Trying To Figure Out Which Pentax Da Prime Will Work Best Until I Can Afford A Good Macro.

  • Thread starter SmithsJunk
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
SmithsJunk

SmithsJunk

3,430
263
The macros I like are more expensive than I expected so I'm looking at picking up one of these primes, either a Pentax 35mm DA f/2.4 or Pentax 50mm DA f/1.8, to fill in for now. They've both got great reviews. Shutter speed isn't crucial. My K-S1's ISO is 51,200, has built in AA, and image stabilization. I take a lot of lowlight pics and shoot freehand as well, even on the close-ups. Both of these run under $150, and despite their plastic cases, have great optics above their class.

Trying to figure out which pentax da prime will work best until i can afford a good macro
Trying to figure out which pentax da prime will work best until i can afford a good macro 2


Opinions are welcome and so are suggestions for other inexpensive primes. I already have some macros in mind so I'm not really looking for any advice on them. If you have a Pentax K series I'm especially interested in what you have to say. Thank you.
 
xbiox

xbiox

18
13
Well if your looking have more focused shots in lowlight, you would go for the 50mm 1.8 because of the aperture, but remember the wider the aperture the less sharp it will be.. If you trying to get wide shots, go for the 35mm. Being plastic I would be a little weary. I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 I dont use anymore because over time the lens got super loud when it focused because dirt got into the focusing ring way easier than the L lens, and got a little loose, worked for about 4 years being used alot. You should check out the focusing distance of each lens if thats a factor for you also.

With your ISO going up to 51,200 are any of those images usable? The most I ever go to is ISO 800-1000 when im shooting journalism and ISO 100 when Im doing product shots. I also have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 which is a plastic body, the lens is awesome though super sharp and fast focusing but its $900. Sorry I couldnt shed any light on Pentax, I stay more towards the Canon side.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/50mm-f18-da.htm Ived used this site over the years. Tons of info.
 
Last edited:
SmithsJunk

SmithsJunk

3,430
263
Well if your looking have more focused shots in lowlight, you would go for the 50mm 1.8 because of the aperture, but remember the wider the aperture the less sharp it will be.. If you trying to get wide shots, go for the 35mm. Being plastic I would be a little weary. I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 I dont use anymore because over time the lens got super loud when it focused because dirt got into the focusing ring way easier than the L lens, and got a little loose, worked for about 4 years being used alot. You should check out the focusing distance of each lens if thats a factor for you also.

With your ISO going up to 51,200 are any of those images usable? The most I ever go to is ISO 800-1000 when im shooting journalism and ISO 100 when Im doing product shots. I also have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 which is a plastic body, the lens is awesome though super sharp and fast focusing but its $900. Sorry I couldnt shed any light on Pentax, I stay more towards the Canon side.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/50mm-f18-da.htm Ived used this site over the years. Tons of info.

Thanks for the response. I have been on Rockwell's site before for tutorials and reviews. Good source. I have never used the ISO set to 51,200, haven't cracked 1,000. I plan to do wildlife pictures through telephoto, the range could be handy. If it did get up there the AA would buffer it, somewhat. Your comment is spot on. I was hoping to tip the scale one way but they both have strengths I like and which one I buy first is a just a nitpick since I intend to buy both. If they give me a couple years then they're worth the under $150 on Amazon. I'll end up giving them to my Mom as I upgrade. Buying her a K-30, this one was too much for her. Looking at the $1k lenses this winter. Too many projects till then.
 
xbiox

xbiox

18
13
Thanks for the response. I have been on Rockwell's site before for tutorials and reviews. Good source. I have never used the ISO set to 51,200, haven't cracked 1,000. I plan to do wildlife pictures through telephoto, the range could be handy. If it did get up there the AA would buffer it, somewhat. Your comment is spot on. I was hoping to tip the scale one way but they both have strengths I like and which one I buy first is a just a nitpick since I intend to buy both. If they give me a couple years then they're worth the under $150 on Amazon. I'll end up giving them to my Mom as I upgrade. Buying her a K-30, this one was too much for her. Looking at the $1k lenses this winter. Too many projects till then.

Sounds like a plan. I always research a ton before purchasing anything related to photography because its so expensive. Ive worked in the field for around 7 years now, seen alot of junk along the way. Im actually starting to make my own light modifiers because nothing works the way I want it to, and its not worth the price tag.

Ive always wondered why they push the ISO so high on these cameras, Ive used the most expensive equipment out there and I believe its a marketing tactic because I simply cannot find any use for it. Even shooting at night the camera wouldn't be able to focus on a object in complete darkness, so at that point in time you would just set the lens focus to infinity and take a photo.. and the film grain would just be insane for nightscape photos. My only other thought it is used for some scientific applications, but then you would be using the correct equipment to do that.. throws me in a loop, wish I knew.
 
SmithsJunk

SmithsJunk

3,430
263
Sounds like a plan. I always research a ton before purchasing anything related to photography because its so expensive. Ive worked in the field for around 7 years now, seen alot of junk along the way. Im actually starting to make my own light modifiers because nothing works the way I want it to, and its not worth the price tag.

Ive always wondered why they push the ISO so high on these cameras, Ive used the most expensive equipment out there and I believe its a marketing tactic because I simply cannot find any use for it. Even shooting at night the camera wouldn't be able to focus on a object in complete darkness, so at that point in time you would just set the lens focus to infinity and take a photo.. and the film grain would just be insane for nightscape photos. My only other thought it is used for some scientific applications, but then you would be using the correct equipment to do that.. throws me in a loop, wish I knew.

I don't think it's a gimmick. From my research it appears to be advantageous for high speed shutters and continuous shooting. The K-S1 has on-board anti aliasing to buffer the high ISO by cleaning up the artifacts. As a gamer I'm familiar with AA. I don't think it's a very common term in photography. I think, though I'm not absolutely sure, that it is less about low light and more about compensating for fast shutter speeds. A 50k+ ISO isn't usable in and of itself, but add it to the built in lens stabilization and AA, plus a good telephoto, and you have a camera that can freehand clean clear distance shots of birds on the fly in high speed bursts. It's why I bought it for my Mom.

She likes taking pictures of pelicans fishing and accidentally gave away her Minolta SLR in a box of donations. She was heartbroken, so I made it my mission to buy her the best camera I could afford. It ended up being too high of a tech learning curve for her and she gave it back. I was going to buy myself one anyway, so it worked out. I'm buying her the K-30, that's why I'm only getting one prime this month. She's stoked so I'm happy.

I don't have book smarts in photography so I'm just barely starting to grasp its nuances. I do however know what I want my camera to do and so far I've been successful at getting my shots. Honestly, I had no idea what a prime lens was 2 months ago but from what I've been reading they appear to be the go-to lens for pros, especially telephoto. I'm drawn to their simplicity and the skill it takes to wield them properly. Half the fun is getting the shot and I live for a challenge. My oldest sister was a well known photographer. Her art was amazing. Always wanted to follow in her footsteps and those are some big a$$ shoes.

Thank you again for your help. I learn quickly, but dang, this field is vast.
 
xbiox

xbiox

18
13
I don't think it's a gimmick. From my research it appears to be advantageous for high speed shutters and continuous shooting. The K-S1 has on-board anti aliasing to buffer the high ISO by cleaning up the artifacts. As a gamer I'm familiar with AA. I don't think it's a very common term in photography. I think, though I'm not absolutely sure, that it is less about low light and more about compensating for fast shutter speeds. A 50k+ ISO isn't usable in and of itself, but add it to the built in lens stabilization and AA, plus a good telephoto, and you have a camera that can freehand clean clear distance shots of birds on the fly in high speed bursts. It's why I bought it for my Mom.

She likes taking pictures of pelicans fishing and accidentally gave away her Minolta SLR in a box of donations. She was heartbroken, so I made it my mission to buy her the best camera I could afford. It ended up being too high of a tech learning curve for her and she gave it back. I was going to buy myself one anyway, so it worked out. I'm buying her the K-30, that's why I'm only getting one prime this month. She's stoked so I'm happy.

I don't have book smarts in photography so I'm just barely starting to grasp its nuances. I do however know what I want my camera to do and so far I've been successful at getting my shots. Honestly, I had no idea what a prime lens was 2 months ago but from what I've been reading they appear to be the go-to lens for pros, especially telephoto. I'm drawn to their simplicity and the skill it takes to wield them properly. Half the fun is getting the shot and I live for a challenge. My oldest sister was a well known photographer. Her art was amazing. Always wanted to follow in her footsteps and those are some big a$$ shoes.

Thank you again for your help. I learn quickly, but dang, this field is vast.

yeh no problem. Your explanation on ISO, is pretty much where my understanding is with it, so thats probably why they do it! Happy your taking the steps on learning photography instead of just buying the most expensive things there are, it will make a huge difference in the long run because everything works so seamlessly together after you understand how to combine all the tools, especially if you have the time and patience to understand the technical and scientific side of it. Thats where I get my excitement and fascination, theres a million combinations to do something and make something really unique. Im all about experimenting.
 
SmithsJunk

SmithsJunk

3,430
263
yeh no problem. Your explanation on ISO, is pretty much where my understanding is with it, so thats probably why they do it! Happy your taking the steps on learning photography instead of just buying the most expensive things there are, it will make a huge difference in the long run because everything works so seamlessly together after you understand how to combine all the tools, especially if you have the time and patience to understand the technical and scientific side of it. Thats where I get my excitement and fascination, theres a million combinations to do something and make something really unique. Im all about experimenting.

For real. I build custom computers, was a telecommunications engineer, a big bore air rifle dealer, and owned my own precious metals business, this is still the most complicated field I've ever delved into. Very rewarding though and you don't have to know much to get started.

Every day when I open my camera bag it's like Christmas all over again. I looove my camera. I've taken around 6,000 shots so far and I'm just starting to get a feel for her. Digital gives me the opportunity to take a lot throw away pics and learn more quickly.

My illness kept me down the last few days. I don't do well when storms roll in. This camera is helping me to be motivated to get up and get past my pain. Will be ordering my new prime tomorrow. (Still haven't figured out which one I want yet, lol)

Here's a question you should be able to answer. I have a 55mm-300mm and the 18mm-55mm, can one of these primes replace the 18-55? I want to buy the K-30 (body only) and it would save me some money if I can give the 18-55 to my mom until I can afford something nicer for her.

I really appreciate your help. It's great to be to getting a professional's input. Thank you again.
 
xbiox

xbiox

18
13
For real. I build custom computers, was a telecommunications engineer, a big bore air rifle dealer, and owned my own precious metals business, this is still the most complicated field I've ever delved into. Very rewarding though and you don't have to know much to get started.

Every day when I open my camera bag it's like Christmas all over again. I looove my camera. I've taken around 6,000 shots so far and I'm just starting to get a feel for her. Digital gives me the opportunity to take a lot throw away pics and learn more quickly.

My illness kept me down the last few days. I don't do well when storms roll in. This camera is helping me to be motivated to get up and get past my pain. Will be ordering my new prime tomorrow. (Still haven't figured out which one I want yet, lol)

Here's a question you should be able to answer. I have a 55mm-300mm and the 18mm-55mm, can one of these primes replace the 18-55? I want to buy the K-30 (body only) and it would save me some money if I can give the 18-55 to my mom until I can afford something nicer for her.

I really appreciate your help. It's great to be to getting a professional's input. Thank you again.


The awesome thing about these 'prime' lens is the speed they focus and the sharpness theyre able to give you. The reason they are able to do that is because there is less moving parts, mainly the glass inside the lens body. This helps with faster focusing because the lens motor doesn't have to turn as much heavy glass which also helps with sharpness and chromatic abrasions. The build quality with a prime.. well you wont have to buy another usually unless you drop it or another user error.

The draw back with only having a prime, is basically you lose the ability to zoom or go wide. So I would suggest trying to find something similar to my sigma 35mm to replace the 18-55 , youll lose the 50mm but you still have 55 on the other lens. Then just keep upgrading from there to fill the gaps.

I used to shoot super wide like 17mm all the time but the distortions have become to much for me unless im doing some type of documentary work, the sharpness and how fast it focuses is a better trade off for me because all you have to do is just move back a little if you want it wider...the prime zoom lens are super expensive once you start going above the 100mm for Canon but the sharpness is unreal.

Below is my basic combination that works best for me and give me all the range I need in the field and studio. Thats basically the norm, then I rent something special if I need it. Im hoping to get a 65mm macro in the future but until then im going to reverse mount a 50mm to the 100mm macro so it will give me a 3:1 magnification, just gotta get around to going to the camera store to get that stepdown ring.

SIGMA 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART prime ( i find this to be kind of a special lens because its not super expensive but if you read enough technical information about it and compare, its the same as the more expensive canon lens)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (prime) (pretty much the sharpest lens ive ever used)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM (this one give you a ton of focal length and the ability for macro)

and no problem, love sharing this information.
 
SmithsJunk

SmithsJunk

3,430
263
The awesome thing about these 'prime' lens is the speed they focus and the sharpness theyre able to give you. The reason they are able to do that is because there is less moving parts, mainly the glass inside the lens body. This helps with faster focusing because the lens motor doesn't have to turn as much heavy glass which also helps with sharpness and chromatic abrasions. The build quality with a prime.. well you wont have to buy another usually unless you drop it or another user error.

The draw back with only having a prime, is basically you lose the ability to zoom or go wide. So I would suggest trying to find something similar to my sigma 35mm to replace the 18-55 , youll lose the 50mm but you still have 55 on the other lens. Then just keep upgrading from there to fill the gaps.

I used to shoot super wide like 17mm all the time but the distortions have become to much for me unless im doing some type of documentary work, the sharpness and how fast it focuses is a better trade off for me because all you have to do is just move back a little if you want it wider...the prime zoom lens are super expensive once you start going above the 100mm for Canon but the sharpness is unreal.

Below is my basic combination that works best for me and give me all the range I need in the field and studio. Thats basically the norm, then I rent something special if I need it. Im hoping to get a 65mm macro in the future but until then im going to reverse mount a 50mm to the 100mm macro so it will give me a 3:1 magnification, just gotta get around to going to the camera store to get that stepdown ring.

SIGMA 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART prime ( i find this to be kind of a special lens because its not super expensive but if you read enough technical information about it and compare, its the same as the more expensive canon lens)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (prime) (pretty much the sharpest lens ive ever used)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM (this one give you a ton of focal length and the ability for macro)

and no problem, love sharing this information.

Right on. I'm getting the 35mm f/2.4. I could buy a more expensive lens but the differences really are negligible. Definitely not enough to warrant $400-$500 jump (That's more than a newish K-30, AF 35mm prime, and magnified viewfinder, for my Momz). Will be looking into the $1K+ Limited next year. Also picking up macro x2 & x10 magnifiers for it and the rest of my bag, going to test them with the 35mm first though. Why buy a $450 macro when I can achieve the something similar for $40 magnifier+$145 lens & $120 for the rest of my bag (50mm DA prime incl.). I don't care about vignetting and bokoruing or whatever they're called as long as I can get a moderately clear contrast and good color. The photo snobs can piss off if they don't like that I have a little purple or green, or if my fuzzies are the wrong shape.

You were wondering what 51,200 ISO looks like. I'm proud to say my K-S1 did very well considering she had to work her a$$ off with the AA to clean it up. To a person who didn't know better they'd look like crap but for the sake of testing purposes they are beauts. First couple are 52K the next three are 1.6K, not too bad for freehand. Very little artifacting at 800 but with my sickness I just can't hold her still enough. Need a tripod, set a stop, drop her to 100, and use my remote.

Moon Shot 5561 09 07 2017
Moon Shot 5757 09 07 2017
Moon Shot 5791 09 07 2017
Moon Shot 5818 09 07 2017
Moon Shot 5827 09 07 2017
 
Top Bottom