Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-17-2011, 07:10 AM   #136
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
It's looks like that polar bear is eating a giant aspirin tablet; maybe he got a headache trying to decide which ~35mm lens to buy

I'm not sure what the thinking was on that toy.

05-17-2011, 07:34 AM   #137
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,807
I don't own these lenses. So I can't really comment directly. But yesterday I was out with the Mrs, she had teh Tamron 90 macro. We both shoot a lot of macro, so just so i'd have something I brought my old Sigma 70-300 macro. There were a few pictures taken of flowers and buds. The Sigma shots are OK, but you would never use a shot from the Sigma where one from the Tamron was available. It's not really fair comparing a macro-prime with a multi-purpose low end zoom. But the point is, there is enough difference, if you have a nice shot taken with the Tamron, you might as well not even take the Sigma along. (There are a lot of reasons for that the biggest being with the Sigma you are shooting from 6 feet away, details have lost their crispness at that distance.) I love the Sigma for bird close ups though, so, everything has it's uses.)

That's the kind of difference I'd be looking for. If you can look at similar shots taken with the two lenses and find they both take good pictures, it's not something I'd dwell on for a long time. When you need to worry would be if the images from one of the lenses showed a weakness that would make them less desirable than images from the other.

To me it's not a question of quantifying how much better. It's more an issue of does one make the other undesirable. Or are they complimentary? If you might want both of them in your bag at the same time, you might have to own them both. Having a DA*60-250 doesn't mean I don't need my Tamron 90. At 90mm the Tamron is a teeny tiney little bit better (but not enough that I'd change lenses if the 60-250 was on the camera). That doesn't mean I don't want the *60-250 for everything not 90mm.And the 90 would come for it's macro capability in any case. I'd never say the *60-250 has to be 3 times better because it cost 3 times as much. A lens is what it is. What it costs is a different issue. That is definitely apples and oranges.
05-17-2011, 07:44 AM   #138
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I don't own these lenses. So I can't really comment directly. But yesterday I was out with the Mrs, she had teh Tamron 90 macro. We both shoot a lot of macro, so just so i'd have something I brought my old Sigma 70-300 macro. There were a few pictures taken of flowers and buds. The Sigma shots are OK, but you would never use a shot from the Sigma where one from the Tamron was available. It's not really fair comparing a macro-prime with a multi-purpose low end zoom. But the point is, there is enough difference, if you have a nice shot taken with the Tamron, you might as well not even take the Sigma along. (There are a lot of reasons for that the biggest being with the Sigma you are shooting from 6 feet away, details have lost their crispness at that distance.) I love the Sigma for bird close ups though, so, everything has it's uses.)

That's the kind of difference I'd be looking for. If you can look at similar shots taken with the two lenses and find they both take good pictures, it's not something I'd dwell on for a long time. When you need to worry would be if the images from one of the lenses showed a weakness that would make them less desirable than images from the other.

To me it's not a question of quantifying how much better. It's more an issue of does one make the other undesirable. Or are they complimentary? If you might want both of them in your bag at the same time, you might have to own them both. Having a DA*60-250 doesn't mean I don't need my Tamron 90. At 90mm the Tamron is a teeny tiney little bit better (but not enough that I'd change lenses if the 60-250 was on the camera). That doesn't mean I don't want the *60-250 for everything not 90mm.And the 90 would come for it's macro capability in any case. I'd never say the *60-250 has to be 3 times better because it cost 3 times as much. A lens is what it is. What it costs is a different issue. That is definitely apples and oranges.
I think that there are many facets. You illustrate one with your Sigma 70-300 (consumer market zoom) vs Tamron 90mm (pro-level gear). But it's not quite the same when you're talking Tamron 90mm Macro vs, say, the Pentax 100mm f2.8 Macro. Both are well within the range of "good enough for any purpose". Beyond that it's personal preference in re the "look" of the lenses - and that can come down to individual instances of the lens.
05-17-2011, 07:45 AM   #139
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
The FA31 makes all my other lenses look flat and boring...
...while the DA40 cannot make any other lens look flat since no other lens is as flat?

05-17-2011, 08:13 AM   #140
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by sjwaldron Quote
Bing! finished...

JHD, I give you permission to download the full-resolution images and upload them to your gallery here.
Thanks for doing this - I don't have a gallery but I will look at them closely.
05-17-2011, 08:54 AM   #141
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
This thread is getting a bit long and repetitive, which will not stop me from adding to it.

There are many fine lenses that can deliver good IQ, but there is no denying that some lenses are optically better than others and that some lenses impart different looks (i.e. renderings) to their images than others. Whether these differences are important to the user is a matter of personal standards and taste. And whether these differences are important enough to warrant spending good money to acquire them is a matter of personal budget and values. There are excellent photographers who are pleased with mediocre lenses, and there are mediocre photographers who cannot rest until they possess certain prized lenses.

I have been down this road myself, and I have learned that I derive great pleasure from using lenses that I consider especially fine. I am fortunate to be in a position where I can afford to indulge my whims. Others are more indifferent to lens quality or cannot afford these indulgences. Nevertheless, if they have artistic vision and technical skills, they can produce images that will equal or surpass what I might be able to coax from my kit. There is no point in being overly dogmatic about lenses, even though it is fun to discuss them.

Rob
05-17-2011, 08:58 AM   #142
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
SO lemme get this straight... the glass is different, the aperture mechanism is different, and the housing is different, but that's all, right?
Same formula and shape glass, just the elements are slightly smaller in diameter and thickness.
05-17-2011, 09:05 AM   #143
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
This thread is getting a bit long and repetitive, which will not stop me from adding to it.

There are many fine lenses that can deliver good IQ, but there is no denying that some lenses are optically better than others and that some lenses impart different looks (i.e. renderings) to their images than others. Whether these differences are important to the user is a matter of personal standards and taste. And whether these differences are important enough to warrant spending good money to acquire them is a matter of personal budget and values. There are excellent photographers who are pleased with mediocre lenses, and there are mediocre photographers who cannot rest until they possess certain prized lenses.

I have been down this road myself, and I have learned that I derive great pleasure from using lenses that I consider especially fine. I am fortunate to be in a position where I can afford to indulge my whims. Others are more indifferent to lens quality or cannot afford these indulgences. Nevertheless, if they have artistic vision and technical skills, they can produce images that will equal or surpass what I might be able to coax from my kit. There is no point in being overly dogmatic about lenses, even though it is fun to discuss them.

Rob
I agree with everything you said, until you got to the line that says "Others are more indifferent to lens quality". See, that's what the entire debate is about. Lens quality. All the LTD lenses are *high quality* lenses, both optically and physically. The question asked in this thread is "Is *one* high quality lens three times the quality of another high quality lens?". The answer, I think, is "It depends on how much you like it." Because, as you say, buying a $1500 lens won't make you 3x the photographer buying a $500 lens will.

05-17-2011, 10:36 AM   #144
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,807
QuoteQuote:
Because, as you say, buying a $1500 lens won't make you 3x the photographer buying a $500 lens will.
Then how does Canikon sell anything?
05-17-2011, 10:54 AM   #145
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Then how does Canikon sell anything?
ROFL OUCH...

But seriously - I've seen some *amazing* images shot with a Rebel. Any current DSLR will produce excellent images. Short of some very, very limited edge cases, I can't imagine a shot that could only be made well on one machine. Frankly, I like Pentax primes best of the bunch, but I bet few people (if anyone) could sort images from, say, a 7D, K-7, and D200s printed at 8x10, with any reliability.
05-17-2011, 10:57 AM   #146
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I bet few people (if anyone) could sort images from, say, a 7D, K-7, and D200s printed at 8x10, with any reliability.
Also go the "guess the lens" thread. People mistake very expensive lenses for very inexpensive ones, and vica verca. Most reliable measure of a "good lens" is just a "good photographer".
05-17-2011, 11:00 AM   #147
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Also go the "guess the lens" thread. People mistake very expensive lenses for very inexpensive ones, and vica verca. Most reliable measure of a "good lens" is just a "good photographer".
I think that's *exactly* the case. I mean, I've had lenses that were crap, and ones that were great, and you could tell the difference between THOSE, but it's very difficult to tell the difference between a really good lens and a slightly better really good lens.

Basically, the photographer makes FAR more difference than the lens or the format, IMO.
05-17-2011, 11:01 AM   #148
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
I'm sure that there are excellent photographers that are pleased with mediocre lenses. but will these stop these excellent photographers from buying, wanting or needing and using high quality lenses? choosing a lens is not entirely dependent on the skill level of the photographer, but rather the capability to afford, want, need, and use for practical reasons. of course buying a lens for collection or simply for bragging rights are not one of the sensible reasons, but they are still reasons no matter how shallow they are.
05-17-2011, 11:07 AM   #149
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I'm sure that there are excellent photographers that are pleased with mediocre lenses. but will these stop these excellent photographers from wanting high quality lenses? choosing a lens is not entirely dependent on the skill level of the photographer, but rather the capability to afford, want, need, and use for practical reasons. of course buying a lens for collection or simply for bragging rights are not one of the sensible reasons, but they are still reasons no matter how shallow they are.
I'm not at all condemning LBA. I'm just saying that, even though I desperately want a 70 LTD (probably two weeks from now, I'm thinking), I know it won't make *me* a better photographer, and in the end, the pictures represent ME far more than the GEAR. So we choose tools by the way *we* feel about them, and put up all sorts of arguments for and against, using numbers - numbers that *aren't truly relevant to the final product*, and can only reflect a shadow of the "quality" of a lens. Fair enough?
05-17-2011, 01:03 PM   #150
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I agree with everything you said, until you got to the line that says "Others are more indifferent to lens quality". See, that's what the entire debate is about. Lens quality. All the LTD lenses are *high quality* lenses, both optically and physically. The question asked in this thread is "Is *one* high quality lens three times the quality of another high quality lens?". The answer, I think, is "It depends on how much you like it." Because, as you say, buying a $1500 lens won't make you 3x the photographer buying a $500 lens will.
Right, but some people also mentioned third party lenses that are not generally regarded as world class, but which are giving them satisfactory results. I'm sure that those folks are aware that there are better lenses available to them, but for one reason or another, they use what they have and are quite pleased. That's fine with me. For all I know, they may be photography gods.

Rob
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!
da40, fa31, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, thread, times, walkaround
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA31 Ltd. DogLover Ask B&H Photo! 6 04-07-2011 10:20 AM
To Da40..or not to Da40...tiss the question! Shutter-bug Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-26-2010 08:46 AM
FA31 and K-7 Danny Delcambre Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 07-16-2010 09:27 PM
FA31 problem maybe.. what do you think? joele Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 11-22-2009 04:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 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