[Digitalis]

"Sigma, My rear element!"....ROFL

[fikkser]

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

"Only a few legendary Leica lenses has it... and all Pentax lenses of course" - Pentaxforums, the best and most objective experts in optics on the internet.

[Lowell Goudge]

"Only a few legendary Leica lenses has it... and all Pentax lenses of course" - Pentaxforums, the best and most objective experts in optics on the internet.

spoken like a true die hard pentaxian

I would disagree, while many pentax prime lenses are excellent, not all of them have the "magical pixie dust" applied to them.

Are they good, yes, better than most others, yes again, but magic is brought out by the photographer, not just the lens

[georgweb]

fikkser, yes and no. I believe it was the Leica folks having come up with the dust thing,
"....this dust can help humans fly if they believe in happy thoughts" ???

Makes kind of sense when you consider the cost of that powder and Leica people having the finances to consume it (and they are always happy).

Another Leica fanboy invention is the glow.

Now, here's the deal: Why shouldn't we Pentax people come up with genuine Pentax attributes and let the others play catch-up ?
Suggestions?

[fikkser]

Now, here's the deal: Why shouldn't we Pentax people come up with genuine Pentax attributes and let the others play catch-up ?
Suggestions?

^^

I'm in!

fungus?

[rparmar]

I come to this thread only to find myself being quoted... and to find a hilarious series of talking 15mm shots!

J, whatever lens you shot those with... I bet it has pixie dust!

[Class A]

I believe people use the term "pixie dust" because it is hard to put the finger on exactly what it is that makes a lens create images that look "special". I think subject/background separation, smooth but not weird bokeh, and a natural acuity play a role.

Sometimes a lens designer has to give up on achieving some top results in classic disciplines (such as flatness of field) to achieve that look. That's why, I believe, it is very hard to market a lens with spades of Pixie Dust today. It just doesn't measure as well as designs optimised for the boring benchmark numbers. And if a lens doesn't come out of a photozone or dpreview review with lot's of stars it won't be an easy sell, will it?

Of course not only Pentax lenses have such special rendering qualities. Not too many Pentax lenses have it, AFAIC.

Regarding, the "talking 15mm": The images are all wrong. That lens is definitely talking out of its rear element.

[Ash]

Jay... classic.
Whatever the terminology, there are difficult to quantify (or simply unquantifiable) qualities that a number of Pentax lenses seem to possess that can only be proven by the results.

I have gone through a number of Pentax lenses, but not the Takumars, and notice a striking 'wow' factor in the results I see from the DAs 10-17 and 12-24, DA*s 16-50, 50-135, 200, 300 and 60-250, the DA 15 and 35 ltds, the FA ltd trio, the A* 85/1.4 and even the FA* 250-600. I'm probably missing a number of older generation lenses in the list, but these stand out in the images they produce. A few of the Tamrons come pretty close to this status, but not quite IMO.

Whatever it is about them, it's indeed phenomenal.
But to be frank, this thread is useless without photos:

DA 12-24


FA 77 ltd


DA 10-17


DA* 16-50

[DanielT74]

C'mon, talk is cheap - I want to see the quintessential pixie dust samples!

Here's a recent one that comes to mind (but it's not a Pentax ):



Edit: You read my mind, Ash - thanks!!!

[psychdoc]

But to be frank, this thread is useless without photos:

Superb pictures!

However, how many publications do you see where it says that the picture was shot with any of these 'pixie dust' lenses?

After a certain point in quality of a lens, I think being in 'love' with an equipment is just one of those things that will bring out great pictures. Because people are likely to take better pictures when they 'feel' good. One way to fuel creativity. Or add to it. At least that's my theory...

[DanielT74]

and some more from those evil geniuses at Leitz (35/2, the one above is the 35/1.4):

[TOUGEFC]

Good work to Ash and Daniel putting up some fine samples.
My theory on the "pixie dust" is that its just a unique look that some lenses possess and words can not describe it, some lenses have it (some more so than others) and some lenses dont have it.

I too might post some examples later....

[GlennG]

Wow, those are all nice photos above, certainly with more pop than any of mine - though I do not have ANY of those lenses. OR, maybe photos just look better in Australia, somehow! Thanks. Glenn

[stanic]

Your DA 15 Ltd weeps.



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

photozone: Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems!

[TOUGEFC]

Examples-
FA43




FA77