I've found 28mm to be the most useful on aps-c. It yields an equivalent of 42mm. Its wider than a 35 for sure, but just slightly tighter than 24mm. I find it much, much more useful than the classic 50mm and can see why pentax made so many lenses around the 40mm mark. Of course Pentax doesn't make a modern 28mm, but I'm sure if you needed AF, an FA 28mm would serve you very well. The AL version seems to be pretty sharp from the reviews I looked at. I would say a lot of my favorite images were taken with a 28mm due to the natural look. It basically matches your eye.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Christine! > > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Christine Aguila <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I heartily agree with Stan's recommendations. I love my DA 21. Excellent >> lens. I very much like my Da 40, but it's a curious lens. It's very sharp >> and very light on the camera, which makes it a dream to shoot with. I >> still, however, think it's wider than it actually is. Sometimes I'm think a >> bit wider than the lens can accommodate. I don't know why my mind's eye >> still hasn't made the adjustment. Just me really. Cheers, Christine >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Stanley Halpin <[email protected]> >>> wrote:I >>> >>> My recommendations will pretty much echo what Jan and Steve and others have >>> already said. >>> I have the 21mm, 35mm macro, 40mm, and 100mm macro lenses you mention. >>> - The 21mm is always included in my travel kit. >>> - The 35mm is pretty much always on one of my cameras. >>> - I haven’t used the 40mm since I got the 35mm. >>> - I seldom use the 100 macro any more. I carry it (and an A-50mm) when >>> hunting flowers etc. but will usually use either the 35mm or 200mm macro. >>> If I didn’t have the 200mm, I would be using the 100mm most of the time, >>> not the 35mm. >>> >>> I find 35mm to be too wide a FOV for most macro work but it is a great lens >>> for near-far compositions (e.g., single flower or cluster of flowers in the >>> foreground, interesting landscape in the background). >>> >>> So, I wouldn’t buy the 35mm for its macro capability. But it is a wonderful >>> lens, a joy to shoot with, and the macro aspect is a nice bonus. >>> Of the lenses you’ve mentioned, if you buy only one, I would go with the >>> 21mm. Image quality may be slightly under that of the 35mm, but it does >>> have that wider FOV essential for many streetscapes and landscapes. And you >>> already have the 100 macro. >>> >>> If I were assembling a “minimal” prime-lens kit, it would include 15mm, >>> 21mm, 35mm macro, 55mm, and 100mm macro. Plus maybe the 300mm for long >>> range work. >>> If I were assembling a basic kit built around zooms, it would include >>> 12-24mm, 16-50mm, and 60-250mm. If I didn’t need the reach of the 60-250, I >>> would be happy instead with the 50-135 + 1.4x telextender. >>> >>> stan >>> >>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Jan van Wijk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2014 12:31:18 -0400 Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >>>>> >>>>> OK, if I do acquire a "new to me" K-5II or IIs, I should get a good >>>>> fixed focal length lens to go with it. Currently, I use the 18-135 >>>>> zoom, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the DA 50mm f1.8 with my K-r. >>>>> >>>>> I was looking at the 21mm f3.2 DA AL Limited, the 35mm f2.8 macro >>>>> limited and the 40mm f2.8 DA limited. Which have people here found >>>>> the most useful and versatile? Which (if any) do you prefer for image >>>>> quality? >>>> >>>> I have the 21mm and the 35mm macro. >>>> >>>> Both perform well, but I use the 35mm MUCH more than the 21. >>>> Somehow it FOV suits me better, and of course it does 1:1 macro >>>> which is extremely useful for me in the field. >>>> >>>>> I am concerned that the 40 might be too close to the 50 I use now. Is >>>>> it significantly better in image quality? >>>>> >>>>> I have the 100 macro; will the 35 macro allow me to do things I can't >>>>> with the 100? I know the 35 limited is a lot more modern, but I >>>>> really have no complaints about the 100 macro, aside from the shaky >>>>> hand behind the lens. >>>> >>>> Larger FOV, but that is not always an advantage for macro. >>>> It IS an advantage when you want you use it as the only lens ... >>>> >>>> It is one of my sharpest lenses for sure. >>>> >>>> Regards, JvW >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com >>>> Flickr : jvw_pentax >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
