[Rondec]

I've the limited for 3 years now and users here that have directly copmpared say the shapes of the blades aren't different.
Beside that what has the shape of the blades to do with the for example the sharpness, colour, contrast of an photo?
Rounded blades are really overrated.

Non rounded aperture blades are the biggest reason that I got rid of my Sigma 30mm f1.4. It does make a difference in the quality of bokeh.

[snake]

Non rounded aperture blades are the biggest reason that I got rid of my Sigma 30mm f1.4. It does make a difference in the quality of bokeh.

Bokeh is often overrated and overused. Round blades might be ok if you're exclusively taking photos of only flowers to post on the internet. Flower pics are ok, but ubiquitous. In the real world, such minor nuances are part of a whole and the whole is what matters, as is how someone handles the camera. the user will always make more a difference than nuances and for most all of us, the equipment is well above our skill levels.

[Rondec]

Bokeh is often overrated and overused. Round blades might be ok if you're exclusively taking photos of only flowers to post on the internet. Flower pics are ok, but ubiquitous. In the real world, such minor nuances are part of a whole and the whole is what matters, as is how someone handles the camera. the user will always make more a difference than nuances and for most all of us, the equipment is well above our skill levels.

I guess I don't really follow what you are saying. Nearly all modern lenses have decent sharpness, particularly stopped down a stop. The thing that sets them apart are things like micro contrast and rendering of out of focus areas. It has nothing to do with flowers. I seldom take photos of flowers, but with portraiture, out of focus rendering is important.

Anyway, it was the reason that I sold my Sigma 30mm and bought the FA limited 31mm.

[jk333]

To be clear, I'm not a "Pentaxian"...

I hope they succeed, both for selfish reasons (I'm invested in the system) and because I think the company has a lot to offer, but also, I can make comments about out-of-touch pricing — apparently a right I wouldn't have if I were a true Pentaxian.

In any case, it appears I was right in both this post and in the one a while back where I said the sky isn't falling and that there's no way out-of-touch prices could be sustained — see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/188901-b-h-price-drops.html (which of course you all have seen by now anyway).

The prices have stabilized; its the constant bitching that is annoying.

People bought into Pentax for a reason; what were they getting 3 years ago that they aren't getting now? Sure, 5-10 years ago there were plenty of FA and f lenses around, but not in the past 3-5 years.

The facts are that current Pentax prices are slightly elevated but not compared to the competition. And now there are new offerings that are even cheaper.

Pentax deserves (significant) criticism on is the elevated prices for the DA* zooms; they never should have cost ~$1499. But the new prices of the DA* zooms are equal to or better than the competition again. Other lens prices are usually better.

To conclude, Pentax prices are higher but there are value lenses out now that did not previously exist and the lenses that are higher priced are still comparable to the competition. I'm going to ignore Canon but here is a side by side comparison based on Amazon.com pricing.

Budget 50/1.8 - Pentax 190 Nikon 140
Budget 35/1.8 - Pentax 182 Nikon 199
Short Tele - Pentax 70 699 Nikon 85 - 549
Budget 50-300 Pentax 359 Nikon 399
Budget 50-200 Pentax 227 Nikon 249

50/1.4 Pentax 349 Nikon 449
Crop 2.8 standard zoom - Pentax 1099 Nikon 1439
Wide Zoom - Pentax 12-24 899 Nikon 10-24 949
Long Tele macro - Pentax 100/2.8 769 Nikon 999
Long Tele 300/4 Pentax 1399 Nikon 1499 (f/2.8 available)

Nikon is slightly cheaper for budget primes while Pentax is slightly cheaper for budget zooms. The prosumer f/2.8 zoom, wide angle zoom and 50/1.4 are all cheaper from Pentax.

In the case of this new Canon pancake, the Pentax offering is slightly more $ but also smaller and lighter. The lenses are comparable and the Pentax has some advantages (as does the Canon). Pentax doesn't need to wake up, users need to realize that their lenses are comparable with some advantages and disadvantages Vs. competitors.

[Anvh]

Non rounded aperture blades are the biggest reason that I got rid of my Sigma 30mm f1.4. It does make a difference in the quality of bokeh.

Anyway, it was the reason that I sold my Sigma 30mm and bought the FA limited 31mm.

If you think that rounded blades will make a difference with bokeh than you've fallen pray to the marketing hype

Here search the differences in bokeh and no the rounded highlight with the WR version isn't bokeh..

[Rondec]

The best comparison that I have seen in those two lenses is Frank's comparison (and I see a difference). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/86625-lens-buy...ant-macro.html

[eddie1960]

The best comparison that I have seen in those two lenses is Frank's comparison (and I see a difference). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/86625-lens-buy...ant-macro.html

his example with the coloured light bokeh in the background shows quite well why you might prefer rounded blades @ f4. the non WR has stop signs
@ f8 they both do but the non WR they glow as well

then when he gets on to real life shots the rounded blades do make a difference

All in all I'd say it presents a good argument for rounded blades

[Anvh]

You see hardly any blur there beside with the lens caps and with those i don't see in difference.

But lets talk about it.
Why do rounded blades make better bokeh?

[Anvh]

his example with the coloured light bokeh in the background shows quite well why you might prefer rounded blades @ f4. the non WR has stop signs
@ f8 they both do but the non WR they glow as well

then when he gets on to real life shots the rounded blades do make a difference

All in all I'd say it presents a good argument for rounded blades

But only the shape of the highlights are effect and the shape of the highlights is not bokeh, not in any meaning of that word.
If there are no highlights in the background you so no difference at all in the out of focus blur.

Here is a nice comparison.
DFA 100/2.8 WR, f/8 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[ElJamoquio]

Budget 50/1.8 - Pentax 190 Nikon 140
Budget 35/1.8 - Pentax 182 Nikon 199
Short Tele - Pentax 70 699 Nikon 85 - 549
Budget 50-300 Pentax 359 Nikon 399
Budget 50-200 Pentax 227 Nikon 249

There's a big difference between f/2.4 and f/1.8 in terms of price. Lens speed is not (anywhere close to) the whole picture... but there's a lot going for Nikon in the budget-prime realm.

[RioRico]

ObTopic: In case nobody noticed, Pentax USA just announced a major price drop. Read about it on the home page here. So maybe Ned listened to all the whining here, eh?

[Anvh]

ObTopic: In case nobody noticed, Pentax USA just announced a major price drop. Read about it on the home page here. So maybe Ned listened to all the whining here, eh?

Unofficial sources indicate that this is a worldwide pricing change, rather than something for the US only.

If it's world-wide it's not Ned's or Pentax USA doing so lets not speculate just yet...

[creampuff]

I've the limited for 3 years now and users here that have directly copmpared say the shapes of the blades aren't different.
Beside that what has the shape of the blades to do with the for example the sharpness, colour, contrast of an photo?
Rounded blades are really overrated.

Laddie, in other words you've never actually used the 40 XS before and are quoting other people. Let me assure you that there is a difference small as it is. Please, you can hold on to your opinion that rounded aperture blades don't make a difference to your eyes but to mine and some others, there is definitely a discernible difference. Instead of quoting and linking to other people's images (did you have the courtesy to notify them first), I would suggest you actually use your own images to prove your arguments.

[Rondec]

But only the shape of the highlights are effect and the shape of the highlights is not bokeh, not in any meaning of that word.
If there are no highlights in the background you so no difference at all in the out of focus blur.

Here is a nice comparison.
DFA 100/2.8 WR, f/8 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

You say this as though highlights in in out of focus areas are uncommon. They are quite frequent in most photography (other than studio photography).

Sigma 30mm (pretty rough bokeh in my opinion, but sharp enough).



Pentax 100 mm WR



Obviously, I have posted two completely different photos from lenses with completely different focal lengths, but my point is that out of focus areas are much nicer with rounded blades. Is it a make or break thing? Well, for me, yes. I hate hexagons or octagons popping up in the backgrounds of my photos. Others look at hexagons and say "what nice bokeh" and if they truly feel that way, then good for them.

[deanallan]

I guess I don't really follow what you are saying. Nearly all modern lenses have decent sharpness, particularly stopped down a stop. The thing that sets them apart are things like micro contrast and rendering of out of focus areas. It has nothing to do with flowers. I seldom take photos of flowers, but with portraiture, out of focus rendering is important.

Anyway, it was the reason that I sold my Sigma 30mm and bought the FA limited 31mm.

I think what he meant was that most can't see the forest for the trees. There are other aspects of a lens that makes it good. I kinda agree with him not that I disagree with you, just that I agree with him more.

For example look at Steve McCurry's Afghan girl, we all know at that time he was using a Nikon rig so mostly likely a Nikkor lens (I'm guessing a 105mm at least?) and at that period mostly likely a Nikkor lens with usually a 7-bladed diaphragm (non-circular mind you). So did, not having a non-circular aperture blades/diaphragm prevented him from taking that stunning picture? I don't think so. Would having one had made it better? Perhaps, we'll never know.

If you can't make a good picture from using a normal lens then trust me, no matter how circular the diaphragm is, it won't make it better. But if there is a chance that it will make a good picture better, why not?