Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2011, 07:18 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
Original Poster
Thats why I kept both, I dont mind the M8 at all, but I have large hands

07-27-2011, 06:17 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
My experience may or may not be relevant. Before I went digital with a K10D in 2006, my main camera was a Contax G2 rangefinder. I had most of the Zeiss/Contax G prime lenses, which were truly superb. Now I am using a K-7 with all three FA Limiteds, and I honestly feel that the Limiteds are a match for the Zeiss lenses. However, I cannot claim to have done a fair comparison, because one set of lenses was used with 35mm film, and the other with APS-C digital sensors. Now, if I had a Pentax film camera, and if I were willing to do the same quality scans of the same film that I used in my Contax, then I might be able to draw some meaningful conclusions on this subject. But I don't, and I'm not, so there you have it. Also, I have no experience with vintage lenses of any kind.

In any case, the Pentax Limiteds are far superior in terms of value. I'm referring to the quality/price relationship. Even though the prices of the Limiteds have gone up over the past few years, they are still much less expensive than Zeiss and, especially, Leica lenses. I would doubt that most lens aficionados could distinguish them in a blind test. The law of diminishing returns is hard to deny, but if one has the budget and the desire for Leica, then one is free to indulge himself.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 07-27-2011 at 06:30 PM.
07-27-2011, 10:02 PM   #18
Veteran Member
DanielT74's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,377
Some Leica R lenses are not actually that expensive.

Like the macro-elmarit 60/2.8 which sells for ~$400-$500 I think, or the summicron 90/2 which is around ~$500-600, or the summicron 35/2 which is around $600 depending on the version. Zeiss or Pentax/Zeiss 28/2 sells for about the same amount.

Then some lenses like the summilux 35/1.4 simply don't exist in Pentax and they are absolutely fantastic and IMO more than a match for our great 31/1.8.

To me it's a question of what sort of look you want and also whether you don't mind stop-down metering, MF and sometimes bulk and weight moreso than the price.
07-28-2011, 06:52 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
Original Poster
My Main reason was that I found the manual lenses ( takumars, Helios' etc) made me slow down a bit, and the Leica makes me slow down even more. I find photography so much more rewarding when I take my time, plus instead of trying to edit and post process 350 images, its 40 or so on the Leica and perhaps 100 on the KX if I am using the manual lenses.

Doctors orders " be more zen" they said , mission accomplished!

07-28-2011, 07:02 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
I suppose if I were to borrow my BIL's leica I could benchmark the leica Digital rangefinder with my pentax system, and compare his 28 and 35 with mine.

SHort of that, I can offer one comment made by a sales person at Henry's downtown Toronto store. He is a long time pentax user, and had a customer who shot leica. Many years ago, he did a head to head with his customer's camera and his, and processed the shots, having the customer pick which camera / lens took each shot. he picked pentaxc over leica virtually 100% of the time.

take this for what it is worth, a story passed from person to person
07-28-2011, 07:17 AM   #21
Forum Member
kanzlr's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna
Posts: 92
Leica offers a very high per pixel sharpness. Superb lenses combined with a superb sensor that lacks the AA filter.

So you would really compare the SYSTEMS, not the lenses, but you said that already.
but if you take that 10MP M8 image and that 16MP K5 image, process it and print it, you won't see much difference, if you use good lenses on both.
07-28-2011, 09:50 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by kanzlr Quote
Leica offers a very high per pixel sharpness. Superb lenses combined with a superb sensor that lacks the AA filter.

So you would really compare the SYSTEMS, not the lenses, but you said that already.
but if you take that 10MP M8 image and that 16MP K5 image, process it and print it, you won't see much difference, if you use good lenses on both.
I simply don't understand why some people make a big deal of an AA filter. It is there for a reason, and any blurring of the image it produces can easily be corrected with capture sharpening. On the other hand, not having an AA filter can result in nasty color moire that can be very tricky to correct. This is a non-issue, IMO. Falk Lumo has made the same point repeatedly in these forums.

Rob
07-28-2011, 09:54 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by DanielT74 Quote
Some Leica R lenses are not actually that expensive.

Like the macro-elmarit 60/2.8 which sells for ~$400-$500 I think, or the summicron 90/2 which is around ~$500-600, or the summicron 35/2 which is around $600 depending on the version. Zeiss or Pentax/Zeiss 28/2 sells for about the same amount.

Then some lenses like the summilux 35/1.4 simply don't exist in Pentax and they are absolutely fantastic and IMO more than a match for our great 31/1.8.

To me it's a question of what sort of look you want and also whether you don't mind stop-down metering, MF and sometimes bulk and weight moreso than the price.
Thanks for pointing out the few exceptions to the rule.

Rob

07-28-2011, 09:57 AM   #24
Forum Member
kanzlr's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna
Posts: 92
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
I simply don't understand why some people make a big deal of an AA filter. It is there for a reason, and any blurring of the image it produces can easily be corrected with capture sharpening. On the other hand, not having an AA filter can result in nasty color moire that can be very tricky to correct. This is a non-issue, IMO. Falk Lumo has made the same point repeatedly in these forums.

Rob
oh I did NOT say that an AA filter is a bad thing. It isn't. And if you re-read my post, I said that the per-pixel sharpness is higher without the filter, but that at most output sizes you won't see a difference.

and you are totally right in regards to moire. Shot weddings with Leica M8 bodies and not only tend black suits to become pink, you have a lot of moire with fine textiles.
07-28-2011, 10:08 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by kanzlr Quote
oh I did NOT say that an AA filter is a bad thing. It isn't. And if you re-read my post, I said that the per-pixel sharpness is higher without the filter, but that at most output sizes you won't see a difference.

and you are totally right in regards to moire. Shot weddings with Leica M8 bodies and not only tend black suits to become pink, you have a lot of moire with fine textiles.
Sorry, but it's easy to infer from your message that your were praising the absence of an AA filter in the M8, as I did. Thanks for the clarification.

Rob
07-28-2011, 11:56 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 824
Original Poster
The suits go pink because the M8 doesnt have an IR filter on the sensor and synthetic fibres look magenta or pink

Leica will provide you with 2 free UV/IR glass lens ones ( they are 170 each normally)
07-28-2011, 12:31 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
I started with Contax and Zeiss lenses, shot Nikons for decades and switched to Pentax a few years ago. One of the biggest reasons was for glass comparable to Zeiss at less than half the price. I haven't been dissapointed. In fact, I've been more pleased with my decision with each Limited and *lens I've purchased.
Much of what I say is from memory of Zeiss performance and look. I think every one of my Limiteds are as sharp as any of the Zeiss I've owned. None of them have that butter-smooth focus ring of Zeiss, but they aren't bad (I use MF most of the time). The rendering of my Limiteds varies considerably, but two of them, the DFA 100mm Macro (yes, I know--not a Limited) and the DA 15mm Limited have a look comparable to Zeiss I've owned. All the Zeiss I've owned (three primes) had this special look, so I think the Zeiss look is more consistent than the "Pentax look." The DA 15mm Limited, I believe, is better in all respects than any Zeiss I've owned and is the best lens I've own from any maker.
07-28-2011, 12:44 PM   #28
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by DanielT74 Quote
In my opinion Leica primes (35/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 60/2.8) are fantastic and some can be had at reasonable prices like the excellent Macro-Elmarit 60/2.8.
Is this the elmarit-R or is that a different one? Does it make any sence in buying this or is a Pentax macro just as good?
07-28-2011, 01:17 PM   #29
Veteran Member
DanielT74's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,377
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Is this the elmarit-R or is that a different one? Does it make any sence in buying this or is a Pentax macro just as good?
Yes, the elmarit-r. Robin Palmar, who is a member here did a quick review:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/80029-leica-lens-club-6.html

theatre of noise: Initial Review Of The Leica 60mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R

I am not sure which macro you mean to compare it too, but I loved those Leica colours for skin tones plus it produced some wicked macros too. It's probably not the best lens in harsh light though.
07-28-2011, 02:11 PM   #30
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by DanielT74 Quote
Yes, the elmarit-r. Robin Palmar, who is a member here did a quick review:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/80029-leica-lens-club-6.html

theatre of noise: Initial Review Of The Leica 60mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R

I am not sure which macro you mean to compare it too, but I loved those Leica colours for skin tones plus it produced some wicked macros too. It's probably not the best lens in harsh light though.
compared to one of the D-FA macro's 50mm or 100mm.
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, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, taks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carl Zeiss Jena 75-300mm has anyone experience with it on pentax k-x davidvandoren Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 03-06-2010 07:09 AM
Leica summicron 90/f2 converted or Carl Zeiss ZK 85/1.4?? tthana50 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-13-2009 06:08 AM
Leica lenses on Pentax Substitute Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 11-12-2008 05:02 AM
What would you do if you could mount old Leica and Zeiss lenses? morfic General Talk 12 08-12-2008 10:36 PM
Any experience with Zeiss Flektagon 20mm f4 Not Registered Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-30-2007 09:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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