 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Pentax *ist DS2
Anyone have one of these? http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/digital_camera--*ist_DS2/r eqID--6919574/subsection--digital_slr or http://tinyurl.com/dtzsz I have an existing Pentax film SLR with a lens marked: SMC Pentax-FA 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm Since the Pentax *ist DS2 comes without a lens, I hope to use my existing lens with it and save some money. BTW, B&H sells them for $750: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 99882&is=REG&addedTroughType=search or http://tinyurl.com/83ur9 > Anyone have one of these? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Since the Pentax *ist DS2 comes without a lens, I hope to use my > existing lens with it and save some money. Is that a question? :-) Yes, you can use your FA lens with the *istDS2. If you get the DA lens that comes with the DS, you likely won't be able to use it with the film camera, unless you like a lot of vignetting. Learn a lot here: <http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/> Brian, Spend the extra and get the kit 18-55mm lens, it is a pretty good little lens and is nice and wide for landscape and indoor use. If you get one in with a kit it will not cost much. I have a Ds and use the 18-55mm lens a lot, I have a faster 28-105 but find the smaller lens more versitile. Cheers. Pete D > Anyone have one of these? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/83ur9 > Brian, > > Spend the extra and get the kit 18-55mm lens, it is a pretty good little > lens and is nice and wide for landscape and indoor use. If you get one in > with a kit it will not cost much. I have a Ds and use the 18-55mm lens a > lot, I have a faster 28-105 but find the smaller lens more versitile. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't get the 18-55, and get the 16-45 instead. Maybe I got a bad one, but the 18-55 is kinda soft and has vignetting at wider zoom. I leave it on the camera so there's something relatively unobtrusive that I can pick up and shoot with, but it's not that great. BTW, Pentax has their current lens offerings listed here: <http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses> I've got the DS. And I sold the 18-55 right away. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it is *slow*. Many reasonably-fast AF lenses exist and at a reasonable price. Just adding an extra $50 can get you a nicer lens. And the lens is what it's all about. http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1400800.jpg http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/IMGP1403800.jpg Both shot with FA50/1.4, 1/60 @ f5.6. The violin needs some work (compositionally, that is) but the dried roses came out very nicely. The DS does a good jpb. The DS2 is the same body with a larger viewing screen on the back. Collin I have a 70 to 210 zoom lens from my pentax sf1 how will it work with the Pentax ist dl Thanks Don > I've got the DS. And I sold the 18-55 right away. > It's not a bad lens by any means, but it is *slow*. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Collin Can you point to examples of these lenses, the 16-45 ED is considerably more than the basic 18-55mm and had better give better results. > I've got the DS. And I sold the 18-55 right away. > It's not a bad lens by any means, but it is *slow*. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Collin > I've got the DS. And I sold the 18-55 right away. > It's not a bad lens by any means, but it is *slow*. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The DS does a good jpb. > The DS2 is the same body with a larger viewing screen on the back. Jeez, I hate those multi-colored backgrounds. With the violin, you've got 100% improvement with a solid color, black, white, red, almost at the "whatever" stage. Think about all white, or black, really bring the whole emphasis in on the violin and bow. Or not, too. Just a suggestion. Thanks. It would have been better with more powerful lights so that I could have stopped down further and made the background go darker. Or if I'd directed the lights a little differently. Anything to get the background to go darker. Collin > If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't get the 18-55, and get the > 16-45 instead. Maybe I got a bad one, but the 18-55 is kinda soft and 100% agree (I bought *ist DS with 18-55) B. > Anyone have one of these? It's pretty new and not widely available yet, but the DS it replaces is virtually identical (especially after doing the firmware upgrade), so a few of us here can comment. > I have an existing Pentax film SLR with a lens marked: > > SMC Pentax-FA > 1:3.5-5.6 28-80mm > > Since the Pentax *ist DS2 comes without a lens Note sure if you are thinking it *only* comes that way. You certainly *can* get it with no lens, but most retailers sell it by default in a kit with an 18-55 zoom. After applying the 1.5 magnification factor (due to the DSLR sensor being smaller than 35mm), this would give basically the same results as your existing 28-80. Your 28-80 will work, but you won't really be getting as wide as 28 - it will actually be more like 42, in terms of what you're used to. On the plus side, you'll be getting a lot longer than the 80 you're used to. If you can live without the wide angle, go for it. Otherwise, youre probably better off getting the kit. There are, of course, other lenses available as well - such as the 16-45 already mentioned - but they are rather more expensive. If cost is a major concern, I'd be thinking kit unless you are *sure* you won't want the wide angle. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ Thanks. Will the 1.5x magnification factor be evident when I look through the viewfinder? I don't have a good feel for what the zoom numbers mean. > Thanks. Will the 1.5x magnification factor be evident when I look > through the viewfinder? I don't have a good feel for what the zoom > numbers mean. Well, on my *istD with 16-45mm lens, it means that the 16mm is equal to a 35mm film camera (or full frame digital)with 24mm at the wide end. Multiply it all by 1.5, in other words. It is evident in the viewfinder in that you get that view. There's nothing flashing to say, "Hey, bub, this is the equivalent of 24mm, not 16mm." > Thanks. Will the 1.5x magnification factor be evident when I look > through the viewfinder? Yes. As with any SLR-type camera (digital or otherwise), what you see in the viewfinder is pretty much what you get. > I don't have a good feel for what the zoom > numbers mean. They refer to the "focal length", the exact meaning of which isn't relevant. What *is* relevant is that smaller numbers mean a wider angle view, larger numbers mean a more "telephoto" view. You might want to spend some time with your film camera looking through the viewfinder, zooming in and out, and then checking the lens to see what focal lengths you like (the numbers are printed right on the side - just look for the numbers change when you zoom in or out. If you find yourself never using the focal lengths below 42, then you'll be perfectly happy using the lens on a digital - zooming all the way out to 28 on the digital will produce results similar to 42 on film. If you find you are often zooming out and using focal lengths in the 28-42 range with film, however, you'll be disappointed when you mount the lens on a a digital and find that a focal length of 28, which on your film camera might allow you to get most of a room in a shot, ends up cropping out way too much on the sides (the equivalent to what a setitng of 40 would do on your film camera). With film, 28 is considered fairly "wide", 40-50 is considered "normal" (similar to what the naked eye perceives), and bigger numbers "telephoto". The 70 at the long end of your lens isn't very telephoto at all with film; "real" telephoto lenses would be in the range of 100 to 300 or higher. So at least the 70 on your lens will be equivalent to a 105 on film, which is noticeably more telephoto than you've got now. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.