Reading mode: Light Dark

Do we really need prime/limited lenses ?

Go to last post
This image was a test shot, I didn't very seriously with this shot, I don't like the shorter FL.

My shot were from Hoya 200mm and Sigma 70-300mm, here is:



and





soft, because manual focus.
D TONG said:
Kesha said:
As I mentioned, you can't use F2 in the outdoor with hard light, you
have to go to more than F2, maybe F4.
Click to expand...
Even for outdoor situation, higher shutter speed or a simple ND
filter will do the job
D TONG said:
IMHO, I don't like picturing human face with the thin DOF, only give
the eyes in focus area, I want the whole face in focus.
Click to expand...
You obviously did not see the need of blurring out the background as
having a high F number will render the image quite distracting (the
tree trunk on the left of the image below)
D TONG said:
D TONG said:
D TONG said:
D TONG said:
Here is one of the, but not a close up, it is f6.3:

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Daniel, Toronto
http://www.pbase.com/danieltong

Click to expand...
--
------------------------------------------
-- Rusma

my multiply : http://kesha.multiply.com
 
You might as well ask Henri Cartier-Bresson to stop using a 50mm lens. (He did use 35 and 90 very rarely). And he made better pictures than most other photographers ever will.

It's not the lens that limits.

--
Eric

All cats are mortal.
Socrates died.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.
 
Kesha said:
When you are in the fix FL, then all your capture will be boring, you
sit in the one place, the model will pose a lot of poses, you don't
have time to move around or you lost the poses,
Click to expand...
Gee, Kesha, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, if you're just poking at us with a stick, or if you genuinely believe this. But all I can say is that a boring photograph says a lot more about the photographer than it says about the lens...
 
My new favorite combination of lenses; the tamron 18-250 plus the pentax DA 2.8/35 macro limited.
--
Jacques Bijtebier
 
... I am not saying it makes no sense to write such a post, OK?

Ltd lenses are very well built, they are small and they don't weigh too much. Just this is more than enough for a lot of us shooting landscape or portraits, where need for zoom or telephoto lens is not a priority. Morevover, we could expect a good IQ, CA, PF, less mechanical and optical decentered issues. They also got a wide aperture.
They also make the photographer more discrete.

Prices? Ltd series are not cheap, but a 16-50 + 50-135 combo is not cheap either.

By the way, I often noticed on the field that most people are using their zooms either at the wide angle or at the other end of the range, but not often in between.

I believe that most of us (not all of us, don't get me wrong) need a wide angle, a mid range/portrait and a telephoto lenses. Do we need a zoom? This is another way to answer your post...
I am be wrong, everybody needs/desires are different.

I bought a 16-50 and am/was tempted by the 60-250 or other lenses combination (described in another thread), but I am more and more leaning to small and light lenses such as the Limited series. I am waiting for the 60-250 to decide (price 3 months after launching, IQ, etc.).

--

Shooting in JPEG is like taking your roll of film to the store to be processed, and when
you get your prints, throwing away the negatives...
 
Kesha said:
Yes, I know the limited lenses quality, but do we really need that
lenses for photos?
Click to expand...
Let's put the question the other way round - it isn't that many years ago that zoom lenses were invented. Before then everyone from happy-snappers to some of the world's greatest ever photographers only had prime lenses to use.

So my question (on their behalf, if you like) is do we really need zoom lenses?

The answer to both questions, of course, is that you don't really need more than a pinhole to get some sort of photographic record. After that what you need depends on two things - what you want to achieve and how good you are at using your equipment.

As what you want to achieve is a matter of personal taste, what lens you need to achieve it is also a matter of taste.

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
lol Sean...

I have Fa 77 and FA50, but i'm thinking hard about new pentax zooms and tammy 70-200, their IQ is too good to match the limited.
Sean Nelson said:
Kesha said:
When you are in the fix FL, then all your capture will be boring, you
sit in the one place, the model will pose a lot of poses, you don't
have time to move around or you lost the poses,
Click to expand...
Gee, Kesha, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, if you're just
poking at us with a stick, or if you genuinely believe this. But all
I can say is that a boring photograph says a lot more about the
photographer than it says about the lens...
Click to expand...
--
------------------------------------------
-- Rusma

my multiply : http://kesha.multiply.com
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Kesha said:
Yes, I know the limited lenses quality, but do we really need that
lenses for photos?
Click to expand...
Let's put the question the other way round - it isn't that many years
ago that zoom lenses were invented.
Click to expand...
Erm... if 1902 is within the definition of "isn't that many years ago" then I'd have to agree.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Before then everyone from
happy-snappers to some of the world's greatest ever photographers
only had prime lenses to use.
Click to expand...
Not too many happy snappers around in 1902 though...

Ok, so I'm being pedantic. But zoom lenses have been around for a lot longer than people suppose, long before they became cheap enough to be used as they are today.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 
I am very sorry if this thread has made everybody inconvenient,
My apologies.

I still love my Pentax, I have Pentax LX that my uncle bought for me about 30 years ago.
And I will stay with Pentax, for a long long time(I was D200 user, 2 years ago)
And maybe start to love my Fa77 and thinking about FA*24/F2.

--
------------------------------------------
-- Rusma

my multiply : http://kesha.multiply.com
 
For what i do, zooms work better. But I know that many others want primes. There is room for both types of lenses in any camera companies product line.

--
Al Patterson
 
We need them more than ever IMHO.
Now bear in mind that I am not saying zooms are bad or anything.

Your preference are zooms which is all good, my preference would be primes whenever I can, but I do own a few zooms for applications where they are preferable.

Now the limited primes offer some of the finest performing primes regardless of brand, why would you want to be without them?
Because you prefer zooms?

I prefer primes, but I am very happy to see pentax produce good zooms as well, it means more choices for those choosing to by a pentax camera.

If your friend were having issues with his limited prime set, well then that is to me an indication that he either is not familiar or not comfortable enough working with them.

I prefer a bag with 2-3 primes and can easily do with that for my personal work.
Yes I am even OK with manual focus for that matter for most of my work.

The limited primes are what keeps me a pentax shooter at times, so from my very personal point of view, yes they are very needed, pentax is one of my two favourite prime manufacturers, so i would indeed be sad to see them stop production.

Whether you use a zoom or a prime you will miss opportunities.
It is the shots that you get that matters, not the ones you do not.

Not to mention that from a performance point of view, limited primes are generally faster, focus closer and has a better IQ than any other lenses in the pentax system.

--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://main.duplophotography.com/
 
Kesha270057 said:
Yes, I know the limited lenses quality, but do we really need that lenses for photos?
Click to expand...
When I look at PPG, it doesn't seem to be a question of prime vs. zooms; as new vs. old, film vs. digital lenses. I would much rather have the new DA* zooms, than any FA primes. But, am I going to carry around those monster lenses? No, so I use non-telephoto DA primes for now. Horses for courses...

With primes, you can build a hi-quality lens collection slowly, so you can learn how to maximize the potential of each focal length intimately - with lenses that are actually practical to carry around.

Would I prefer 'collectable' FA series primes when the DA* primes in focal lengths I like become available? The answer will be clear when we can see images from the DA*55. I expect the DA*55 will be incredible so the prime vs. zoom argument will actually be fair: a DA* compared to another DA*, not a FA vs a DA*.
 
And never blame the equipment for own lack of skills.

That 77 is not exactly cheap and perhaps you expected magic in all situations. Very easy to become frustrated.

My advice: Stick to your preferred setup for model shots and then put the 77 on the camera for snapshots for a while.

Of course you might discover that you are more a wide angle type and then 43, 31 and even 24 might be FLs suiting your style better. Still that is not a fault of the 77.

Now, let us see some new model shots from you.
Kesha said:
I am very sorry if this thread has made everybody inconvenient,
My apologies.

I still love my Pentax, I have Pentax LX that my uncle bought for me
about 30 years ago.
And I will stay with Pentax, for a long long time(I was D200 user, 2
years ago)
And maybe start to love my Fa77 and thinking about FA*24/F2.

--
------------------------------------------
-- Rusma

my multiply : http://kesha.multiply.com
Click to expand...
--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture is worth a thousand words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
Kesha said:
The question is...
Click to expand...
Sure...
Kesha270057 said:
How good that we want for the accepted "good-word"?
Click to expand...
THe best achievable IMHO, your opinion may differ.
Kesha270057 said:
Sharp? Bokeh? Dimension/Composition? We need that, all in one image.
Click to expand...
Colour renderings, contrast, what about quality of light?
Kesha270057 said:
limited give good results, sharp, good bokeh, but when played with
the composition, they failed.
Click to expand...
No, they did not fail (unless they actually fell apart or something) poor or good composition is the choice of the photographer behind the camera, never the lens, camera, light or anything else.
Kesha270057 said:
When you shot a human (model), the mood would melting and lost many
chances, when you have to move around.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you here we all "loose chances" when moving around regardless of what lens we have mounted and whether prime or zoom.

I rarely care about the shots I miss, it is the shots I bring home or have been paid to bring home that matters. the rest I could not care less about.
--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://main.duplophotography.com/
 
The reason I chose pentax was the primes. Lite, compact and the sharpest thing around.

Keisha, I have a very nice Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, I'll trade you for that 77mm ltd :)
 
Kesha said:
Yes, I know the limited lenses quality, but do we really need that
lenses for photos?
Click to expand...
No more than I need a DSLR rather than a point and shoot.
Kesha270057 said:
I saw my friend, he is limited lenses collector, but he has trouble
when we have a workshop with fix lenses.

In my experienced, DA 16-45/DA*16-50+DA*50-135+FA50mm+DA55-300 are
more than enough to get very very good shots.
Click to expand...
A lot of my shots are in very low available light. The available zooms just aren't fast enough. Did I need to spend twice as much to get the FA31 rather than the sigma? Probably not, but the FA32 is such a joy to use, I have absolutely no regrets.

--

Shooting in JPEG is like taking your roll of film to the store to be processed, and when you get your prints, throwing away the negatives.
photos at http://flickr.com/ellarsee
 
gazonk said:
Lance B said:
Yes, this is an expansion on my theme. The Porsche 911 will run rings
around the Cayenne on the race track, but the reverse is true off
road
Click to expand...
Something is wrong with this analogy - most Cayennes I see here in
town have extreme low-profile racing tyres on ridiculously large
aluminium rims, so they won't even be able to drive on anything but
the best asphalt roads ;-)
Click to expand...
LOL. Good point and I concur. Maybe the Cayennes won't be any good off road either! ;-)
gazonk said:
--
Espen
Click to expand...
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top