Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-05-2011, 10:55 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
yes..but sharpness is about the only thing that cant be overcome in PP

* snip *

the 16-50 is also twice the price where I live than the other two :{
I'll grant you the second but I beg to differ on the first statement above.
Bokeh cannot be over come
"3D" PDF (pixie dust factor) also cannot be replicated in PP.
Bad color rendition can be fixed in PP but not without ALOT of work.

NaCl(sharpness is only one factor in IQ)H2O

01-05-2011, 11:37 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,832
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
and I don't believe a 16-50 is sharp...so Im gonna have to disagree with that
The 16-50 is not sharp? It scores the highest LW/PH figures (2154 @ f4/16mm) of any zoom lens tested on a Pentax system over at photozone.de. The fact is, all these lenses are plenty sharp and it's not likely you'll notice significant differences in their resolution in real world use.

QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
But [sharpness] is only one element. It's something relatively easy to measure, so many photographers put a lot of importance on sharpness, but it's far from telling the whole story.
Exactly. There are qualitative differences between lens that cannot be measured, such as color resolution, micro-contrast, the so-called 3D or "pop" quality of the lens' image rendering. Some of these differences are rather subtle and require a certain degree of discernment and appreciation even to notice them. (Nor can these qualitative differences necessarily be reduplicated in post, as has been suggested). It is on this basis that some of us prefer images produced by the DA *16-50 to images produced by its third party rivals. For those who either (1) don't notice these qualitative differences or (2) don't think they are worth the extra price of 16-50, the third party alternatives clearly offer the better value. But that doesn't mean the 3rd party offerings are better. All those who have paid extra for the DA* 16-50 are not idiots or lens snobs. They pay the extra money for the WR and the superior IQ.
01-05-2011, 11:40 AM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6
You can't go wrong with a fast 50mm.
01-05-2011, 01:50 PM   #19
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
I'll grant you the second but I beg to differ on the first statement above.
Bokeh cannot be over come
"3D" PDF (pixie dust factor) also cannot be replicated in PP.
Bad color rendition can be fixed in PP but not without ALOT of work.
This is very true. The best lenses I have used are very sharp where they need to be, and creamy where they need to be. In my books, a lens must be both to qualify as excellent.

Of all the zooms I have used, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is the best in this regard (at least on a crop sensor) that are within the *reasonable* price range.

My first prime that really did this for me was the K55 1.8 (in stark contrast to the 50 1.7, which was super sharp but lacked the nice bokeh). Generally, I would think that the best bokeh/sharpness combination can be found in primes, while supurb sharpness can be found in a zoom, and good bokeh is rare. The best examples I've seen here would be from the DA* 50-135.


Last edited by paperbag846; 01-05-2011 at 02:43 PM.
01-05-2011, 02:22 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Velence, Hungary
Posts: 664
What I did:

DA16-45 for wider angle and constant "f" number

FA50 for DOF control and low light..as well as for trying out a prime lens

DA55-300 for longer reach

That was step one..and as I liked the wide-angle the DA16-45 gave me I knew that the DA12-24 would be a good investement..as it really was!

And I also really like shooting with a prime lens..so it is clear that as soon as I can afford I will buy more primes..even more expensive ones.

So those lenses I mentioned were really good to explore my own style and needs.

Hope this helps..Andras
01-05-2011, 02:25 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Albums
Posts: 588
Good suggestions already, although they are (predictably) all over the place in terms of cost, focal range, and maximum aperture.

One option to consider alongside the Pentax DA 17-70 F4 is the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4

Those both hit your suggested requirements of additional length and quality, as well as being a bit faster. Keep in mind, they are also quite a bit larger.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, kit, pentax lens, range, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linking ISO steps with EV steps kiwibird Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-03-2011 08:51 AM
K7 first steps... jules Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 07-24-2010 09:45 AM
Misc Steps SweetSherri Post Your Photos! 1 05-10-2010 02:41 AM
k-x lens , kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL , what 50mm f1.4 can do over kit lens? crossing Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 01-15-2010 03:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: WTT Pentax 18-55 AL II kit lens for 18-55 AL kit lens + money wallyb Sold Items 2 11-11-2009 02:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top