).

Carl

-- hide signature --

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

The 35mm f.2.4 is a tremendous lens - lightweight build, and excellent optics. It is the equivalent of a 52mm standard lens in 35mm terms, so could be considered to be a standard lens on APS-c.

On the other hand a 50mm becomes a short telephoto (75mm equiv) so unless that's your preferred shooting style, the 35 is the better choice .... IMHO ... OK a 50 is faster but with the Pentax high ISO ability that's not really a problem.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
britcam - Rich S

This is a push debate, both lenses are stellar and a good bang for the buck. I picked the 50 because there is less redundancy if you purchased all three lenses. Its a brighter aperture and better at isolation of subjects, so it out performs the 35 in those areas.
Still I'll call it a push.

C

-- hide signature --

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
I picked the 18-55mm in the trio
In reply to kriztian, 10 months ago

kriztian wrote:

I don´t agree that 18-55 WR is a good lens. In fact I am very dissapointed. At 18mm wide open it sucks and you have to push it to minimum 5.6. I does not have the color and contrast that one could expect from a god lens. I regret that I bought it and I almost never use it anymore. Cheers

-- hide signature --

kriztian

Because it is the only one of the three that is WR. Plus unlike others here, I found the lens to have a very good contrast and sharpness characteristic with little CA at all. The idea of picking a trio is to round out a users lens lineup to cover many different tasks and scenarios. Hardly anyone uses an 18-55mm WR wide open, if you want a fast lens, the 50mm is recommended in this trio.

See? One that is a good landscape lens, wr rated, f/5.6 onward... one is a bright lens, and one covers telephoto quite well.

-- hide signature --

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Underdog 3000
Regular MemberPosts: 163Gear list
Like?
Re: Budget High-Performance Pentax Lenses
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

i don't have the 55-300 so I can't comment.  I do have the kit the 35/2.4 and the 50/1.8.

After much use, I prefer the 50 - good for portraits and more accurate focus.  The kit is soft, noisy and slow.  My 35 has focus reliability issues.  I would sell them all if I could get the new Sigma 17-70 as I do not shoot in adverse weather much.

I hope the new 20-40 is worth the money.  Will help the brand significantly..

I know, this post is about cheap glass but you get what you pay for.

 Underdog 3000's gear list:Underdog 3000's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Pentax K-5 Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
Re: Budget High-Performance Pentax Lenses
In reply to Underdog 3000, 10 months ago

I know, this post is about cheap glass but you get what you pay for.

Not always, the point of the post is getting decent quality and performance for a budget price. Some things in life do out perform others at similar price points :).

The 55-300mm and 50 1.8 are both capable of super sharp results and also excellent at subject isolation with good to very good bokeh effects.

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
justin23
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,230Gear list
Like?
Re: +1
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

cgarrard wrote:

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

And this 16mm?

The 18-55 out performs the 16-45 on many aspects, its also much more budget, which is the point of the post.

In what aspects are those? I

Chromatic aberrations, wide angle distortion, and its weather sealed. Sharpness too I think is very much on par or slightly better when tested on the same body.

Beyond that, there is budget and there is value.

Great, this thread is about bang for the buck, dollar for performance. The lenses I picked are very difficult to argue against.

That being said, I will go somewhat hypocritically go against the grain and recommend the much maligned 50-200 over the 55-300. Not only is it considerably cheaper

Which 55-300mm are you referring too? The DA L is almost exactly the same price as the 55-200mm WR.

I done thought my post through before I done posted it ;).

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

I remember when the original DA 18-55 and DA16-45 were compared, there was absolutely no comparison between the lenses. In fact even the DA*16-50 was only marginally better than the DA16-45 @f4 and givenn the price difference and issues the DA16-45 is definately one of the better lenses they've ever made. However it was always deemed to expensive to be the kit, except for more expensive cameras (I think the *ist D had it but the DS and DL didn't).

Maybe the build quality has improved on the DA18-55, given its had 5 versions and the metal mount WR version is probably the only one I'd get now.

Optically though I find i get far better results with the DA16-45 than the DA18-55's i've owned and the DA18-135.

I think if the 18 is not wide enough, you could do a lot worse with your money than to find a DA16-45.

-- hide signature --

Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/justinwatson

 justin23's gear list:justin23's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JNR
JNR
Senior MemberPosts: 1,765Gear list
Like?
Re: Budget High-Performance Pentax Lenses
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

cgarrard wrote:

I know, this post is about cheap glass but you get what you pay for.

Not always, the point of the post is getting decent quality and performance for a budget price. Some things in life do out perform others at similar price points :).

The 55-300mm and 50 1.8 are both capable of super sharp results and also excellent at subject isolation with good to very good bokeh effects.

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

It's a matter of economies of scale, and supply and demand. In camera lenses, this is considerably at odds with "you get what you pay for." A good kit lens gets discarded because something slightly more versatile or sharper comes along to replace it . So, kit lenses - cheap from the start due to mass production - flood the used market as well when replaced. They sell for so little they get a reputation for being optically terrible (some of them are pretty bad - but none of the Pentax kit lenses were poor).

This was probably especially true in the prime kit lenses when not only were the 50mm lenses extremely sharp, they were very well built, and fast. Most of these lenses are the best values out on the used market if you are willing to shoot MF.

-- hide signature --

--

JNR
www.jamesrobins.com

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Pentax K-01 Pentax K-30 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Zvonimir Tosic
Senior MemberPosts: 2,181Gear list
Like?
Not a good approach
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

Budget kit consists of both camera and lenses.

For example, isn't it better to have a bit cheaper camera but more upmarket lens(es)?

Give me a cheap K50 with pricier DA20-40, and pricier K3 with a cheap kit zoom, and I'll take K50 combo anytime!

I suggest people to look at the whole picture, because what is worth buying a K-3 and settling down to a kit lens or cheap zoom because one's run out of money?

It's not a life on budget — it's a waste of a budget.

-- hide signature --

Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen

 Zvonimir Tosic's gear list:Zvonimir Tosic's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
In your opinion...
In reply to Zvonimir Tosic, 10 months ago

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Budget kit consists of both camera and lenses.

For example, isn't it better to have a bit cheaper camera but more upmarket lens(es)?

Give me a cheap K50 with pricier DA20-40, and pricier K3 with a cheap kit zoom, and I'll take K50 combo anytime!

I suggest people to look at the whole picture, because what is worth buying a K-3 and settling down to a kit lens or cheap zoom because one's run out of money?

It's not a life on budget — it's a waste of a budget.

-- hide signature --

Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen

This post is for those who prefer not to sink themselves deep into a monetary investment. Not for you, obviously.

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
New 18-55mm WR vs. 16-45mm
In reply to justin23, 10 months ago

justin23 wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

And this 16mm?

The 18-55 out performs the 16-45 on many aspects, its also much more budget, which is the point of the post.

In what aspects are those? I

Chromatic aberrations, wide angle distortion, and its weather sealed. Sharpness too I think is very much on par or slightly better when tested on the same body.

Beyond that, there is budget and there is value.

Great, this thread is about bang for the buck, dollar for performance. The lenses I picked are very difficult to argue against.

That being said, I will go somewhat hypocritically go against the grain and recommend the much maligned 50-200 over the 55-300. Not only is it considerably cheaper

Which 55-300mm are you referring too? The DA L is almost exactly the same price as the 55-200mm WR.

I done thought my post through before I done posted it ;).

Carl

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

I remember when the original DA 18-55 and DA16-45 were compared, there was absolutely no comparison between the lenses. In fact even the DA*16-50 was only marginally better than the DA16-45 @f4 and givenn the price difference and issues the DA16-45 is definately one of the better lenses they've ever made. However it was always deemed to expensive to be the kit, except for more expensive cameras (I think the *ist D had it but the DS and DL didn't).

Maybe the build quality has improved on the DA18-55, given its had 5 versions and the metal mount WR version is probably the only one I'd get now.

Optically though I find i get far better results with the DA16-45 than the DA18-55's i've owned and the DA18-135.

I think if the 18 is not wide enough, you could do a lot worse with your money than to find a DA16-45.

-- hide signature --

Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/justinwatson

They've improved the optics considerably since the II version was announced, and forward. For the price, the cumulative score is very close. In my testing of both in the field I concur they are close.

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/641-pentax1855f3556wr?start=1

16-45mm

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-review--test-report?start=2

Carl
http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
awaldram
Forum ProPosts: 10,748Gear list
Like?
Re: New 18-55mm WR vs. 16-45mm
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

Personally I think the 16-45 is poorly corrected very low build quality and only redeeming quality is its sharp in the center.

There are very few lens I consider unworkable for me but the 16-45 comes close.

I think its reputation was built on a desire by owners to have a decent lens for the ist series and out of a cast of one the 16-45 had to be it.

It does not come close to the 18-55 in build and only just matches/beats it for any other parameter.

Given it is marketed these days as an 'upgrade' it's poor value and certainly not upgrade material when compared to 3rd party or 17-70, 18-135 type glass.

 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ron Zamir
Contributing MemberPosts: 725
Like?
Re: +1
In reply to Younes B, 10 months ago

Younes B wrote:

NOt sure if the DA 18 - 55 AL is weather sealed . I think it is the DA 18-55 WR ( which I own ).

I woul dalso recommend the DA 16-45 f4. Outpoerforms the kit lens and this 16mm!!!

I think just the same about the 16-45 lens!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ccd
ccd
Regular MemberPosts: 370
Like?
Re: New 18-55mm WR vs. 16-45mm
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

cgarrard wrote:

justin23 wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

And this 16mm?

The 18-55 out performs the 16-45 on many aspects, its also much more budget, which is the point of the post.

In what aspects are those? I

Chromatic aberrations, wide angle distortion, and its weather sealed. Sharpness too I think is very much on par or slightly better when tested on the same body.

Beyond that, there is budget and there is value.

Great, this thread is about bang for the buck, dollar for performance. The lenses I picked are very difficult to argue against.

That being said, I will go somewhat hypocritically go against the grain and recommend the much maligned 50-200 over the 55-300. Not only is it considerably cheaper

Which 55-300mm are you referring too? The DA L is almost exactly the same price as the 55-200mm WR.

I done thought my post through before I done posted it ;).

Carl

Well, you done put out some very arguable picks as is evidenced by the responses. For every point you've made, others have refuted them here......and in many other (albeit anecdotal) tests I have seen differing views from owners of both on the CA and distortion levels. But there is almost a consensus that the 16-45's sharpness is superior at every focal length.....and even more so when comparing them at the equivalent 18mm.

My point is that bang for the buck is a relative concept. Much of the criteria is subjective. Yes, I did take your original "budget" parameter and applied a variation of the term. Surprise.....someone takes an idea ventured forth and runs with it on a discussion forum. There's a newsflash.

Finally, I never used the 50-200WR as a relative comparison. It was the original 50-200. A true bargain and an underrated lens. Not everybody is as concerned about WR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,367Gear list
Like?
Re: New 18-55mm WR vs. 16-45mm
In reply to ccd, 10 months ago

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

justin23 wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

ccd wrote:

cgarrard wrote:

And this 16mm?

The 18-55 out performs the 16-45 on many aspects, its also much more budget, which is the point of the post.

In what aspects are those? I

Chromatic aberrations, wide angle distortion, and its weather sealed. Sharpness too I think is very much on par or slightly better when tested on the same body.

Beyond that, there is budget and there is value.

Great, this thread is about bang for the buck, dollar for performance. The lenses I picked are very difficult to argue against.

That being said, I will go somewhat hypocritically go against the grain and recommend the much maligned 50-200 over the 55-300. Not only is it considerably cheaper

Which 55-300mm are you referring too? The DA L is almost exactly the same price as the 55-200mm WR.

I done thought my post through before I done posted it ;).

Carl

Well, you done put out some very arguable picks as is evidenced by the responses. For every point you've made, others have refuted them here......and in many other (albeit anecdotal) tests I have seen differing views from owners of both on the CA and distortion levels. But there is almost a consensus that the 16-45's sharpness is superior at every focal length.....and even more so when comparing them at the equivalent 18mm.

My point is that bang for the buck is a relative concept. Much of the criteria is subjective. Yes, I did take your original "budget" parameter and applied a variation of the term. Surprise.....someone takes an idea ventured forth and runs with it on a discussion forum. There's a newsflash.

Finally, I never used the 50-200WR as a relative comparison. It was the original 50-200. A true bargain and an underrated lens. Not everybody is as concerned about WR.

Yeah its been a fun discussion to be sure, all relative of course, and I agree with that.

I encounter many new to DSLRS in my life, this list is sort of psuedo generated from that experience.

C

-- hide signature --

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steephill
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,095
Like?
16-45mm not marketed at all
In reply to awaldram, 10 months ago

It was discontinued over 3 years ago. The DA17-70 was supposed to be its replacement but as it was SDM AF only it wasn't usable with earlier bodies.

-- hide signature --

Steve

www.pbase.com/steephill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JayBratcher
Regular MemberPosts: 275Gear list
Like?
Re: My picks
In reply to cgarrard, 10 months ago

Fair enough, but I would much rather spend $160 - $275 for a quality lens than $100 for something that will simply project a passable image onto the sensor.  To me, that is the difference between the 16-45 and the 18-55.  I have the 18-55 right now, and its one redeeming quality is an O-ring.  Optically, it is the worst lens I own...

Also, the DA 40 XS is more capable than either the DA 35 or the DA 50, *and* it tends to be cheaper as well.  As others have said though, keep an eye on the lens cap, because it will get away from you

 JayBratcher's gear list:JayBratcher's gear list
Nikon D70 Pentax K-5 IIs Olympus PEN E-PM2 Sigma 24mm F1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads