[Pentaxor]

K10D, Pentax-FA 35/2



K10D, Pentax-FA 35/2


Steve

very nice color and contrast there.

[Ash]

There is resounding support for the 16-50 here, and for good reason - there are few zooms that can top its sharpness, bright colours, microcontrast and texture rendition.

More evidence here:




Then again, I'm blown away by the colour rendered by the stellar DA 12-24:




And how about the FA 100/2.8 macro?


Pretty much what JSherman was saying above...
Pentax glass is top notch.

[Derridale]

Just to put things in perspective - and I speak as someone with incurable LBA with a large collection - colour and contrast as functions of the lens are almost inconsequential - as long as you shoot in RAW, yes?

There is so much subjective "feel" and "look" to so many lenses, but I really doubt that a truly blind test, with no PP at all, will pick a lens purely by its colour and contrast.

Now sharpness, lack of distortion, and IQ is something that CAN'T really be adjusted in PP (well OK - sharpening, sort of, but it's not really compensating for a lack of sharpness in the lens). THOSE are the things that make good glass worth having, IMHO.

Colour toning and contrast are so easy to tweak, and can even be batch-processed on an entire import, that I wouldn't rate them as factors in a lens-buying decision.

How's that for pot-stirring..??? Just call me Devil's Advocate!

PS: Some great shots posted in this thread too, by the way.

[jsherman999]

Just to put things in perspective - and I'm an incurable LBA with a large collection - colour and contrast as functions of the lens are almost inconsequential - as long as you shoot in RAW, yes?

There is so much subjective "feel" and "look" to so many lenses, but I really doubt that a truly blind test, with no PP at all, will pick a lens purely by its colour and contrast.

Now sharpness, lack of distortion, and IQ is something that CAN'T really be adjusted in PP (well OK - sharpening, sort of, but it's not really compensating for a lack of sharpness in the lens). THOSE are the things that make good glass worth having, IMHO.

Colour toning and contrast are so easy to tweak, and can even be batch-processed on an entire import, that I wouldn't rate them as factors in a lens-buying decision.

How's that for pot-stirring..??? Just call me Devil's Advocate!

.

No, you are right, these days native color/contrast isn't as important as in the film days, however it's still a measure to judge a lens by, especially contrast.

Personally, I need to work hard in PP to get color 'perfect' when my lenses are too yellow or cool, and lack of contrast can actually make images seem less sharp - and again, fixing that can mess it up if you're in a hurry.

Accurate color and high contrast from a lens can simply save you time now, and save you from needing to batch edit to get optimal color/contrast. (and then go back and fix the color-cast-changed-one-offs that the batch edit screwed up )


.

[audiobomber]

Now sharpness, lack of distortion, and IQ is something that CAN'T really be adjusted in PP (well OK - sharpening, sort of, but it's not really compensating for a lack of sharpness in the lens). THOSE are the things that make good glass worth having, IMHO.

I'm afraid you'll have to take distortion off your list. It's available in post processing and even in the camera, as is CA. Vignetting is easily fixed in post. I'm trying to figure out what's left in your final parameter of IQ after you remove colour, contrast, distortion, CA , vignetting and sharpness. I agree though, sharpness correction in post-processing is only a partial fix. There's bokeh, which again can be partly addressed in p-p I suppose, with a lot of effort. There's flare, which is related to contrast and again can be partly addressed in p-p.

I selected my primes for their focal lengths, fast apertures and sharpness. I did select based on colour rendition, which is why I have all Pentax primes. I'm not trying to start a war. I've seen many magnificent photos with non-mfg brands, but IMO there is a certain colour tone imprinted by many off-brand lenses, that is different than Pentax lenses and not usually an improvement (IMO). Yes, it can be changed in processing, but it's very satifying to shoot with a lens that produces images right out of the camera that rarely need adjustment in colour or contrast or anything else.

[bdery]

I have a somewhat similar lineup as you do. I have the Sigma 17-70, the F50 f1,7, among others.

The best two lenses I have used for contrast and richness of colours are the FA 50 macro and the DA 21 LTD. I would guess that all DA LTDs are amazing for contrast. Most macros probably are too. The 50 macro is just an astounding piece of glass. I'm only starting to discover the joys of the DA 21.

[Voe]

From my experience leaving post processing aside, the most contrasty lenses from the Pentax lineup are the FA 43mm and 77mm Limiteds. If you like to experiment I found that Leica R 50mm Summicron (adapted to Pentax) has more contrast than the above Limiteds.
The zoom lens with most contrast is the cheap Tokina 19-35mm lens. It has better color and contrast than my DA 16-45.
As shown above postprocessing can give you a great control over contrast, but that's another story.

---

Last edited by Voe; 05-06-2010 at 06:54 AM.

[GeneV]

.

No, you are right, these days native color/contrast isn't as important as in the film days, however it's still a measure to judge a lens by, especially contrast.

Personally, I need to work hard in PP to get color 'perfect' when my lenses are too yellow or cool, and lack of contrast can actually make images seem less sharp - and again, fixing that can mess it up if you're in a hurry.

Accurate color and high contrast from a lens can simply save you time now, and save you from needing to batch edit to get optimal color/contrast. (and then go back and fix the color-cast-changed-one-offs that the batch edit screwed up )


.

Since digital processing became part of all my photos (including film) I would agree that contrast has become less of an issue. In fact, it is harder and harder to know what the lens contributes, without looking at a piece of film. Even with a negative, once the film goes through the scanner, it becomes obvious how difficult it is to do any level of digital processing that accurately reflects the contrast of the original.

[Lodewijk]

If you are looking for great colours/contrast I would suggest not to look for lenses but look for a good polarizing filter (if you haven't done so already). Especially photos with cloudy blue skies or trees/plants/foilage will benefit greatly from it, as will any photo where the subject has a lot of reflected light. See e.g. these pics of a sail taken with the DA 21mm and a polarizing filter, left is minimum effect, right is maximum:




That being said I like the colours from my DA lenses the most. Some other suggestions:
- look for good light (when the sun is low, mornings and evenings)
- If you use lightroom use the vibrance and clarity sliders until you find something you like
- the in-camera jpeg processing can be really good, I have my K-x set to "vivid" and often the colours in the jpegs are better than when manually adjusting in raw.


edit: oops I see you already have a c-pl, then my suggestion would be to get one for the lenses for which you don't have one

[JHD]

I like what I've seen from the DA* lenses but consistency issues with the 16-50and reliability issues with the SDM temper my enthusiasm. I've got a Sigma 72mm for my 17-70 and a 77mm for my 10-20. I guess I should try them out before considering another lens at the same focal length.

[macTak]

My M35 f2 has the best has unique (Limited-esque?) look to its rendering which I love with wonderful subtlety in rendering contrast. My other favorite is the SMC Macro Takumar 50mm f4, which has excellent contrast and fantastic (and more realistic) colors with a lot of pop (transmission for the lens was tested by one of the photo mags as 97.5% (!), by the way).

[EsBee]

Among the lenses I have used, I've found the DA40f2.8 to be the best in colors and contrast, followed by the DA16-45f4. DA*16-50f2.8 is a close third.

[yeatzee]

My sigma 105mm by far

[Nick Siebers]

I think my DA 40 might be a little better than my Tokina 90 macro, and those two are the best for color and contrast of the many lenses I own and have owned.