New book, new project + DA 50-200 my must-have lens

Did you see my photo blog adventure with the Naked Sadhus of India? I had a tough time getting myself to take pictures of my own land, the USA, after such exotic adventures.

Sometimes it is hard to see how our hometown might look to foreign eyes, to new eyes. Sometimes it's easy. Below are images from my 2 new projects presented in 2 piles

my site is pileofprints.com -- get it?  

On the left are images of India and on the right, images of my hometown of Portland, Oregon. I think they make my city seem the stranger sight. For example, I guess I should include a warning that the Pedalpalooza photo essay has a couple of "artistic shots" of Portland's naked bike ride. Those night time pictures were taken with the M-50 1.4 I bought for $9 in India this winter. And, yes, I was naked myself when I took them just like I was in the water splashing in the surf when I took the pics of women bathing in their saris in India. I think photography is best approached as a participatory rather than a spectator sport. I guess, that's why I generally use wider rather than longer lenses -- but as the title says, this post is in praise of a telephoto lens!

You can page thru the whole book on Blurb's pretty cool book preview (only the first pic is missing usually unless you go on to the next page and then go to the previous page).

http://www.blurb.com/books/4402150-not-traveling

Almost every picture on these sample pages shown above were taken from my Blurb book were taken with my DA 15 as was the Pedalpalooza shot below.

A bicycle tour of Portland's Fascist-style architecture, 1 of the 284 events of Pedalpalooza

It's hard to get that DA 15 limited lens off my k5ii. I'm a wide angle, get in close kind of photographer. That's why I love the DA 50-200 so much. It so cheap, light and compact that I don't mind carrying it across an entire subcontinent when I'm only going to use it once or twice.

A hard core bicyclist who has recently taken a spill off tall bike.

However, when you need it, it is right there with you in a corner of your bag. The portrait above was shot, as recommended here, wide open and you can see the decent bokeh for which the DA 50-200 is famous. I have the WR version that I paid $200 for new, but the optically identical non-WR version is a lens that Pentax practically tosses at new buyers of their entry level cameras in 2 kit lens packages. I think it's a must-have lens for everyone except for those who are so dedicated to tele-photography that they always want to carry around heavier, more expensive lenses.

There are other better portraits and the racing shots glimpsed in the Portland pile above in my new Portland Pedalpalooza photo essay that view here:

http://www.pileofprints.com/PhotoEssays/Pedalpalooza/

Anyone else here love the unloved DA 50-200?

Can anyone understand my excitement at finding my hometown as exciting as exotic India?

I love my (original version) 50-200 at 100mm and upwards - it's pretty dreadful at 50mm, and at 200mm it has to be stopped down a bit to get rid of some blurriness on the right ... Mid-range it's excellent.

The thing about cheap zooms is that they are variable. Get a good one and you're fine. My 50-200 is much better than forum chat and some reviews would suggest; both my 55-300s are worse - in fact one of them (with the metal mount) is so bad as to be unusable. And yet forum members praise this lens to the skies. They have better examples than mine, is all I can say.

I've only been to Portland once - it's a nice city.

Thanks for thread, You  posted Very nice photos, and I agreee that the 50-200 WR is a good lens to have.  In fact, especially for my needs, I believe both the 18-55 AL and the DA50-200 are mistakenly both underrated in the forums. Someday I may upscale my 18-55AL with a DA*, just to get the weatherproofing, but I'm in no rush.  I pulled this one (using DA50-200mm) from my dpr gallery.  Now I got to check what I wrote with a magnifier because of increasing cataract problems.:-)

Thanks for your responses timo and 22codfish,

YES, you have to know the limitations of a cheaper lens to use it effectively. I memorize the MTF section of the photozone.de reviews for the lenses I own. In the case of a really inexpensive lens like the DA 50-200 it may be as timo says that you have to get a good copy and I  used the dpreview comments of those who got good copies to guide me.

The DA's rep is that it is sharp at f/8 from 50-175mm. But, as timo advises, I try to avoid using it at 50mm. I try to start at 60mm to 80mm.

F/11 is recommended at 200mm

using the 50-200 for portraits it is sharp enough and the bokeh is smooth, as you can see above and in the photo of the child that is the last image in the photo essay on my site at a focal length between 100-150 and opened all the way.