[GlennG]

I see these terms used quite a bit when reviewers describe their lenses here - quite often describing the qualities of their prime high-end limiteds. Are these terms defined, quantified, or otherwise measured? If I were to examine a spec sheet for any lens, how would I tell whether it has rendering or pixie dust? Thanks. Glenn

[boriscleto]

You will be told that only the FA Limiteds have "Pixie Dust".

[Lowell Goudge]

rendering, pixie dust, pop, etc are all terms I see used when very loyal pentax lens users discuss the lacking of a competitor's lens.

The problem is it makes it very hard to get a good honest reason for a bias towards pentax and away from a competitor, other than it lacks pop, the rendering is better, or there is something magical (pixie dust.

No examples are ever given, just reasons why the pentax lens is better.

Having said that, many pentax lenses are very good, no argument, and some have much better bokeh especially than other lens brands similar offerings, the only thing I wish is people wouild show examples more than just claiming the other lenses lack pixie dust

Just my little rant for the day

[bdery]

ou will be told that only the FA Limiteds have "Pixie Dust".

My DA limited begs to differ

Glenn, Pixie Dust does not appear on the spec sheet because, unlike ISO or aperture, there is no international body of standards defining it, because only Pentax lenses have it...

[RioRico]

I have no Ltd's, no *'s, no Pentax glass better than SMC-Tak, so I haven't experienced alleged Asahi pixie dust. My lenses that I consider to be p.dusted are mostly German: Isco Westron 35/2.8, Meyer Orestron 50/1.8, CZJ 50/2.8 (Exakta mount, 12 iris blades), Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 -- and I might consider a Nikkor 85/2 and TDC VIVID Anastigmat 127/3.5 as lightly brushed with p.dust.

But dimensionality comes from proper lighting as much as good optics. And 'rendering' is even more vague than pixie dust, dimensionality, pop, etc. Look it up and see: gargle for PHOTOGRAPH RENDERING

[Ex Finn.]

You will be told that only the FA Limiteds have "Pixie Dust".

That is incorrect, some fast 50`s, 12-24 and 60-250 have some dust on them. Also the 50-135 as far as I know. Non Pentax lenses do not suffer from this phenomenon.

[boriscleto]

My DA limited begs to differ

Glenn, Pixie Dust does not appear on the spec sheet because, unlike ISO or aperture, there is no international body of standards defining it, because only Pentax lenses have it...

That is incorrect, some fast 50`s, 12-24 and 60-250 have some dust on them. Also the 50-135 as far as I know. Non Pentax lenses do not suffer from this phenomenon.

I never said it was true. Just that some here will tell you that. Like Rio I don't have any Ltd's or *'s. I do own one special lens, the Super Tak 50 1.4 (8-element). I don't know if it has "Pixie Dust" or not, but it is better than the other 15 50s I own.

[Aegon]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1178317-post24.html

"Like this post" (for rparmar, not myself!)

I should add that I strongly believe the FA77 is magical. I had a high keeper rate for that lens, which is true for the DA40 too. But where the DA40 images show fantastic colors and sharpness (technical excellence), the FA77 images could make my jaw drop (pixie dust).

[Ex Finn.]

I don't know if it has "Pixie Dust" or not

When you pick it up, does it talk to you?. And no, this is not a trick question.

[GlennG]

"Like this post" (for rparmar, not myself!)

Wow, that quote in rparmar's post is quite a mouth full. But something about "field curvature" is what I took away from that. Thanks, it helps a bit.

Thanks for the good responses. It sounds like "pixie dust" and "rendering" are mostly undefined, but can probably be measured by "length of jaw drop" metrics.

Glenn

[boriscleto]

When you pick it up, does it talk to you?. And no, this is not a trick question.

I've never had a problem with talking inanimate objects, but if it were legal I would marry it.

[jsherman999]

When you pick it up, does it talk to you?. And no, this is not a trick question.

[boriscleto]

Your DA 15 Ltd weeps.

Overall the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 performed well for an ultra-wide angle lens. For its class, it is very good optically, it even outperforms the Pentax DA 15mm Ltd as tested by photozone.de on some configurations, but perhaps not the Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL, both compared at 12mm.

Sigma 8-16mm Lens Review Review | Sigma Lenses | PentaxForums.com

[ajoe]

Amazing talking lens cartoon series images.

That is the best talking lens cartoon series I have ever seen! Ever!

[jsherman999]

Your DA 15 Ltd weeps.



Sigma 8-16mm Lens Review Review | Sigma Lenses | PentaxForums.com

Sharpness

The Sigma 8-16mm is capable of producing high sharpness at the center of the image when compared to similar lenses like the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC and the Pentax DA 15mm f/4 Limited, albeit not as sharp as the latter. The Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL ED is sharper than the Sigma through out its zoom range, although this comparison is not entirely fair since the Pentax 12-24mm isn't as wide. We were however disappointed with the low resolution found at the extreme borders, specially at 8mm, where wide open the resolution is very poor. In the inside border however the resolution is fair. Wide open at 8mm the image quality at the center is “so-so”. At 16mm however the sharpness across the picture is very good for a lens of this class. The lens seems to achieve its peak performance around 12mm from f/4.5 to f/8.

.