The GX10/K10D really is sealed! (longish)

Fred McKenzie wrote:

I have both. The 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens is not a KA lens, so is more
difficult to use with an AF body. My 50mm f/1.4 is a KA lens, so all I
have to worry about is manual focus.

There's no problem at all using the DA40mm f/2.8 Limited on an AF body
and it works just fine in all exposure modes and with autofocus.

The older M40mm f/2.8 is a bit different in that respect but I found
that using M and K lenses on the digital bodies isn't difficult at all.

I haven't seen any reference to DA or M from Paul so he'd have to
specify which lens he's referring to.

Sander

Paul Furman wrote:

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness and requires something close to a normal focal length. It
seems the 50 offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only
real strong point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down
OOF rendering. I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8)
but really that's not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which
would really be more exciting and worth bothering with.

Hand-held photography after the sun has gone down is always a plus:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mile23/343528344/ That's with the FA
50/1.4 (at f/2).

Either of those lenses will be a good replacement for the kit lens. The
DA 16-45/4 is also much better than the kit lens, and is a more direct
replacement, though it's not as compact.

Ultimately, though, if you have a Pentax body and you don't have the FA
50 (or most of it's predecessors), you're missing out.

--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2..._argument.html

jean wrote:
Doug Jewell a écrit
Paul Furman wrote

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness

and requires something close to a normal focal length. It seems the 50
offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only real strong
point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down OOF
rendering.

I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really that's
not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be
more exciting and worth bothering with.

Haven't used either, but from what I've heard both are very sharp. So
personally I'd be inclined to go for the extra 2 stops of the 50/1.4.

I wish Canon had a lens like that Pentax pancake lens, put that on a Drebel
and you get a nice high performance small (ish) camera. For size only, it
makes perfect sense.

And it's AF, and reduced to 40mm from 43mm for 60 eq. on APS... pretty
cool. My 45P Nikkor is MF. Is there a small Pentax DSLR or is it sort of
D70 sized?

Still the 50/1.4 makes more sense as a first addition to the kit lens.
The friend got the Samsung btw.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Väinö Louekari wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4?
A friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness and requires something close to a normal focal length. It
seems the 50 offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only
real strong point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped
down OOF rendering. I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs
2.8) but really that's not as compellingly different than the 50 at
1.4 which would really be more exciting and worth bothering with.


Optically any 50/1,4 (Pentax has had many versions of this lens)is
better than 40/2,8. Angle of view is of course different, but if that is
not the determining factor 50/1,4 is the one to prefer. If Your frend
really needs a lens around 40 mm he/she should have a 43 mm 1,9 Limited.

I didn't know the 43 pancake was f/1.9


I use a M 50 mm f1,4 and even though this is not the very best 50/1,4 it
is still superb. I have also used a 40/2,8, it is okey but not great.

Väinö Louekari


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Paul Furman wrote:
Väinö Louekari wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the
50mm/1.4? A friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate
for compactness and requires something close to a normal focal
length. It seems the 50 offers more variety departing from the kit
lens. The only real strong point of the 40 I can see is the
non-polygonal stopped down OOF rendering. I figure the kit lens is at
about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really that's not as compellingly
different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be more exciting and
worth bothering with.



Optically any 50/1,4 (Pentax has had many versions of this lens)is
better than 40/2,8. Angle of view is of course different, but if that
is not the determining factor 50/1,4 is the one to prefer. If Your
frend really needs a lens around 40 mm he/she should have a 43 mm 1,9
Limited.


I didn't know the 43 pancake was f/1.9


I use a M 50 mm f1,4 and even though this is not the very best 50/1,4
it is still superb. I have also used a 40/2,8, it is okey but not great.

Väinö Louekari



Yes, 43 mm FA Limited is f1,9, it is relatively expensive though but a
wonderful lens.

Väinö Louekari

Chon Kei wrote:


I think the number one consideration for anyone likely to "go bush"
with a camera should be either waterproof cases or a sealed camera.


I carry my cameras in small dry bags of the sort used in river rafting. These
seem to work just fine in the rain. Once can get "cold condensation"
on surfaces inside the bag, but I've never had actual liquid in them.
Of course I can't take pictures in the rain and keep the cameras dry
this way.

Doug McDonald

On 2007-10-12 19:52:47 -0700, Paul Furman said:

jean wrote:
Doug Jewell a écrit
Paul Furman wrote

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness

and requires something close to a normal focal length. It seems the 50
offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only real strong
point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down OOF
rendering.

I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really that's
not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be
more exciting and worth bothering with.

Haven't used either, but from what I've heard both are very sharp. So
personally I'd be inclined to go for the extra 2 stops of the 50/1.4.

I wish Canon had a lens like that Pentax pancake lens, put that on a Drebel
and you get a nice high performance small (ish) camera. For size only, it
makes perfect sense.

And it's AF, and reduced to 40mm from 43mm for 60 eq. on APS... pretty cool.

My 45P Nikkor is MF. Is there a small Pentax DSLR or is it sort of D70 sized?

Since you have one of those, I'll ask you. There are certain Nikon
optics that have a kind of cult following, and the pancake is one. I've
tried the 180 and I've seen lots of images from the 28/1.4, so I'm
convinced those two really are exceptional designs. Does the 45P
actually have some intrinsic quality that makes it superior to a 35 or
a 50? I've wondered about this (the street price) a long time, but just
like the FM3A, I suspect it's based on conventional wisdom rather than
real-world results.

Still the 50/1.4 makes more sense as a first addition to the kit lens.
The friend got the Samsung btw.


--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

sheepdog 2007 wrote:
On 2007-10-12 19:52:47 -0700, Paul Furman said:
jean wrote:
Doug Jewell a écrit
Paul Furman wrote

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the
50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness

and requires something close to a normal focal length. It seems the 50
offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only real strong
point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down OOF
rendering.


I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really
that's
not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be
more exciting and worth bothering with.

Haven't used either, but from what I've heard both are very sharp. So
personally I'd be inclined to go for the extra 2 stops of the 50/1.4.

I wish Canon had a lens like that Pentax pancake lens, put that on a
Drebel
and you get a nice high performance small (ish) camera. For size
only, it
makes perfect sense.

And it's AF, and reduced to 40mm from 43mm for 60 eq. on APS... pretty
cool.

My 45P Nikkor is MF. Is there a small Pentax DSLR or is it sort of
D70 sized?

Since you have one of those, I'll ask you. There are certain Nikon
optics that have a kind of cult following, and the pancake is one. I've
tried the 180 and I've seen lots of images from the 28/1.4, so I'm
convinced those two really are exceptional designs. Does the 45P
actually have some intrinsic quality that makes it superior to a 35 or a
50?

No, I don't think it's all that extraordinary, honestly. It's a good
lens but I love my 35mm f/2 AI lens, it's so damn sharp! I got the 45
because I didn't have a 50/1.8 & wanted something more interesting, with
better bokeh... well the 45 does have rounded aperture blades & the OOF
rendering is OK but hardly unbreakable. Mainly it's size is handy, I
could jam my D70 in my coat pocket with it mounted... in fact, I lost
the D70 with that lens on when it spontaneously began rolling down a
steep hill... perfect shape for rolling... and smashed into a rock. The
45 has that nice smooth manual focus control, well built metal body, and
I thought it was interesting to see what a simple optical formula might
provide. I don't have a 50/1.8 so I can't compare, it does have nice
contrast & good sharpness, although not breathtakingly sharp. I like the
subtlety of the small size for street shooting.

I've wondered about this (the street price) a long time, but just
like the FM3A, I suspect it's based on conventional wisdom rather than
real-world results.

It's a fine, well built lens, and specialized, so the price is not at
all unreasonable. The 50 is certainly a better bargain.

Still the 50/1.4 makes more sense as a first addition to the kit lens.
The friend got the Samsung btw.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

On 2007-10-13 18:31:23 -0700, Paul Furman said:


Since you have one of those, I'll ask you. There are certain Nikon
optics that have a kind of cult following, and the pancake is one. I've
tried the 180 and I've seen lots of images from the 28/1.4, so I'm
convinced those two really are exceptional designs. Does the 45P
actually have some intrinsic quality that makes it superior to a 35 or
a 50?

No, I don't think it's all that extraordinary, honestly. It's a good
lens but I love my 35mm f/2 AI lens, it's so damn sharp! I got the 45
because I didn't have a 50/1.8 & wanted something more interesting,
with better bokeh... well the 45 does have rounded aperture blades &
the OOF rendering is OK but hardly unbreakable. Mainly it's size is
handy, I could jam my D70 in my coat pocket with it mounted... in fact,
I lost the D70 with that lens on when it spontaneously began rolling
down a steep hill... perfect shape for rolling... and smashed into a
rock. The 45 has that nice smooth manual focus control, well built
metal body, and I thought it was interesting to see what a simple
optical formula might provide. I don't have a 50/1.8 so I can't
compare, it does have nice contrast & good sharpness, although not
breathtakingly sharp. I like the subtlety of the small size for street
shooting.

I've wondered about this (the street price) a long time, but just like
the FM3A, I suspect it's based on conventional wisdom rather than
real-world results.

It's a fine, well built lens, and specialized, so the price is not at
all unreasonable. The 50 is certainly a better bargain.

Thanks for the information.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

And it's AF, and reduced to 40mm from 43mm for 60 eq. on APS... pretty
cool. My 45P Nikkor is MF. Is there a small Pentax DSLR or is it sort of
D70 sized?

There is I think at last count 5 small Pentax D-SLRs that have been
produced, DS, DL, DS2, DL2, K100D. You can pick up the earlier versions for
a few hundred dollars and they have pretty much every feature you could ever
need including spot metering and MLU, etc. Good enough for 12x18 prints and
bigger depending on the subject and will meter with any lens you can
actually attach.

Cheers.

Pete.