Upgrading normal lens

Started Oct 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 434
Re: Upgrading normal lens

viking79 wrote:

Think of the DA 35 mm f/2.4 as a 2.4 version of the 35/2. They are a similar optical design, similar resolution, etc. The DA 35/2.4 is basically a slightly slower version with a cheaper build quality. It is a good value lens, and it is sharp corner to corner.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

A 17-70 or something would cover the range, but would probably have similar limitations at the edges as your 16-45 mm.

For the focal lengths you used on film, the DA 35 mm f/2.4 (or 2.8 limited macro), the 21 mm f/3.2 and 70 mm f/2.4 would be relatively equivalent.


Eric, thanks for the comments. I might consider trying the Da 35/2.4. The 16-45 has a very nice "look," but with vertical landscapes the tops of the trees look blurry. I tried 2 copies, and both were the same in this regard.

Realizing that focal lengths can vary from their specifications, my tests and calculations both tell me that an 18mm on the K20d would equal the 28mm on 35mm film. The DA 21 would be closer to the 32mm on film.


 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow