Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2012, 11:14 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
Asides from spending tons of cash, there aren't a whole lot of good wa options.
My DA L 18-55 at 20mm was sharper than my M20/4 (f/8 for both),
although the colors on the M20/4 are way nicer.
I do like some of the older manual Pentax wide angles.
The K24/2.8 is another good one.

05-26-2012, 11:25 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
It seems that wa is very demanding in retrofocus designs. It also seems that its easier to make a sharp 28mm for ff than a sharp 18mm for aps-c. Yeah, I'm thinking for cost the wr kit lens is still probably the best option. Personally I don't see much difference in iq between the kit and the da*16-45....not enough to justify it costing over 10x as much. So the wr has super protect too? And quickshift? I'm sold. I do like. The contrast I get off this lens. Its just not super sharp. I've read that version II was sharper at the wide end in. The newer formula and that's really what I'm looking for. I have a 50 1.7 I use as a portrait lens anyways and a decent mf. Zoom for longer reach.
05-26-2012, 04:01 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
Its pretty ok for portraits, but anything at hyperfocal looks soft.
It's important to keep in mind that DOF and hyperfocus formulas generally assume you're are making an average print and viewing from a typical distance for that print. They give you values designed to produce results "sharp enough" for that size print viewed from that distance. It isn't reasonable to expect it to be sharp enough to stand to pixel peeping at 100% unless you view from what would be a typical viewing distance for that size of a print - eg, from halfway across the room.

Spend the money if you like, but we're not talking about night and day differences. I suspect your issues may be in large part in your technique and expectations.
05-26-2012, 04:06 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
Gonna bump this here? There's not difference between the 2 dal versions?? Why did they introduce a version II then?
There aren't two "DAL" versions - there are none. There is a version labeled "DA L" that has the plastic mount and uses the new formula - in this lens, the "L" stands for "light". There are also two versions "DA AL" that have the metal mount - in this lens, the "L" is part of the "AL" and indicates use of aspherical elements. That is the one that comes in two versions, original and II. Only the "DA AL" without the II uses the old formula. As mentioned, there is a slight difference, but nothing really worth spending money on.

05-26-2012, 04:46 PM   #20
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,430
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
I wouldn't buy another 18-55 myself but rather something more versatile like the 18-135 or the 17-70.... Your K5 deserves it.
+1.
I didn't even buy the kit lens with my K100D.
05-26-2012, 04:46 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
Well I was referring to focusing on infinity. Really when it is focused on infinity manually with live view, it still isn't terribly sharp. I'm thinking that version 2 is probably a lot sharper......
05-26-2012, 04:48 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
I like the focal length available in the 18-135, but really, I think even that lens is softer at the wide end than the kit. It gets pretty awful reviews on this website too. No, if you ask me the sigma 16-45 or the pentax 17-70 are probably better lenses, but also cost a whole lot more.
05-26-2012, 06:13 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
There aren't two "DAL" versions - there are none. There is a version labeled "DA L" that has the plastic mount and uses the new formula - in this lens, the "L" stands for "light". There are also two versions "DA AL" that have the metal mount - in this lens, the "L" is part of the "AL" and indicates use of aspherical elements. That is the one that comes in two versions, original and II. Only the "DA AL" without the II uses the old formula. As mentioned, there is a slight difference, but nothing really worth spending money on.
Agree with last sentence - I have both the original and second versions, and although I haven't wasted a part of my life making a systematic comparison of the two, I think in some circumstances the original one is actually better. Sample variation? They're both perfectly usable.

(Although my Sigma 17-70, original version, is better than both, albeit heavier and bulkier, and more expensive.)

Tim

05-27-2012, 02:05 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
Well I was referring to focusing on infinity. Really when it is focused on infinity manually with live view, it still isn't terribly sharp. I'm thinking that version 2 is probably a lot sharper......
Except on planets with no atmosphere, images focused at infinity are *always* softer than images focused at close range, due to the qualities of the atmosphere itself.
05-27-2012, 02:13 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
I realize that. I'm not talking about distant objects being sharp. I'm just talking abopplfut the overall shapness of the frame. Its pretty weak with more distant objects, even stopped down. Especially compared to even my softest prime. The fact that the original kit lens was redisnged for the k20 with the version II says a lot I think. Either way, I think for how cheap it can be found for, the wr version is probably worth it to get. If anything happens to it, I am only out of a cheap lens and even version I has been ok for walkaround use....just not real happy with the sharpness and resolving power. Up close portraits and stuff look great. It still is better than the canon or nikon kit lenses....lol.
05-27-2012, 02:22 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
I've gotten some great images from the lens I have, but I'm sure we all know the feeling of wanting something better....I've made 20" prints from that lens that were passable, but could be picked apart if you look closely. I was looking at the A 35-105, but that still leaves something for the wide end. Maybe I should start looking long and hard at maybe a 17-18mm prime and a 24mm to fill in some gaps. A 15ltd would be really sweet as well, but I could buy a lot of old mf primes for what one costs. I would rather have more flexibility, than just one focal length. Anyone have the tokina 12-24? The pentax one almost seems worth the premium for the coatings. I love smc.
05-27-2012, 02:57 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
I realize that. I'm not talking about distant objects being sharp. I'm just talking abopplfut the overall shapness of the frame. Its pretty weak with more distant objects
Which is it - are you talking about distant onjects or not? If you are, again, you may simply be seeing atmospheric effects. Most people *greatly* underestimate the significance of this.

QuoteQuote:
Especially compared to even my softest prime.
Which ~18mm prime are you comparing to? Obviously, you can't compare the 18mm end of a zoom to a prime at 28mm or more, especially not when talking about objects more than a few feet away since the FOV is so different.

QuoteQuote:
The fact that the original kit lens was redisnged for the k20 with the version II says a lot I think.
And need, there are slight differences. I just think you may be underestimating the lens you have and expecting too much of the one you don't.

QuoteQuote:
Either way, I think for how cheap it can be found for, the wr version is probably worth it to get.
On that much I agree. Slightly better IQ, noticeably better build quality, and WR - the combination makes that lens worthwhile.
05-27-2012, 03:13 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
Oh I'm not expecting miracles, but this lens I have is really inconsistent, and that's on a tripod. Maube I have a bad copy, who knows. I usually regret using it half the time. You are right about the fov being different. Its like certain regions seem slightly oof. Its almost like the plane isn't perpendicular, so who knows. I would love some weathersealing anyways. Then I could at least have a good fully weathersealed option. I'll shoot in the rain with old primes a lot, but I would hate to totally drench a lens as well as my mirror box.
05-28-2012, 11:02 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,475
QuoteOriginally posted by zosxavius Quote
Oh I'm not expecting miracles, but this lens I have is really inconsistent, and that's on a tripod. Maube I have a bad copy, who knows. I usually regret using it half the time. You are right about the fov being different. Its like certain regions seem slightly oof. Its almost like the plane isn't perpendicular, so who knows. I would love some weathersealing anyways. Then I could at least have a good fully weathersealed option. I'll shoot in the rain with old primes a lot, but I would hate to totally drench a lens as well as my mirror box.
I've noticed the same think with multiple lenses, in term of "apparent inconsistency." I've had two lenses that actually were consistently inconsistent across the frame, including the 55-300. The rest of the instances, I can't reproduce with test targets. You should test all your lenses as precisely as you can, at least twice so you can make sure the results are reproducible. There are so many factors involved that you can't just go by results in routine usage.

Paul
05-28-2012, 12:28 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 449
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I've noticed the same think with multiple lenses, in term of "apparent inconsistency." I've had two lenses that actually were consistently inconsistent across the frame, including the 55-300. The rest of the instances, I can't reproduce with test targets. You should test all your lenses as precisely as you can, at least twice so you can make sure the results are reproducible. There are so many factors involved that you can't just go by results in routine usage.

Paul
Agreed. It could be sr. I do tend to leave it on and forget about it. Also I noticed the other day I wasn't actually lettiing the sr spool up in a lot of my shooting. I never noticed the indicator came on in the viewfinder until now and now I probably know why....never letting it engage. I think my keeper rate is about dramatically go up....lol

I wouldn't rule out camera shake or sr not engaging properly. I've seen some stunning shots from that lens which is why I find it so frustrating how inconsistent it can seem to be.
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!
ii, k-mount, k-x, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K-2000 kit(body and DAL 18-55), DAL 50-200, A 28/2.8 Matcha Sold Items 6 04-17-2012 06:13 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-m/K2000 with DAL 18-55, DAL 50-200 and accessories dreamfall Sold Items 8 12-08-2011 06:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-x with 18-55 DAL and 50-200 DAL kit lenses leadfoot Sold Items 2 08-07-2011 08:12 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-5, DAL 21mm, DAL 40mm (US) pascal Sold Items 7 06-19-2011 11:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: DAL 18-55mm and DAL 50-300mm (US) happygui Sold Items 6 08-25-2010 01:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 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