Your Favorite Pentax Lens

I'm sold on Pentax lenses. I bought a K20D with a kit lens about seven months ago, and a DA* 200mm f/2.8 about five months ago. The kit lens isn't much, but I didn't expect much. The 200, however, is a great lens. I'm considering a Pentax 35mm macro.
What is your favorite Pentax lens? And why?

Awesome thread, Ron! :thumbsup:

I currently have only 2 PENTAX-branded lenses (the other is a TAKUMAR). Of the two there is one clear favourite...

PENTAX SMC PENTAX-F F2.8 100mm MACRO lens.

Why? A number of reasons, but mostly since macros are by preferred photography field – I would naturally want a macro lens. :D Also, the front element is deeply "buried" in the lens barrel, making flare very infrequent. Another feature I like is the focus limiter, while with MF it does not make so much of a difference, it greatly helps with AF speed. Build quality is nice, sturdy metal with rubberized grips. Image quality is great too, no vignetting and sharpness is good so long as focusing is done properly.

The only things which I do not like is the 5mm wide MF-ring located right on the very tip, and the overall bulkiness/weight.

AMDA - I just picked this lens up about a month ago. I haven't had a chance to really shoot with it yet, but I'm glad to hear another positive review of the lens!

I own a DA* 200mm f/2.8, and use it hand-held for wildlife photograph. This lens has amazed me in its versatility and image quality. In fact, I like it so well, I've started using it quite a bit for general photography, because, with IS on, I can use it in most situations that used to demand 50mm, and I get the special bokah effects of a longer lens.
This, I believe, gives me a slight edge in the competative field of shooting for publication, where editors are used to seeing excellent images at standard focal lengths.
It's heavy, but that not only doesn't bother me, I prefer a little weight for hand-held situations.
With my switch from Nikon (for decades) to Pentax about 7 months ago, I've decided to re-equip myself with all prime lenses for maximum image quality, and whenever possible, or financiable, I'm aiming for Pentax's DA* primes.
The 35mm macros I mentioned is not a DA*, but as far as I can tell, Pentax doesn't make a macro in their *-quality line.

I own one Pentax lens The 50-200mm F 4- 5.6 The first lens on the K10D I got some nice pictures with it. I guess thats what counts. I got some bad ones as well, but I chock that up to operator error. Of course it could be faster but at that price! I would recommend this as walk around lens depending on your style of shooting. Mine is mostly out doors.

My favorite is my 50mm f1.4, this is my sharpest lens and best for portraits. My Tamron 28-75mm, gets the most use, because it's a great walk around lens. I am very excited about my 70-200mm Sigma, but just don't get enough opportunities to use it yet. I need more weddings and sporting events. The kit lens serves it purpose for wide shots, so I keep it and compared to other kit lenses, it's not bad, just not as sharp as the others, that I mentioned

Thanks, Snapac. For maximum quality, I'm aiming at getting all fixed focal lengths with this upgrade to a different brand (shot Nikon for years), and the Pentax 50mm f1.4 is one I'm strongly considering. Is that lens AF?

Snapac, I can get that lens for around $300. Not a bad deal, but it is an FA, not DA, and although "compatible," I think for maximum operation with my K20D, I'm best to stick with DA, and have figured out DA* is the very best. Or am I evaluating all this correctly?

Anyone here have experience with Pentax 35mm f2.8 macro, or the new DA* 55mm f/1.4 primes?

I'd have to say that my SMC-D FA 100mm Macro (1:2.8) is my favorite Pentax lense!

The exceptional quality it offers at extreme closeups is rewarding, especially on floral subjects (although small critters look great too!) :)

I've been hearing nothing but good things about the 300mm macro, and again here from Grau and our own moderator.
What I'm trying to do is cover all the bases (focal lengths, etc) with nothing but primes for maximum quality.
I already have a 200mm f/2.8, and this is the perfect wildlife lens for me, because I can shoot it hand-held and the IQ is awesome. I know how to get close, and to me the hunting part is the most fun. Some day, if I win the lottery, I'd like to get a fast 600mm or something like that, but for now an extra grand for the 300mm f/4 is just not worth it to me.
What I'm trying to do is fill in the focal length to replace my kit lens, with the added feature of macro. I'm torn between the 35mm macro Limited and the new 55mm macro. I'm accustomed to subject distance with 50mm macro in film, and since the 35mm Limited in digital is equivelent to 53mm in film, I'm leaning toward it because of the Limited line's IQ, not only for macro, but mostly for general shooting. A lot of my standard shooting is done within the confines of a boat, and I'm afraid the 55mm (about 80mm equivelent) will be too long. I think I've about settled on the 35.
The 35 and the 200 will meet most of my needs. Later I may want to fill in between the 35 and 200, or expand my reach. I think I'll wait, however, for a 300 f/2.8 or a 400 f/4 and for one of my rich relatives to die. Sure wish I had one of those, too.
Does anyone have suggestions about my plan?

Another thought was to extend my focal range with a teleconverter, until I can afford the real thing. Since my 200mm is f/2.8 it should maintain acceptable quality. But I just don't know.
Where's Loupey?
Hey Loooooupey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Kruger

Snapac, I can get that lens for around $300. Not a bad deal, but it is an FA, not DA, and although "compatible," I think for maximum operation with my K20D, I'm best to stick with DA, and have figured out DA* is the very best. Or am I evaluating all this correctly?

---

Sorry Ron, I've been out of town and just read this thread. You are correct the DA is the better of the two IMO and everything that I've read.