Support NeoGAF

[arnoldocastillo2003]

the fast shutter speed/small aperture advice is pretty failsafe if you just want to capture the car, but if you're after a more dynamic shot i'd also try panning, which involves moving the camera with the subject at a fairly low shutter speed - 1/50 or slower is probably best, though the slower it is the harder it becomes to pull off. takes practice but is fun and useful! if you get it right the subject should be in focus with everything else blurred to emphasise the motion.

this isn't great but is the most recent example i could find on my blog - took it a couple of weeks ago. 1/50, f/5.6, 28mm, ISO 100.



you after a compact, SLR, rangefinder etc?

it might be worth getting a holga or something just to get used to the whole process and come up with very obviously non-digital results. my first film camera was a holga 135 and i love the little guy.

another great camera is the vivitar ultra wide & slim, also made by superheadz with other names such as eximus, UWS, etc...should be about $30 new at the most (mine came free with a magazine here)

mine looks like this but it comes in a thousand different colour variations. it has a 22mm lens (which is equivalent to 14.5mm on a crop DSLR, so it's really wide) and gets awesome results (if you like vignetting and slightly weird colours, at least):

this is the one camera i always, without fail have in my bag. weighs nothing, costs nothing.

Thanks for your advice, is there any video or a more in depth tutorial that you can recommend me about this panning option, I would like to try to understand it a little more, if you can post your blog or a video or a page I can read about this and learn more, I will be forever grateful.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Random question. What is a good printer I can get for printing images, for a portfolio? I'm on a budget, so I can't afford some crazy high priced printer atm.

 

[Rentahamster]

Random question. What is a good printer I can get for printing images, for a portfolio? I'm on a budget, so I can't afford some crazy high priced printer atm.

Costco.

 

[tokkun]

Thanks for your advice, is there any video or a more in depth tutorial that you can recommend me about this panning option, I would like to try to understand it a little more, if you can post your blog or a video or a page I can read about this and learn more, I will be forever grateful.

He isn't describing an option in the camera. He is saying that you find a moving subject, turn your camera to keep the moving subject in the center of your frame, and take the picture while moving the camera like that to cause the background to be blurred.

If you have access to Photoshop or an equivalent program, it is easier to fake this by using a fast shutter speed and adding the blur using the Motion Blur filter.

 

[LuCkymoON]

Thanks for your advice, is there any video or a more in depth tutorial that you can recommend me about this panning option, I would like to try to understand it a little more, if you can post your blog or a video or a page I can read about this and learn more, I will be forever grateful.

http://youtu.be/wI3ca72W3eM?hd=1

 

[tino]

LX5 yay or nay?

Looking for a P&S that excels in low light. Going to an outdoor blacktie event in two weeks and I don't want to be walking around with my dslr.

Yay.

 

[chimster]

Olympus XZ1. I was blown away by its near-dslr IQ. Also, it has F/1.8 aperture.

yikes, making it even harder for me to decide now. Didn't even know this existed.

 

[GamePnoy74]

yikes, making it even harder for me to decide now. Didn't even know this existed.

If you can afford an extra ~$100 or so for faster lens, go for the XZ-1...if not, the LX5 will do you good (I bought an LX5 for my wife, great camera =) From what I understand, they both use the same sensor.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Not news or anything but if you're a Nikon shooter and your interested in Manual Focus shooting you should check out Nikon's legendary 50mm f/1.2 AI-S (which they still manufacture, I believe). Its pricey but it has great character wide open (in its spherical aberrations). An example...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneant/5402927114/

It cleans up (meaning no more spherical aberrations) and sharpens up just a stop down. Looking online a EX grade one goes for around $600. If I wasn't into Zeiss lenses as much as I am I'd probably go after this lens.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

He isn't describing an option in the camera. He is saying that you find a moving subject, turn your camera to keep the moving subject in the center of your frame, and take the picture while moving the camera like that to cause the background to be blurred.

If you have access to Photoshop or an equivalent program, it is easier to fake this by using a fast shutter speed and adding the blur using the Motion Blur filter.

Thanks for the advice.

http://youtu.be/wI3ca72W3eM?hd=1

Thanks, really help me a lot.

Nikon's legendary 50mm f/1.2 AI-S (which they still manufacture, I believe). Its pricey but it has great character wide open (in its spherical aberrations). An example...

I can´t seem to find one and i don´t know if it works for my Nikon D5000.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

Thanks for the advice.


Thanks, really help me a lot.


I can´t seem to find one and i don´t know if it works for my Nikon D5000.

its AIS so it wont meter for your camera.

But damn it would be nice on my Nikon FE.

 

[VNZ]

yikes, making it even harder for me to decide now. Didn't even know this existed.

The XZ-1 is really big for a "compact", though. For me it's not even in the same category as the S95. Both are stellar cameras though, and surely the photos off the XZ-1 can easily be confused for DSLR images in a lot of circumstances.

 

[tino]

If you can afford an extra ~$100 or so for faster lens, go for the XZ-1...if not, the LX5 will do you good (I bought an LX5 for my wife, great camera =) From what I understand, they both use the same sensor.

I would not get 0.2 faster by sacrifice the 24mm wide angle. Its much more useful in real life. Plus pay more for it, why would I do it.

 

[VNZ]

For me - currently an LX3 user having glanced at both XZ-1 and LX5 as an upgrade - I realized the S95 is really on par with these at a significantly smaller size. It's really the only pocketable "enthusiast P&S" camera. When the successor to S95 hits I'll probably go for it.

 

[rinse82]

DSLR Video Question:

I have a Nikon D3100 and I'm planning to film my wedding ceremony onboard a cruiseship this summer with it. It'll just be a short 10 min video, just wanted to bring something back to show everybody when we have our reception.

Anyways, was wondering what type of lens I should be using and if it makes a difference for movie mode?

I have the 18-55m VR kit lens that came with the camera, but I'm about to purchase the 35mm 1.8f prime lens. Would using the 35mm yield better results?

 

[aidan]

I've been asked by a couple of my friends to shoot engagement photos for them. Problem is, I don't have a proper Flash for my camera and (obviously) would like to shoot with something other than the tacky on-board flash.

If the Canon Speedlite 270EX a reasonable solution? I know it's not overly fancy, but my pricerange doesn't go much beyond it. Is there a better flash in that price range? What sort of limitations would I be looking at?

 

[Chairhome]

I've been asked by a couple of my friends to shoot engagement photos for them. Problem is, I don't have a proper Flash for my camera and (obviously) would like to shoot with something other than the tacky on-board flash.

If the Canon Speedlite 270EX a reasonable solution? I know it's not overly fancy, but my pricerange doesn't go much beyond it. Is there a better flash in that price range? What sort of limitations would I be looking at?

you may want to look into the yongnuo flashes. They're a pretty popular alternative. Cheaper, but I believe you have to buy a separate wireless receiver.

 

[tino]

DSLR Video Question:

I have a Nikon D3100 and I'm planning to film my wedding ceremony onboard a cruiseship this summer with it. It'll just be a short 10 min video, just wanted to bring something back to show everybody when we have our reception.

Anyways, was wondering what type of lens I should be using and if it makes a difference for movie mode?

I have the 18-55m VR kit lens that came with the camera, but I'm about to purchase the 35mm 1.8f prime lens. Would using the 35mm yield better results?

I would consider renting a pro 2.8 lens for this special occasion. 17-35 or 24-70 maybe.

 

[aidan]

you may want to look into the yongnuo flashes. They're a pretty popular alternative. Cheaper, but I believe you have to buy a separate wireless receiver.

Thank you! Just ordered one after reading up about them. Seem perfect for what I'm looking to do and fit nice in my (non-existent) budget!

 

[Omiee]

what thread should i use if i have questions about getting dslr camera's ?

 

[BlueTsunami]

what thread should i use if i have questions about getting dslr camera's ?

This one is fine

 

[opticalmace]

How important is a lens? I just have the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Sony a55.

Is there a comparison showing how a better lens will improve the pictures? Also would I be better off getting something to complement my current lens (a zoom) or something that replaces my current one with a bigger zoom? (If I were to get another lens.)

Thanks.

 

[Omiee]

so im completely new to dslr camera's
i have never used one or owned one.
but i wanted to get one because i fell in love with the quality of photo's you can make with it.
i was looking for advice what the best camera is to get when your new.

i was thinking of either getting the nex3 or nex5 by sony, since i love it has the big lens but is also pretty slim


my budget 400 to 500 euro.

 

[BlueTsunami]

so im completely new to dslr camera's
i have never used one or owned one.
but i wanted to get one because i fell in love with the quality of photo's you can make with it.
i was looking for advice what the best camera is to get when your new.

i was thinking of either getting the nex3 or nex5 by sony, since i love it has the big lens but is also pretty slim


my budget 400 to 500 euro.

The NEX3 or NEX5 are fine cameras. Can't go wrong with them. The only gripe is the lens selection. If you feel you'll be fine with just a zoom lens for a good while then you'll be golden with a NEX but I bring this up because the native lens lineup for the NEX is nonexistent (a zoom lens and a 16mm pancake lens). The pancake lens (meaning it has a very slim and small profile) has alright IQ but is much, much smaller than the zoom lens.

How important is a lens? I just have the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Sony a55.

I'd say its pretty important but there's a lot of nuance involved with some aspects and things that just aren't measurable (or are but are very technical when presented in graphs). I don't have any comparisons to show but the most common things that a better lens will handle are distortion, contrast, flaring, color rendition and sharpness (absolute sharpness and sharpness across the frame which is important for a landscape lens).

 

[UnluckyKate]

I'm getting a 24-70 f2.8 L tomorrow, for 24 hours only (sadly). Will mount it on my 7D and take pictures all afternooon

 

[Magni]

what thread should i use if i have questions about getting dslr camera's ?

This one?
edit: this is what happens when you open a reply way before you actually do reply..
edit2: a DSLR for your price range.. I'd say Pentax K-x, Nikon D3000, or Canon 1000D in that order. If you can spare just a bit more, I'd say either the K-r (mine, which I love) or the D3100 (of which I've heard many great things).

PentaxGAF, should I throw my money at FA 31mm 1.8, FA 77mm 1.8, or DA* 55mm 1.4? Would be my first prime lense.

 

[Omiee]

The NEX3 or NEX5 are fine cameras. Can't go wrong with them. The only gripe is the lens selection. If you feel you'll be fine with just a zoom lens for a good while then you'll be golden with a NEX but I bring this up because the native lens lineup for the NEX is nonexistent (a zoom lens and a 16mm pancake lens). The pancake lens (meaning it has a very slim and small profile) has alright IQ but is much, much smaller than the zoom lens.



I'd say its pretty important but there's a lot of nuance involved with some aspects and things that just aren't measurable (or are but are very technical when presented in graphs). I don't have any comparisons to show but the most common things that a better lens will handle are distortion, contrast, flaring, color rendition and sharpness (absolute sharpness and sharpness across the frame which is important for a landscape lens).

Yeah i saw that it only has like 2 lenses to choose from, but i read some reviews and saw people using a mount so they can use other lenses.
i saw a nex5 for 450 euro with a 18-55 lens and a nex3 with a 18-55 lens for 365
which one is the best to take?
Any other recommendations for my budget?

 

[shas'la]

nex 5 is much better for videos if thats your thing, I was in the same position as you and got an NEX5 6 months ago, Its a bit strange luggin around a camera at first when you're used to jamming a point n shoot in your pocket, infact i still only bring it out once a fortnight. The auto mode is great for beginners, and there are lots of well populted forums for willing leaners. AND there are more lenses comming this year (god can wait for a 50mm prime carl Zeiss).

 

[BlueTsunami]

Yeah i saw that it only has like 2 lenses to choose from, but i read some reviews and saw people using a mount so they can use other lenses.
i saw a nex5 for 450 euro with a 18-55 lens and a nex3 with a 18-55 lens for 365
which one is the best to take?
Any other recommendations for my budget?

The difference between the NEX5 and NEX3 is build quality (NEX5 has a magnesium alloy body, I think where the NEX3 is plastic) and the NEX5 records at 1080i vs. 720p of the NEX3. Totally depends on if you find these things worth the extra money.

And yes the NEX cameras can take a lot of different lenses but all of them (the ones that aren't adapted from Sony's alpha line via an electronic adapter) will be relegated to manual focusing (and most probably already are manual focus lenses). Fortunately the NEX cameras lend themselves to manual focus shooting with the ability to zoom in on the LCD screen and fine tune your focus.

If you don't mind manual focusing you'll be able to buy some great "bang for your buck" lenses.

(god can wait for a 50mm prime carl Zeiss).

The CZ 24/1.7 should be an interesting addition to the line. It'll give around a 38mm Field of View on the NEX.

 

[Omiee]

The difference between the NEX5 and NEX3 is build quality (NEX5 has a magnesium alloy body, I think where the NEX3 is plastic) and the NEX5 records at 1080i vs. 720p of the NEX3. Totally depends on if you find these things worth the extra money.

And yes the NEX cameras can take a lot of different lenses but all of them (the ones that aren't adapted from Sony's alpha line via an electronic adapter) will be relegated to manual focusing (and most probably already are manual focus lenses). Fortunately the NEX cameras lend themselves to manual focus shooting with the ability to zoom in on the LCD screen and fine tune your focus.

If you don't mind manual focusing you'll be able to buy some great "bang for your buck" lenses.

So what would your advice be, go for something like that or get something else?

 

[Magni]

How important is a lens? I just have the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Sony a55.

Is there a comparison showing how a better lens will improve the pictures? Also would I be better off getting something to complement my current lens (a zoom) or something that replaces my current one with a bigger zoom? (If I were to get another lens.)

Thanks.

Disclaimer: I do not know Sony lenses, so for the exact lens you should buy, ask someone else.

For a second lens I'd recommend another zoom unless you're looking for something very particular.
Do you often find you wish you could get further back when you're taking pictures, blocking at 18mm? Then you'd need something like the 11-18mm.
Or do you always feel you need to get closer on the other hand, that 55mm just doesn't cut it? Then you'd get something like the 75-300mm.

 

[BlueTsunami]

So what would your advice be, go for something like that or get something else?

I'd honestly go for the NEX. If I had the money right now I'd give up my Canon Rebel XT to get a NEX. The only other choice at this tier of cameras are true DSLRs that will feel bulky in comparison. The NEX is also up there as far as IQ with current DSLRs so that shouldn't be a worry in regards to the camera itself. I would get it!

 

[spats]

Does anyone know of a decent hot shoe mount that would work on a D3100? The internal microphone is unusable and I'd love to be able to mount my microphone on to the camera. Thanks in advance.

 

[Omiee]

I'd honestly go for the NEX. If I had the money right now I'd give up my Canon Rebel XT to get a NEX. The only other choice at this tier of cameras are true DSLRs that will feel bulky in comparison. The NEX is also up there as far as IQ with current DSLRs so that shouldn't be a worry in regards to the camera itself. I would get it!

Thanks i think im going for the nex5. What cheap lenses are best to buy if i get a mount, and what mount should i use?

What about these since they are within my budget:

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/263093/nikon-d3100-+-af-s-dx-18-55mm-g-vr.html#tab:info

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/276878/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx100v-zwart.html#tab:info

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/259656/sony-alpha-dslr-a390l-+-18-55mm-f35-56-sam.html#tab:info

 

[opticalmace]

Disclaimer: I do not know Sony lenses, so for the exact lens you should buy, ask someone else.

For a second lens I'd recommend another zoom unless you're looking for something very particular.
Do you often find you wish you could get further back when you're taking pictures, blocking at 18mm? Then you'd need something like the 11-18mm.
Or do you always feel you need to get closer on the other hand, that 55mm just doesn't cut it? Then you'd get something like the 75-300mm.

Thanks, I'd like to be able to zoom in more.

I should mention for the moment I mostly take photos on 'auto' mode. I could get a zoom lens for $200 or $500 or more. Will the pictures look that much better with a better lens?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Thanks i think im going for the nex5. What cheap lenses are best to buy if i get a mount, and what mount should i use?

With the NEX you could buy some old vintage lenses. a Pentax (Takumar) screw-mount lens would be pretty cheap. There's also manual focus Olympus lenses from the 80's. You should be able to find some fast 50mm lenses for a song. But those are SLR lenses and tend to be big compared to the other lenses lenses that the NEX can (uniquely) mount which are Rangefinder lenses but thats an area that I'm a bit hazy on. You can buy modern Rangefinder lenses at a bargain with the Voigtlander branded lenses but they won't be as cheap as used vintage lenses of course.

Also the D3100 is supposed to be great so if you find that you won't mind the bulk and you'd like viewfinder that'd be great to get too.

 

[tokkun]

How important is a lens? I just have the 18-55 kit lens that came with my Sony a55.

Is there a comparison showing how a better lens will improve the pictures? Also would I be better off getting something to complement my current lens (a zoom) or something that replaces my current one with a bigger zoom? (If I were to get another lens.)

Thanks.

That's a complex question to answer.

The kit lens is decent for its focal range, not amazing. A popular high-end replacement is the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm which is sharper and faster. For $750, you can spend your money in better places as a beginner, IMO.

As for what lens you should buy next, it depends on what you like to shoot.

If you like shooting Macro images, you can get huge improvements over the kit lens with a dedicated Macro lens.

If you like shooting wildlife or other distant targets, you'll want a telephoto lens. Then you'll need to think about how large of a focal length you need. Regarding the question of getting a dedicated telephoto versus replacing your kit lens a superzoom - I opted for the latter and bought the Sony 18-250mm. This is better if you want fewer lenses to carry around and fewer lens swaps. However, it is relatively expensive (~$500) and you can get a quality dedicated telephoto at a lower price.

If you shoot in dark conditions a lot, you can pick up a 50mm f1.7 Minolta lens for less than $100 used.

Personally I don't like carrying more than 2 lenses around with me at once, and find I can do almost anything I want with a combination of the Sony 18-250 and a Minolta f2.8 50mm Macro.

 

[GamePnoy74]

I would not get 0.2 faster by sacrifice the 24mm wide angle. Its much more useful in real life. Plus pay more for it, why would I do it.

I didn't notice there's a difference in the zoom range between the two cameras, but the Olympus also has a faster aperture range within the zoom range though. You're also playing for the OLED screen on the Olympus as well.

That said, we love our LX5, you really can't go wrong with either one =)

 

[tino]

I didn't notice there's a difference in the zoom range between the two cameras, but the Olympus also has a faster aperture range within the zoom range though. You're also playing for the OLED screen on the Olympus as well.

That said, we love our LX5, you really can't go wrong with either one =)

You didn't realize the difference between 24mm and 28mm? OK never mind what I said.

 

[Jayayess1190]

Thanks i think im going for the nex5.

Do you care that a new Nex (the C3) is being announced on June 3rd? It will be replacing the Nex-3 and possibly the Nex-5 also.

 

[tino]

This one?
edit: this is what happens when you open a reply way before you actually do reply..
edit2: a DSLR for your price range.. I'd say Pentax K-x, Nikon D3000, or Canon 1000D in that order. If you can spare just a bit more, I'd say either the K-r (mine, which I love) or the D3100 (of which I've heard many great things).

PentaxGAF, should I throw my money at FA 33mm 1.8, FA 77mm 1.8, or DA* 55mm 1.4? Would be my first prime lense.

I typed a long ass post and the god damn phone browser lost it. Basically what I wanted to say was none of the current pentax digital body can fully push the potential of the FA panackes, the "Princesses" as the overseas Pentax fans call them. I would feel sorry for these lenses if. I didn't have a flagship Pentax film body to use them. I am talking about the like of the MZS, the ZX3, the LX or at lease the *ist film body.

Why didn't you consider the FA43 btw? That would be the most logical first pancake lens.

 

[chimster]

I didn't notice there's a difference in the zoom range between the two cameras, but the Olympus also has a faster aperture range within the zoom range though. You're also playing for the OLED screen on the Olympus as well.

That said, we love our LX5, you really can't go wrong with either one =)

The oled and the faster lens is really tempting since I will be doing low light shooting at the event. Well I have two weeks to decide before my trip

 

[tokkun]

PentaxGAF, should I throw my money at FA 33mm 1.8, FA 77mm 1.8, or DA* 55mm 1.4? Would be my first prime lense.

Without commenting on those specific lenses, I would just say that on an APS-C body 33mm is usually a more useful focal length for general purpose work.

 

[BlueTsunami]

PentaxGAF, should I throw my money at FA 33mm 1.8, FA 77mm 1.8, or DA* 55mm 1.4? Would be my first prime lense.

The FA 77/1.8 is supposed to be something special. Check out flickr for examples of photos taken with these lenses.

For instance, here's a photo I fav'ed on Flickr when I had a big interest in the way the FA 77/1.8 renders...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmoch/4230410313/in/faves-bluetsunami/

And a photo from the same photographer with the same lens that doesn't have as much post processing...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4328661622_bfa7f9ec85_b.jpg

Great contrast without being overbearing (great for portraiture), fantastic colors and there's a good amount of sharpness.

Here's a great example of its bokeh rendition (and specular lights) which its highly regarded for...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickharris1/4757841418/

That all aside Pentax primes are supposed to be very, very good. So I would go with Tokkun suggestion and go with the the focal length you feel you need the most. The 77 Limited would obviously be best suited for portraiture and subject isolation. On a crop it would feel fairly long if you want to use said lens for general shooting.

Mannn, a K5 with any of those limiteds would be a sick setup. If only Pentax would finally drop a Full Frame digital camera on the world. I would probably buy into the system and adapt any Zeiss lenses I would prefer over the Limiteds.

 

[luoapp]

The oled and the faster lens is really tempting since I will be doing low light shooting at the event. Well I have two weeks to decide before my trip

Some more info for your consideration regarding XZ1:

+ Very nice shallow DoF at the long end. ( F/2.5 @112mm vs LX5's F/3.3@90mm)
- Mediocre video capability. (Motion JPEG vs AVCHD Lite)

 

[345triangle]

If you like shooting wildlife or other distant targets, you'll want a telephoto lens. Then you'll need to think about how large of a focal length you need. Regarding the question of getting a dedicated telephoto versus replacing your kit lens a superzoom - I opted for the latter and bought the Sony 18-250mm. This is better if you want fewer lenses to carry around and fewer lens swaps. However, it is relatively expensive (~$500) and you can get a quality dedicated telephoto at a lower price.

the 18-250mm was actually my a55's kit lens, and it's amazingly useful. between that and my 35mm 1.8 i'm pretty well covered, though i don't have any macro lenses and i'd like a wide angle zoom.

Thanks i think im going for the nex5. What cheap lenses are best to buy if i get a mount, and what mount should i use?

make sure you get the double lens nex kit, though. the 18-55 is a standard decent walkaround DSLR-style kit lens, but the 16mm 2.8 is great for maximising the size advantage of the camera (and the faster aperture makes it really useful for taking out at night).

if you get the official sony mount adapter, you'll get (slow) autofocus on sony A-mount lenses. that's the only adapter i've used, though i did buy a super-cheap SLR magic 35mm 1.7 from ebay that gave interesting results before half falling apart.

 

[Magni]

I typed a long ass post and the god damn phone browser lost it. Basically what I wanted to say was none of the current pentax digital body can fully push the potential of the FA panackes, the "Princesses" as the overseas Pentax fans call them. I would feel sorry for these lenses if. I didn't have a flagship Pentax film body to use them. I am talking about the like of the MZS, the ZX3, the LX or at lease the *ist film body.

Why didn't you consider the FA43 btw? That would be the most logical first pancake lens.

Without commenting on those specific lenses, I would just say that on an APS-C body 33mm is usually a more useful focal length for general purpose work.

The FA 77/1.8 is supposed to be something special. Check out flickr for examples of photos taken with these lenses.

For instance, here's a photo I fav'ed on Flickr when I had a big interest in the way the FA 77/1.8 renders...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmoch/4230410313/in/faves-bluetsunami/

And a photo from the same photographer with the same lens that doesn't have as much post processing...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4328661622_bfa7f9ec85_b.jpg

Great contrast without being overbearing (great for portraiture), fantastic colors and there's a good amount of sharpness.

Here's a great example of its bokeh rendition (and specular lights) which its highly regarded for...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickharris1/4757841418/

That all aside Pentax primes are supposed to be very, very good. So I would go with Tokkun suggestion and go with the the focal length you feel you need the most. The 77 Limited would obviously be best suited for portraiture and subject isolation. On a crop it would feel fairly long if you want to use said lens for general shooting.

Mannn, a K5 with any of those limiteds would be a sick setup. If only Pentax would finally drop a Full Frame digital camera on the world. I would probably buy into the system and adapt any Zeiss lenses I would prefer over the Limiteds.

Thanks for the replies guys. Why didn't I consider the FA43? TBH it's just that I haven't heard as much about it, and I'd heard great stuff about the 31 and 77. As for the 55 1.4, I've heard so much about the Nikon and Canon equivalents, so I was wondering how this one panned out.

I was leaning more towards the FA77, but can you guys expand more on the other two (FA33/43), why would they be more logical? Thanks again =)

 

[tino]

First of all, its 31mm not 33mm for godsake. As for why I recommend the 43? It's the lightest, cheapest, oldest and arguably the sharpest FA limiteds.

Any rate I would recommend the 55 1.4 first in the 3 lenses you mentioned. Its a true portrait lens as well as great low light lens, you probably need both.

 

[Billen]

I have a GH2. I only need to learn exactly everything about it.

Anyone interested in purchasing a Sony A300?

 

[Magni]

First of all, its 31mm not 33mm for godsake. As for why I recommend the 43? It's the lightest, cheapest, oldest and arguably the sharpest FA limiteds.

Any rate I would recommend the 55 1.4 first in the 3 lenses you mentioned. Its a true portrait lens as well as great low light lens, you probably need both.

Thanks for your input. Sorry about the 33/31 confusion, I kept on repeating my initial typo, my bad.