Reading mode: Light Dark

Where is Pentax normal lens for aps?!

Go to last post
R

Really

Active member
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Like the 50mmf1.4 or 43mm Ltd for film were?
35mm is not, it is more like 55mm, so a little tele-ish, IMHO. Also macro.

Ideal would be 28mm, but it doesnt exist . 31mm can be close to 50 in FF, but its about 1000+ bucks, and not close to 43 in FF.
So....?
 
FWIW, I'd say the normal lens is the 18-55, or the 16-45, or the 16-50. They're very good lenses and if you want something better, you should expect to pay more.

Also FWIW, the normal lens supplied with my Pentax H2 is a 55mm f/2.

Tim
 
Really said:
Like the 50mmf1.4 or 43mm Ltd for film were?
35mm is not, it is more like 55mm, so a little tele-ish, IMHO. Also macro.

Ideal would be 28mm, but it doesnt exist . 31mm can be close to 50 in FF, but its about 1000+ bucks, and not close to 43 in FF.
So....?
Click to expand...
On my KM the standard lens was a 55mm F1.8, still a very good lens.
 
Once there was a DA*30mm lens on the roadmap. I still hope that this lens will be released one day - weatherproof for sure. F2 would be ok for me, fully usable wide open of course.

Bernd
--

 
Really said:
Like the 50mmf1.4 or 43mm Ltd for film were?
35mm is not, it is more like 55mm, so a little tele-ish, IMHO. Also macro.
Click to expand...
35mm is! It's faster than the kit zoom, matches the old 55mm standard, and happens to focus closer making it even more versatile. I used to use the A 50 mm f/2.8 as my standard walkabout lens in the film days.

What's really needed is something to match the A 24mm f/2.8, although I suppose the 15mm Ltd comes close. Can't afford it at the moment having just bought the K7.

It's a pity the Ltds aren't WR though.

Nick
 
Why are reputable and normally discerning forum members taking the time and trouble to respond intelligently to Really's posts when it is crystal clear that he is either:

a. an incorrigible ignoramus,
b. an inveterate troublemaker, or
c. (most probably) both?

I reallise that misconceptions posted by people with genuine concerns need to be corrected or explained by people who know better, so that newcomers and casual passers-by are not misled, but surely no one is taking the repeated and asinine comments posted by this character seriously?

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper
 
jonska said:
Why are reputable and normally discerning forum members taking the time and trouble to respond intelligently to Really's posts when it is crystal clear that he is either:

a. an incorrigible ignoramus,
b. an inveterate troublemaker, or
c. (most probably) both?

I reallise that misconceptions posted by people with genuine concerns need to be corrected or explained by people who know better, so that newcomers and casual passers-by are not misled, but surely no one is taking the repeated and asinine comments posted by this character seriously?
Click to expand...
Oh boy...

--
Look at the picture, not the pixels...
http://www.lkeithr.zenfolio.com
 
You know that Pentax doesn't currently have a 28mm prime. You're trying to define normal as 28mm only, when clearly it's 28-35mm. It's obvious that you're just trolling again.

It was a bad day when you supposedly bought a K10. Here's an idea, you bought it used. you can sell it for what you paid. You obviously can't afford to buy lenses for it anyway. Get an inexpesive Canon and a $90 50mm 1.8 and leave the Pentax system and this forum, that way you and everyone here will be a little happier.
--
Dan
 
Really said:
Like the 50mmf1.4 or 43mm Ltd for film were?
35mm is not, it is more like 55mm, so a little tele-ish, IMHO. Also macro.
Click to expand...
Actually, 55 primes were very common back in the day when cameras came with a prime as opposed to the standard zooms of today. I used to own a Konica that came with a 55mm as the standard lens and along with a 28 and 85 was my standard kit 40 years ago. Today I shoot a K-7 and while I have several DA* lenses and a 105macro, my basic carry around kit is made up of limited primes with the DA35 as my standard lens (52.5mm equivalent).
 
You seem to be a relatively new troll here on the Pentax board. You like to ask rhetorical questions, question product releases, and generally push a constant agenda - frankly I don't believe you'd buy any of the lenses you are talking about or asking for. If you don't like what Pentax offers - move on. Your 'green behind the ears' requests from an international camera manufacturer on this board aren't worth the storage on this server that your inane 'post' consumed. Frankly, I'd be pretty surprised if you owned a kit lens.

Yes, you've earned an ignore, congrats.

-Mouse
Really said:
Like the 50mmf1.4 or 43mm Ltd for film were?
35mm is not, it is more like 55mm, so a little tele-ish, IMHO. Also macro.

Ideal would be 28mm, but it doesnt exist . 31mm can be close to 50 in FF, but its about 1000+ bucks, and not close to 43 in FF.
So....?
Click to expand...
--

The Mouse Gallery
http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/
Pentax%20K100D%20Super/

'My boss just quit the job, says he's goin out to find the
blind spots and he'll do it ... the 3rd planet is sure
they're bein watched, by an eye in the sky that can't
be stopped - when ya get to the promised land ...
you're gonna shake the eyes hand.'
 
I agree. Get the cheapest FA 35 f/2 you can find. There are some going for $500 on Craigslist. Great buy IMHO.

On the other hand, you can choose to accept that Pentax is not in the business of making fast primes anymore, at least no non-FA limiteds, or those still not out-of-production.

And reach the conclusion that you DON'T need to buy Pentax glass to continue to enjoy the body. If I were to start a Pentax system now I would definitely skip Pentax glass entirely.
GaryDeM said:
fa 35mm f2.0. AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. and not bother the rest of the people on this forum.
Click to expand...
 
It's the code Pentax put on their latest non DA* lenses to indicate they are weather resistant. It might be a lower level of weather proofing than that on the DA* lenses, or might just inducate they have the same level of weather proofing but aren't the top of the range optically. I've never seen anything to indicate either way.

Nick
Thomas Karlmann said:
What is WR?
--
Thom--
Click to expand...
 
yes, that must be interesting to know .. right .. that there is only but 2 fast ( as in fast enough ) 28mm lens on the market the Canon EF 28/1.8USM and Sigma's 28/1.8 EX-DG, both of which dated way back to film era and not updated to reflect the need for Digital capture. It can even made a decent somewhat long 56mm equivalent standard on 4/3

The funny thing is , APS-C being the most dominant coverage in DSLR and 28 being so nice a coverage ( generally wide standard ) and such nice one for FF. There is no real quality one for this focal length. OK actually there are , Zeiss 28/2.0 is there and Pentax 31 also suffice. Sigma's 30/1.4 somewhat apply.

But yes I had to agree decent priced, reasonably sized and weighted, f/2.0 28mm FF lens should not be hard to made and should suffice both as a good one for FF and a good one for APS-C

--
  • Franka -
 
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