DA35/2.4 ~ What about a 16 or 17 wide angle version?

lightbulb · 03-09-2012, 09:51 AM

Is it possible to make a 16 or 17 2.4 around the size of 35/2.4?

I am so going to get the DA50/1.8.

RioRico · 03-09-2012, 10:10 AM

At f/2.4, the answer is NO, at least not for APS-C. Well, maybe it would be *possible*, but the optics wouldn't be real good. Wide lenses can be 1) small and fairly slow, or 2) big and fairly fast, or 3) have crappy optics. Compare the big DA14/2.8, the small DA15/4, and the tiny Fisheye Takumar 18/11.

For a camera with a smaller format than APS-C, it's no problem. Short fast lenses are common and fairly cheap, for small enough formats (like video). I have a lightweight 15-25mm f/1.2 zoom that cost me all of ONE BUCK! Only problem is, it's for a Super-8 camera. Doesn't work on my K20D, nope.

How-to build a fast wide lens: 1) take a FA50/1.4; 2) mount a 0.25x wide screw-on adapter on its front, giving a 13/1.4 optic; 3) ignore the distortions and aberrations and bulk and snide sneers. Better yet, just save up for the DA14 or DA15 I mentioned above. Or if you don't mind fishiness, get a Zenitar 16/2.8.

ironlionzion · 03-09-2012, 10:43 AM

With the high iso capabilities of dslrs today, it'd be kind of cool and reasonable to make a really compact wide angle small aperture lens like a 16mm f/8...probably won't happen though...

**luftfluss** · 03-09-2012, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

With the high iso capabilities of dslrs today, it'd be kind of cool and reasonable to make a really compact wide angle small aperture lens like a 16mm f/8...probably won't happen though...

There's already the DA 15 f/4... and at f/8 you're already just one stop away from diffraction on an APS-C sized sensor.

And as good as the current crop of sensors are, there's still no substitute for low ISO when it comes to noise, sharpness & DR.

ironlionzion · 03-09-2012, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

f/8 you're already just one stop away from diffraction on an APS-C sized sensor

true, didn't think about that.

RioRico · 03-09-2012, 11:20 AM

A note on diffraction limit: On an APS-C-size frame, the limit is around f/9. But that really only matters with pixel-peeped tripodded mirror-locked-up images. For handeld shots, even with SR on, we don't really notice the effects until around f/22 on a large display, beyond that with smaller images. Anyone with an 18-55 kit lens can check it out. At 55mm its f-stop range is f/5.6-40. Shoot a set of handheld test shots at f/8-11-16-22-32-40, then display them at moderate size|resolution, not at 100%. They will follow the old rule: Almost any picture looks good if it's small enough!

VoiceOfReason · 03-09-2012, 11:42 AM

I have a Sigma 20 f/1.8 and that thing is huge. I can only imagine how much bigger if it were wider AND faster. 100+mm filters anyone?

Impartial · 03-09-2012, 11:43 AM

To (sort of) respond to the initial quesiton, though, I wonder whether the XS series will include any small wide primes? Personally, I'm hoping for a 24/2, but an 18/2.8 would also be of interest. Of course, those lenses might not be mirrorbox-friendly . . .

RioRico · 03-09-2012, 12:24 PM

I suspect we have a parallel with paranormality. If water-witching for petroleum worked, energy firms would sponsor appropriate training programs, instead of hiring those expensive geophysicists. If good small fast wide cost-effective lenses for APS-C cameras *could* be built, they *would* be built. What is the smallest-fastest-widest-cheapest glass for the NEX? That could hint at the limits for the XS line.

JinDesu · 03-09-2012, 12:33 PM

I'd like a 10mm F0.95 with a tripod mount, kthx

Impartial · 03-09-2012, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I suspect we have a parallel with paranormality. If water-witching for petroleum worked, energy firms would sponsor appropriate training programs, instead of hiring those expensive geophysicists. If good small fast wide cost-effective lenses for APS-C cameras *could* be built, they *would* be built. What is the smallest-fastest-widest-cheapest glass for the NEX? That could hint at the limits for the XS line.

That would be 16/2.8 . So 18/2.8 or 24/2 should not be a problem . . .

**interested_observer** · 03-11-2012, 09:29 AM

Interesting question and the previous postings have all provided excellent responses. In the past, particularly full frame lenses, provide some answers. Carl Zeiss starting in the mid 70's and through 2005 had a professional line of cameras, Contax (and there is a Pentax story here but for another time). Their line of lenses all had a very similar look and feel (from the Porsche Design Group), plus they were as small as possible. Their line-up of lenses ran from 16mm to 300mm, so if you pay particular attention to the 25mm through the 85mm, they are all of a very similar physical size and weight - for the aperture of f2.8 (the f2, f1.4 lenses are all much larger). Take a look at this database (and slide the slider bar on the right hand side over to the right to get the physical dimensions)

CONTAX C/Y LENSES ON CANON dSLRs --- COMPATIBILITY DATABASE

Now these lenses all contain great optics, excellent build, and perform wonderfully on today's digital cameras. Canon folks seek them out for these qualities (and they mount with a cheap inexpensive adapter).

However take a look at the wider end, from 21mm down to 15mm, the physical dimensions grow comparatively quite large and the front elements get quite big. This is just a real life example of what happens when the reality of optics meet the designers whim - optics wins out....

lightbulb · 03-11-2012, 05:02 PM

Browsing with Android I see no weight and size. But lenses optimize for apsc would be smaller yes? I am sure the next killer wide angle with small form factor would be for ko 1 utilizing the vast space between lens and sensor. With this kind of concept, I thought this would mean wr zoom (internal), prime and body as well. Ko 2 perhaps.

RioRico · 03-11-2012, 07:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by lightbulb

Browsing with Android I see no weight and size. But lenses optimize for apsc would be smaller yes? I am sure the next killer wide angle with small form factor would be for ko 1 utilizing the vast space between lens and sensor. With this kind of concept, I thought this would mean wr zoom (internal), prime and body as well. Ko 2 perhaps.

PK-AS-mount lenses that extend far into a mirrorless body will need some physical limiter so they can't be mistakenly mounted on our dSLRs. AFAIK we don't know yet if Pentax makes such protection for the K01 mount. If so, then some VERY flat primes and short zooms could be designed. I'll take a pancake 20-40/2.8, thanks. A "killer wide angle with small form factor" could maybe be built, or maybe not, but probably not much shorter than 16mm. Shorter (and faster) will probably be bigger. But we can hope, can't we?

Jonathan Mac · 03-11-2012, 08:26 PM

Samsung have a 16mm f/2.4 lens which is small & apparently performs well (unlike the Sony 16mm f/2.8, which is just small). I see no reason why one couldn't be made for a K-mount, though the increased registration distance would mean it would have to be larger.

03-09-2012, 09:51 AM	#1
lightbulb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 691	DA35/2.4 ~ What about a 16 or 17 wide angle version? Is it possible to make a 16 or 17 2.4 around the size of 35/2.4? I am so going to get the DA50/1.8.

03-09-2012, 10:10 AM	#2
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	At f/2.4, the answer is NO, at least not for APS-C. Well, maybe it would be possible, but the optics wouldn't be real good. Wide lenses can be 1) small and fairly slow, or 2) big and fairly fast, or 3) have crappy optics. Compare the big DA14/2.8, the small DA15/4, and the tiny Fisheye Takumar 18/11. For a camera with a smaller format than APS-C, it's no problem. Short fast lenses are common and fairly cheap, for small enough formats (like video). I have a lightweight 15-25mm f/1.2 zoom that cost me all of ONE BUCK! Only problem is, it's for a Super-8 camera. Doesn't work on my K20D, nope. How-to build a fast wide lens: 1) take a FA50/1.4; 2) mount a 0.25x wide screw-on adapter on its front, giving a 13/1.4 optic; 3) ignore the distortions and aberrations and bulk and snide sneers. Better yet, just save up for the DA14 or DA15 I mentioned above. Or if you don't mind fishiness, get a Zenitar 16/2.8. Last edited by RioRico; 03-09-2012 at 10:15 AM.

03-11-2012, 09:29 AM	#12
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Interesting question and the previous postings have all provided excellent responses. In the past, particularly full frame lenses, provide some answers. Carl Zeiss starting in the mid 70's and through 2005 had a professional line of cameras, Contax (and there is a Pentax story here but for another time). Their line of lenses all had a very similar look and feel (from the Porsche Design Group), plus they were as small as possible. Their line-up of lenses ran from 16mm to 300mm, so if you pay particular attention to the 25mm through the 85mm, they are all of a very similar physical size and weight - for the aperture of f2.8 (the f2, f1.4 lenses are all much larger). Take a look at this database (and slide the slider bar on the right hand side over to the right to get the physical dimensions) CONTAX C/Y LENSES ON CANON dSLRs --- COMPATIBILITY DATABASE Now these lenses all contain great optics, excellent build, and perform wonderfully on today's digital cameras. Canon folks seek them out for these qualities (and they mount with a cheap inexpensive adapter). However take a look at the wider end, from 21mm down to 15mm, the physical dimensions grow comparatively quite large and the front elements get quite big. This is just a real life example of what happens when the reality of optics meet the designers whim - optics wins out....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc with the wide angle	_riccardo_	Post Your Photos!	4	03-05-2012 01:37 AM
wide angle	Conqueror	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	12-17-2011 09:49 PM
Which wide angle should I go with?	iseeincolor	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	25	06-10-2011 06:10 PM
Pentax 10-16 mm wide angle ?	lesmore49	Pentax News and Rumors	35	04-10-2010 06:34 AM
Tokinas version of the DA35 Macro	blende8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	03-20-2007 06:55 AM

03-09-2012, 10:43 AM	#3
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	With the high iso capabilities of dslrs today, it'd be kind of cool and reasonable to make a really compact wide angle small aperture lens like a 16mm f/8...probably won't happen though...

03-09-2012, 10:51 AM	#4
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by ironlionzion With the high iso capabilities of dslrs today, it'd be kind of cool and reasonable to make a really compact wide angle small aperture lens like a 16mm f/8...probably won't happen though... There's already the DA 15 f/4... and at f/8 you're already just one stop away from diffraction on an APS-C sized sensor. And as good as the current crop of sensors are, there's still no substitute for low ISO when it comes to noise, sharpness & DR.

03-09-2012, 10:57 AM	#5
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by luftfluss f/8 you're already just one stop away from diffraction on an APS-C sized sensor true, didn't think about that.

03-09-2012, 11:20 AM	#6
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	A note on diffraction limit: On an APS-C-size frame, the limit is around f/9. But that really only matters with pixel-peeped tripodded mirror-locked-up images. For handeld shots, even with SR on, we don't really notice the effects until around f/22 on a large display, beyond that with smaller images. Anyone with an 18-55 kit lens can check it out. At 55mm its f-stop range is f/5.6-40. Shoot a set of handheld test shots at f/8-11-16-22-32-40, then display them at moderate size\|resolution, not at 100%. They will follow the old rule: Almost any picture looks good if it's small enough!

03-09-2012, 11:42 AM	#7
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I have a Sigma 20 f/1.8 and that thing is huge. I can only imagine how much bigger if it were wider AND faster. 100+mm filters anyone?

03-09-2012, 11:43 AM	#8
Impartial Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	To (sort of) respond to the initial quesiton, though, I wonder whether the XS series will include any small wide primes? Personally, I'm hoping for a 24/2, but an 18/2.8 would also be of interest. Of course, those lenses might not be mirrorbox-friendly . . .

03-09-2012, 12:24 PM	#9
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I suspect we have a parallel with paranormality. If water-witching for petroleum worked, energy firms would sponsor appropriate training programs, instead of hiring those expensive geophysicists. If good small fast wide cost-effective lenses for APS-C cameras could be built, they would be built. What is the smallest-fastest-widest-cheapest glass for the NEX? That could hint at the limits for the XS line.

03-09-2012, 12:33 PM	#10
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I'd like a 10mm F0.95 with a tripod mount, kthx

03-09-2012, 12:34 PM	#11
Impartial Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	Originally posted by RioRico I suspect we have a parallel with paranormality. If water-witching for petroleum worked, energy firms would sponsor appropriate training programs, instead of hiring those expensive geophysicists. If good small fast wide cost-effective lenses for APS-C cameras could be built, they would be built. What is the smallest-fastest-widest-cheapest glass for the NEX? That could hint at the limits for the XS line. That would be 16/2.8 . So 18/2.8 or 24/2 should not be a problem . . .

03-11-2012, 05:02 PM	#13
lightbulb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 691 Original Poster	Browsing with Android I see no weight and size. But lenses optimize for apsc would be smaller yes? I am sure the next killer wide angle with small form factor would be for ko 1 utilizing the vast space between lens and sensor. With this kind of concept, I thought this would mean wr zoom (internal), prime and body as well. Ko 2 perhaps.

03-11-2012, 07:48 PM - 1 Like	#14
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by lightbulb Browsing with Android I see no weight and size. But lenses optimize for apsc would be smaller yes? I am sure the next killer wide angle with small form factor would be for ko 1 utilizing the vast space between lens and sensor. With this kind of concept, I thought this would mean wr zoom (internal), prime and body as well. Ko 2 perhaps. PK-AS-mount lenses that extend far into a mirrorless body will need some physical limiter so they can't be mistakenly mounted on our dSLRs. AFAIK we don't know yet if Pentax makes such protection for the K01 mount. If so, then some VERY flat primes and short zooms could be designed. I'll take a pancake 20-40/2.8, thanks. A "killer wide angle with small form factor" could maybe be built, or maybe not, but probably not much shorter than 16mm. Shorter (and faster) will probably be bigger. But we can hope, can't we?

03-11-2012, 08:26 PM	#15
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	Samsung have a 16mm f/2.4 lens which is small & apparently performs well (unlike the Sony 16mm f/2.8, which is just small). I see no reason why one couldn't be made for a K-mount, though the increased registration distance would mean it would have to be larger.