Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-16-2012, 03:31 AM   #91
Site Supporter
shiner's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N GA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,325
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
As a very satisfied user of the DA 35 Macro Ltd, I strongly disagree!
Hear, hear!!

02-16-2012, 04:48 AM   #92
Senior Member
noVICE's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 165
A good craftsman never blames their tools.
02-16-2012, 07:49 AM   #93
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
As a very satisfied user of the DA 35 Macro Ltd, I strongly disagree!
QuoteOriginally posted by shiner Quote
Hear, hear!!
The 35 macro is a nice little optic. I certainly like mine, but it is, for a standard lens, on the long side by about 5mm, and on the slow side by at least a stop. Take away the 31LTD which is a holdover from film and incredibly expensive, and Pentax doesn't have anything in the 21 to 35mm range. Arguably, they are missing two focal lengths, something in the 24mm range (which would be equivalent to the very popular 35mm AOV in 35mm film) and something in the fast 30mm range (a fast standard). The 31 is very nice, but unless Pentax has plans to go to a 35mm format camera, it's probably time to drop the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm lenses and concentrate on lenses that are more designed for the format they are going forwards with.

QuoteOriginally posted by noVICE Quote
A good craftsman never blames their tools.
This is both a bullshit statement in the context of this discussion, a bullshit statement in general, and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Congratulations, troll.
02-16-2012, 08:31 AM   #94
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,163
a 24 and a fast 28-30 are really lacking areas (I don't count the FA31 it's a unique holdover like you say - great lens but not priced for everyone.
Certainly the 35 2.4 was at least an acknowledgement of the missing normal (coming in at 52.5 a little longer than ideal but still in the range- but not fast by any means)
If there is no pending FF then the dropping of the FA ltd for a new line of lenses makes sense of course (no-one wants to hear that though)

From a light standpoint sensor iso capability is making the need for sub 2.0 lenses irrelevant, but from a rendering standpoint it's a sore spot (even if a lot of the time you will shoot them stopped down - the lack of an option is stupid)
Nikon has the 24 1.4 out now (FF even but I'm sure selling to the d300s/d7000 crowd as well)
they also have a 35 1.8 for $200 that acts as the normal prime in the apsc realm
Canon has the $500 28 1.8 for fast and the $260 2.8 for slow normal on apsc but both are FF lenses and 2 24's

I know looking at these 2 who own a chunk of the market is misleading but we need at least 1 of each in 24 and 28 I think preferably 2.0 or less but at this point I'd settle for 2.8 as long as it's a decent lens (no need for it to be DA* that can be the second of each in the category, non * lenses will sell at far greater volumes)

02-16-2012, 08:52 AM   #95
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The 35 macro is a nice little optic. I certainly like mine, but it is, for a standard lens, on the long side by about 5mm, and on the slow side by at least a stop.
Since I was preconditioned by many years using an SMC Takumar 55mm/1.8 with FF film on a Spotmatic,
I am very comfortable with a "standard" focal length of 35mm on APS-C.

The widest aperture of f/2.8 is fine for use with modern sensors in poor light.

As for getting a narrow depth of field for bokeh,
the 35 Macro does that in the close range.
If I want the same effect in the mid-range, I use a fast fifty.


QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Arguably, they are missing two focal lengths, something in the 24mm range (which would be equivalent to the very popular 35mm AOV in 35mm film) . . .
I certainly agree with this.
My own kit includes the K24/2.8 and ZK25/2.8.


QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
. . . and something in the fast 30mm range (a fast standard).
Personally, I don't like that range very much.
It's either too wide, or not wide enough for my taste.
Brings back memories of boring snapshots made on film era "point-and-shoots."


QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The 31 is very nice, but unless Pentax has plans to go to a 35mm format camera, it's probably time to drop the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm lenses and concentrate on lenses that are more designed for the format they are going forwards with.
Well, it makes commercial sense to keep the FA 31 in the lineup until it is replaced.
And even though there are the DA40 Ltd and DA70 Ltd, it does seem that the FA 43 and FA 77 still find customers.
It's nice to have a choice between soulless digital sharpness and funky classical character.
02-16-2012, 09:23 AM   #96
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,163
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote

Well, it makes commercial sense to keep the FA 31 in the lineup until it is replaced.
And even though there are the DA40 Ltd and DA70 Ltd, it does seem that the FA 43 and FA 77 still find customers.
It's nice to have a choice between soulless digital sharpness and funky classical character.
I agree it makes commercial sense to keep the FA ltd trio around financially. but if it means they aren't introducing a fast DA just to protect that product in the lineup then it's lost revenue ultimately
I also think even if a FF camera is coming all 3 would benefit from a DFA upgrade with rear coatings and WR (and DC or SDM motor - this is a market norm on items in the price category)
The biggest issue is the lens lineup has been largely neglected for a long time now with very limited releases leaving Ricoh with a lot of gaps to fill. and items that should be updated as well (FA50 1.4 needs updating as well maybe not to DA* 55 level but WR would be nice - ie even the kit lens has it)

one of the things pentax could play on for unique in the market is to focus on the WR lineup. add a second APSC body in WR, ensure most lenses are out there in WR. It really is one of the big sell features for them bu they need more lens support - particularly in the prime range where there are only the DA* 55/200/300 high end and the DFA 100 macro. not a particularly wide range - and certainly one that could expand given there has been 5 bodies with WR now so a lot of customer base for the lenses
currently your choice the above 4 primes and 2 kit zooms, 2 DA* zooms, and the 18-135 (which is really a glorified Kit) and the 60-250 which is a nice lens but big)
02-16-2012, 09:55 AM   #97
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 888
I think Pentax has no real plan on lenses and sensor formats. They keep selling the FA limited line, they pump out multiple copies of 40/50 mm lenses, ... maybe their market research team assumes that K-mount compatibility is more important than a complete APS-C mount system. How many really new lens design did Pentax present in the last couple years - besides branding Tokina designs. The company needs to decide for one direction. At the moment even the FA glass with it's old fashioned AF and no manual override would benefit from an overhaul. It is time for a decision towards new FA designs, additional DA* designs or whatever...
I see myself getting an old FA 2/24 just because Pentax cannot deliver an update. Even with a fullframe camera in the pipeline, Pentax would not be ready to present interesting lenses.
02-16-2012, 10:06 AM   #98
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,163
the FA 2/24 is a perfect candidate for reworking and re-releasing. fast enough and a FL that doesn't conflict with any lens in the line. It would sell a boatload if it was doen as an affordable variant, and would even do very well if done as a DA* (though i think the trick would be if you are going to run several lenses in a FL there should be an affordable, a pancake a DA* grade 2 of the 3 never works and the only reason i included pancake is with the K-01 out there now it makes huge sense to have a pretty full pancake line (21/28/40/55/70/100 for instance) for budget lenses like the 35 2.4 and the new 50 there should also be a 15, 24 35,50, 85,135. 200or250 and the 560
then there should be the DA* line which should cover the full range 12-600 with the range of macros
this doesn't even cover the zooms
so lots of room for lens development in the next 2 years aside from announced models
If it means dropping long loved lenses from the line to introduce updated variants then so be it. I'd love the FA LTD trio for my bag, but I'd love a DFA ltd trio more )

02-16-2012, 06:14 PM   #99
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by westmill Quote
Then why do you insist on quoting me ?
I quoted you because you are the one who made the incorrect statement that prints are relevant in defining perspective distortion or in explaining what this has to do with what makes a focal length "normal". Without the incorrect statement, there would have been no need to post further on the topic, but as it was, I felt your statement deserved correction.

As for my mentioning that you apparently are not interested in learning, you are the one who advertised this to the world when you wrote that you "dont want or need a lecture", which is a pretty darned rude thing to say. That's your right, but you can't then fault me for calling you on it. Anyhow, my point in bringing it up was to explain why I was going ahead and providing the "lecture" despite your not wanting it: the information post wasn't necessarily for your benefit, but for that of others. Of course, you are still welcome to read and learn from it should you so wish.
02-16-2012, 10:41 PM   #100
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Friends, Earthlings, Pentaxians, lend me your ears. I speak not to bury Normal, but to praise it. Normal can bring out the best in a phographer, by not being easy. We may love our wides and ultrawides and fisheyes, our portraits and teles and macros, all those lenses that see the world in special ways, those optical crutches we lean on. Normal kicks out the crutches, makes us stand on our own. Normal does not play optical tricks. Normal forces us to actually see, to compose. Normal is good exercise. Normal is right in front of us.

Right in front of us. The world, not a print. Viewing a print from a certain vantage point does not Normalize it. This "view from the same vantage as the image capture" notion quickly breaks down. Should we only view an ultra-macro or astro shot from very very near or very very far? Yeah, right.

On our APS-C cameras, Normal is around 30mm, say from 28-31mm. Not the expansiveness of 25mm or wider, nor the concentration of 35mm or longer. And superfast isn't Normal; it's just another crutch. I usually use my 28/2 for light-gathering, not thin DOF. And while a 30/1.4 can give spectacular results wide-open, it's not how we see. When you look (naked eyes!) at something a couple dozen cm away, do your visual foreground and background go soft, fuzzy, out-of-focus? O I hope not. Normal is around 28/2. On APS-C, 28/2 would be about FOV and DOF equivalent to 43/2.8 on 135/FF. That is exemplary Normal. (Of course, if someone gave me a 30/1.4, I would feel obliged to accept it.)
02-17-2012, 05:16 AM   #101
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I quoted you because you are the one who made the incorrect statement that prints are relevant in defining perspective distortion or in explaining what this has to do with what makes a focal length "normal". Without the incorrect statement, there would have been no need to post further on the topic, but as it was, I felt your statement deserved correction.

As for my mentioning that you apparently are not interested in learning, you are the one who advertised this to the world when you wrote that you "dont want or need a lecture", which is a pretty darned rude thing to say. That's your right, but you can't then fault me for calling you on it. Anyhow, my point in bringing it up was to explain why I was going ahead and providing the "lecture" despite your not wanting it: the information post wasn't necessarily for your benefit, but for that of others. Of course, you are still welcome to read and learn from it should you so wish.
Firstly..... I have made no inncorect statement !
I never said prints are relelivent I said irelevent. Unless of course you are saying that things change sumhow if you dont make a print ?
The print is just the end result and not the means. A good way of showing it yes..... relivent..... NO.
I see and know and understand your point perfectly. Lots of people have made veiws and varying ways of looking at things and they are all right
in one way or another, and its a simple point of veiw.
Saying i dont want or need a lecture, I dont think is rude at all. Your arrogance certainly is !
Maybe you missread or missunderstood what I was saying... who knows or cares.
Anyway, I refuse to get drawn into any more disscussion with you.
02-17-2012, 01:07 PM   #102
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by westmill Quote
Firstly..... I have made no inncorect statement !
I never said prints are relelivent I said irelevent.
Right, and that's the incorrect statemen (typo in my previous reply)t. Prints *are* relevant; claiming they are not is incorrect. You *cannot* measure perspective distortion except with respect to a specific print size viewed from a specific distance. The same exact image might or might not show perspective distortion, depending on the size of the print and the distance at which you view it. This is all as I explained rather thorouly in my previous post.

QuoteQuote:
Unless of course you are saying that things change sumhow if you dont make a print ?
I'm saying perspective distortion is something that can only be measued in terms of a specific size of print viewed at a specific distance. While it's true that you don't have to *make* the print in order to measure this - it can be calculated mathematically befoe you even make the print - you still have to give the size of print and the viewing distance before we can determine if there will be perspective distortion. That's because perspective distortion is defined as a function of two parameters: FOV of the scene, and angle subtended by the print from the viewing position. When they match, there is no perspective distortion. When they are unequal, perspective distortion exists. Without a specific print size and viewing distance, we cannot know the angle subtended by the print from the viewing position, so we cannot tell if there will be perspective distortion or not.

As an analogy, trying to discuss perspective distortion without spreference to a specific print size and viewing distance is like trying to discuss how well a shirt fits without reference to a specific person. The fit of the shirt is dependent on two factors: the size of the shirt and the size of the person. Similarly, perspective distortion is dependent on two factors: the FOV of the image and the angle subtended by the print from

QuoteQuote:
I see and know and understand your point perfectly.
If that were true, you wouldn't still be claiming the print is not relevant.

QuoteQuote:
Maybe you missread or missunderstood what I was saying
On the contrary, your particular misunderstanding of what perspective distortion is and how it works is all too common; I am quite familiar with the incorrect beliefs many have about this subject. It is you who are not understanding what I am saying.

No skin off my back if you choose to remain uneducated on this, but again, I will continue to correct incorrect statements for the benefit of others reading the discussion.
02-17-2012, 01:09 PM   #103
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Right, and that's the incorrect statement. Prints *are* relevant. You cannot measure perspective distortion except with respect to a specific print size ciewed from a specific distance. The same exact image might or might not show perspective distortion, depending on the size of the print and the distance at which you view it. This is all as I explained rather thorouly in my previous post.



I'm saying perspective distortion is something that can only be measued in terms of a specific size of print viewed at a specific distance. While it's true that you don't have to *make* the print in order to measure this - it can be calculated mathematically befoe you even make the print - you still have to give the size of print and the viewing distance before we can determine if there will be perspective distortion. That's because perspective distortion is defined as a function of two parameters: FOV of the scene, and angle subtended by the print from the viewing position. When they match, there is no perspective distortion. When they are unequal, perspective distortion exists. Without a specific print size and viewing distance, we cannot know the angle subtended by the print from the viewing position, so we cannot tell if there will be perspective distortion or not.

As an analogy, trying to discuss perspective distortion without spreference to a specific print size and viewing distance is like trying to discuss how well a shirt fits without reference to a specific person. The fit of the shirt is dependent on two factors: the size of the shirt and the size of the person. Similarly, perspective distortion is dependent on two factors: the FOV of the image and the angle subtended by the print from



If that were true, you wouldn't still be claiming the print is not relevant.



On the contrary, your particular misunderstanding of what perspective distortion is and how it works is all too common; I am quite familiar with the incorrect beliefs many have about this subject. It is you who are not understanding what I am saying.

No skin off my back if you choose to remain uneducated on this, but again, I will continue to correct incorrect statements for the benefit of others reading the discussion.
Your a prat mate
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!
28mm, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, style
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Feedback on a "Normal" Lens, Please TooLoose Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 12-09-2011 01:31 PM
Program mode: "Auto" vs. "Normal"? PALADIN85020 Pentax K-5 3 02-13-2011 12:22 PM
"Normal" lens? wildman Photographic Technique 68 07-19-2010 12:11 AM
A real prob"lens" with my items tcerveny Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 09-28-2009 02:19 AM
Cheap "normal" lens for Pentax APS montecarlo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-01-2009 09:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 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