Hi forum,
new guy here.
After SilkyPix and Lightroom I switched to PL some years ago.
Being a die hard Pentaxian (since the MX was hot) and Ricoh GR Fan (bevor the second one broke one me), I now also own a Fuji x100vi. And I like it.
But here one of my latest pictures Pentax K-3 III with DA* 50-135 F2.8
and with the x100vi
Cheers Ollie
Greetings fellow Pentaxian! Nice images, each for their own reasons, but both do well with the contrast you have applied.
I also run a K-3 III, though I have a KP on the shelf that it “replaced” and I’m contemplating using as a second body. Something I have never done before.
What are your thoughts on the 50-135? I don’t need another lens but… well LBA is an illness.
My current go-to lenses are:
Oh, another fossil 
I am happy I am not alone.
I like the 50-135 very much, but I can’t explain it.
Especially in comparsion with 55-300 PLM
Which, I think, is on of the best telezooms available.
It has a nice focal range in an extrem small and lightweight package. The AF is pretty fast (for Pentax at least), it’s low cost and so on. The perfect travel lens in combination with a standard zoom or a little camera like the GR (or x100vi for me now, in the hope it’s less fragile than the GRs)
The 50-135 on the other hand has the larger aperture so I can isolated subjects better from the background. But I am unsure if the lens is really better than the PLM. It’s different and I am nostalic. I just like that old thing, but without an explainable reason (so much that I replaced my mine after it put a dent into concrete a couple of weeks ago)
I don’t think it would be a reasonable addition to your setup.
Maybe a macrolens instead (if you have any interest in this)?
Or some thing with a special or exotic bokeh?
But I think you are pretty well set up.
Here some pictures I found (not very intessiting one, but at least a little comaparable. You decide which is which
One is with the KP and the PLM, the other one with K-3 III and 50-135
Same here. One KP/PLM the other K-3 III/50-135
And here KP / PLM and K-5 / 50-135
Yes, I know “it’s a feeling” is very much the biggest factor. Obviously if a lens is just useless, then it’s useless, but once it’s “decent” then it’s the intangibles that come into play.
I’ve owned the original 55-300, then the WR, and finally the PLM. That gets me back to, I think, 2009. It was until very recently my “long lens”. The 150-450 came about because I wanted more for birds. But still, 300 is mostly enough for aviation. Even if only because the 150-450 would be unwieldy all day at an air show!
The main weakness of the 55-300 is the aperture. Way back when, I tested the original and found its sweet spot was f/11. With PhotoLab, and particularly DeepPRIME, I allowed myself f/8, and the PLM, I think, is just that little bit better and so I’ve fallen back to f/7.1
This is where the 150-450 spoils me. I just leave it wide open. Not that that is very open, but it makes a difference with fast moving subjects!
My full pantheon of lenses is:
HD D FA 150-450mm AW
HD DA 55-300mm PLM
HD DA★ 16-50mm PLM AW f/2.8
smc DA 18-135mm
smc F 35-70mm
smc FA 50mm f/1.4 (original)
smc M 200mm
smc M 50mm
smc M 28mm
Tamron AF SP 90mm Di Macro
The vast majority of the time I use the top 3, though the 150-450 and 16-50 are less than a year old and before that I used the 35-70 and 50 1.4 a bit (a sweet lens).
The Tamron does fine service at the moment to digitise old negatives and slides, but I should spend more time outside with it.
The two shorter M lenses were my Dad’s, bought in the 1970s.
The 18-135 is interesting. A really useful focal range, but I stopped using it years ago. Long before I got into PhotoLab at v3. Quite recently I put some old shots from it through PL8 and was surprised how good they came out! It’s a real testament to the lens sharpness correction in DxO’s modules as without it, the photos are very mushy on the edges.
