Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-22-2008, 10:18 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Orleans, La
Posts: 55
The Best AF Lenses Money Can Buy

The other night I was going to look into the Zeiss lenses made for Pentax mount when I came across this article written in 2002 by Mike Johnston from his series of weekly columns at the Luminous Landscape (Note, Mike currently has his own website, theonlinephotographer.com). In any case, it was greatly comforting to read his opinions of Pentax's three FA primes and I thought that some readers here might take heart as well.

QuoteQuote:
Photographers love to discuss lenses. Scientific lens tests are accorded great respect by photographers; ratings and rankings are much-discussed; and the web is peppered with anecdotal user reports — not only at sites such as photographyreview.com and photozone, but at general photography sites, photographers' personal home pages, magazine sites, and so on.

This is in one sense ironic, because we may at this point be in an age when lens quality doesn't really matter very much any more. Digital processing in Adobe Photoshop — by applying sharpening, unsharp masking, and contrast controls — can make digital prints mimic "looks" once obtainable only by using great optics. Also, with computer-aided optical design, modern quality control methods, and the constant winnowing of fierce, sustained competition, true "dogs" among lenses have dwindled away almost to nonexistence, and the once fairly wide gamut of lens quality has gotten all bunched together at the very top. In some case, unsung, uncelebrated optics actually surpass the standards of lenses our predecessors prized.

And yet we still do seem to care. Great discussion and debate centers on what seem to be points of the remotest arcana is the AF version of Nikon's 28mm f/2.8 lens as good as the older AIS version? (Answer: no.) Is the current 6-element Leica Summicron-M as good as the older, more luxuriously designed 7-element version? (Answer: yes.) How good are the new Voigtländer rangefinder lenses? (Answer: very good, but, with one exception, not quite as good as their Leica counterparts.)

Metal and Plastic

Of course, our discussions do tend to center around certain makes. Leica vs. Zeiss, Canon vs. Nikon. Within each brand's lore, certain "facts" tend to go unchallenged. For instance, you'll read on Nikon or Olympus discussion groups that Nikon's or Olympus's 50mm f/1.8 are among the best lenses you can buy (nowhere near true), or that Leica's 50mm Summilux-M sells poorly because it's so expensive (utter nonsense! If Leica lenses sold poorly because they're expensive, Leica would have gone the way of Miranda and Exakta by now. The Summilux-M sells poorly because optically it is a rather substandard lens (for Leica, that is).

There's also been a lot of discussion as to whether modern plastic AF lenses are as good as older, metal ones. Interestingly, plastic in lenses used to be anathema to sales. One of Canon's early fluorite lenses got widely slandered because it employed a plastic band around the circumference of the element grouping, and the august French maker of movie camera lenses, Angenieux, never achieved the status it wanted for its annual forays into 35mm lensmaking because customers wouldn't believe that polycarbonate was actually a better material (lighter, less temperature sensitive, more dimensionally stable) for lens barrels than metal. Nowadays, lenses can have plastic barrels, plastic elements (for instance, acrylic-bonded hybrid aspherics), and can actually wobble to the touch, and people still don't seem to mind. My, my.

In the current debate, some lensmakers get shortchanged for various reasons. In some cases, they've left the playing field. In others, they've diluted their lines with poor-performing economy lenses. Or, they may simply not make very competitive cameras, or an adequately complete line of lenses or accessories. Konica's Hexanon AR lenses were once highly thought of, for instance, but people still seem surprised at the quality of the little Hexar's fixed lens.

Or take the case of Pentax. Pentax, one of the great cameramaking concerns of the past half century, was the leading SLR manufacturer of the 1960s — but it got caught remaining too loyal to an obsolete lensmount (M42 or "Pentax" screwmount) and it never learned Nikon's canny trick of bending over backwards to appeal to pros as a loss-leading sales strategy (and a strategy Canon was later to use against Nikon itself. Live by the sword). So photographers have forgotten that Pentax screwmount lenses — gorgeously crafted, smooth-focusing, no-holds-barred designs — were once revered by photographers as being among the best ever made. Asahi, in the days of the Spotmatic, ran neck-and-neck with Zeiss as the world's leading lensmaker. Who remembers? Now, the talk is all Leica and Nikon and, more lately, Canon.

You'll never convince a Leicaphile that anyone else in the round world can make a lens. Trying is a fool's errand — Leica's not a camera any more, but rather a religion, and its priests will vociferously consign you to the nether regions if you blaspheme. So let's put aside for a moment the historical competition among the great marques of manual focus and ask a different question: who makes the very best autofocuslenses that money can buy?

Ne Plus Ultra

It's got to be Nikon or Canon, right? Each of these Goliaths, with their vast lens lines and cost-no object fast lenses and zooms, have won the battle of public opinion going away. So here's a shocker. The real answer may be Zeiss and Pentax! Zeiss, with the jewel-like little G lenses for the Contax G1 and G2, and Pentax with its little-heralded but lovely Limiteds.

Okay, I grant you, Zeiss and Pentax don't win any sweepstakes, or any popularity contests either. In a sense, each is an also-ran among 35mm photographers today. Neither the Zeiss G lenses nor the Pentax Limited SLR lenses can really compete with their actual rivals — Leica M still kills Zeiss for range of choice and available lens speeds, and Pentax doesn't even make a true professional SLR to compete with the likes of the F5, the EOS-1v, and the Minolta Maxxum 9, although the recent MZ-S is certainly a step in the right direction.

But six out of the seven Zeiss G lenses are true aristocrats. Each is a legitimate bearer of a truly great historical name — Hologon, Biogon, Distagon, Planar, Sonnar — and for performance, can hardly be touched. Especially if you shoot color, they may be equaled, but not surpassed.

And nobody pays all that much attention to Pentax. Pentax does have some pretty pedestrian optics in its bag, it's true. What many photographers aren't aware of is that Pentax still also makes some of the best SLR lenses on the planet. For pure picture quality, taking bokeh into account, my considered opinion is that the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is the best fast fifty (and I say that having carefully tested damn near everything out there). The FA 24mm f/2 is certainly one of the best 24mm AF lenses going. And if you were to directly compare the Leica 80mm Summilux-R, the Zeiss Contax 85mm f/1.4, the AF-Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, and the Pentax SMC-FA 85mm f/1.4, it would be very clear to you that the latter lens absolutely belongs in the company of the former three. For portraiture, it might even edge the others out.

Yet the very best AF SLR lenses made today are the Pentax Limiteds. There are only three, and they have focal lengths apparently chosen by means of occultish numerology: there's a 31mm f/1.8 wide, a 43mm f/1.9 "true" normal, and a 77mm f/1.8 short tele. All three are made of metal (imagine that), focus manually more than passably well, and are of an size and weight that doesn't constantly penalize you, whether you're lugging them around or holding them up to your eye on a camera. They have beautiful matching metal lens hoods and a feel of quality that puts them above virtually all other AF lenses.


"The Greatest"

All three are utter standouts optically. With the vagaries of personal taste taken into account, no lens, however deluxe, can be called the "best" for everyone, but the Limiteds are certainly among the best. Popular Photography in its March 2002 issue called the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited one of the greatest prime lenses it had ever tested (the other two were the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 and the Nikon Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P Tessar-type. This wasn't clear in the issue itself, but I contacted the Editor, Jason Schneider, who confirmed it). Yet all things considered, the 77mm may be the best lens of the three. A nearly ideal short tele, the 77mm Limited is superb — contrasty, excellent for portraits wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an AF SLR short tele I'd put above it.



Granted, three lenses doth not a legend create. But if you're wondering which autofocus lenses are ne plus ultra, I submit that little has changed since the days of Kennedy and Kent State, Barbie and the Beatles, when "the Pentax" was the best-selling SLR there was and Zeiss was the world's most prestigious cameramaker. Each optical house may be a stately shadow of its former self in the minds of 35mm photographers today, and lens quality may not matter any more anyway — Canon and Nikon are awfully darned good, and nobody makes any dogs, and it's all going digital anyway. But when it comes to the best autofocus lenses in the world, whether for a viewfinder camera or SLRs, it's still Zeiss and Pentax, baby, same as the old days.

As a footnote, I truly lament the APS-C format for altering the field of view offered by these three excellent lenses. If for nothing else, I would love to see a Pentax FF sensor simply to bring these three lenses back to their rightful way of looking at the world. Charlie

(ps, please don't let this turn into a FF discussion, I fully realize that with a roll of TriX, and any number of excellent Pentax cameras, I can let these lenses do their thing the way they were designed to.) Charlie

02-22-2008, 11:34 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I remember coming across this some time ago when looking for info on the 43mm. Sadly I had to sell my 43 and 77mm's but will re aquire them someday, somehow. Best glass I've used. The 31mm is first on the rebuilding list.

It's an old article but an interesting read. But only Pentax owners will believe it....
02-22-2008, 12:12 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Buddha Jones's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,591
Amen to that!
02-23-2008, 10:27 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
that article always floats to the top whenever you look for "Best Autofocus Lens" on google. but i wonder if his opinions have changed, it's been almost six years and lots of new developments in lenses and technology. although, everytime i see it, i feel like i should rush out and buy the whole FA limited set!

the new DA Limiteds are excellent too and for the less discerning photographers, most Pentax lenses are much more than satisfactory

02-23-2008, 11:18 PM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 826
You can have my FA Limiteds when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Same goes for my * lenses.
02-24-2008, 03:07 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
the new DA Limiteds are excellent too and for the less discerning photographers, most Pentax lenses are much more than satisfactory
Now there's one of the more debatable comments I've seen in a long while. There are plenty of Pentax lenses (old and new) that are not DA/DA* that are fine pieces of glass. the venerable 50's, 105 and 135's come to mind.
02-24-2008, 12:09 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
Now there's one of the more debatable comments I've seen in a long while. There are plenty of Pentax lenses (old and new) that are not DA/DA* that are fine pieces of glass. the venerable 50's, 105 and 135's come to mind.
maybe you misread my statement? i meant that in general, all pentax glass is very good. i admit i'm new to this thing, but from what i can see, i am already quite impressed by the quality of my photos with a DA21 and FA35
02-16-2009, 02:47 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,784
Wasn't aware this was manufactured:



from: What's your favorite prime lens? - Photo.net Pentax Forum

02-16-2009, 02:51 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
M39 screwmount also came with a 43mm accessory finder
same optics inside
02-16-2009, 02:57 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
that article always floats to the top whenever you look for "Best Autofocus Lens" on google. but i wonder if his opinions have changed
I'm sure he doesn't love the FA limiteds any less, but when the DA35 came out, he said it "ranks right up there with the best lenses I’ve ever used in any format". It's safe to say that one at least is now on his short list of best autofocus lenses.
02-16-2009, 04:02 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
funny how this stuff comes back once in a while. yeah i've read the DA35 article which was pretty controversial to a lot of pentax users

i used to point this article out whenever people discussed FA Limiteds, but kinda stopped that. let people make up their minds instead of someone telling them it's the greatest.
02-16-2009, 06:55 PM   #12
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm sure he doesn't love the FA limiteds any less, but when the DA35 came out, he said it "ranks right up there with the best lenses I’ve ever used in any format". It's safe to say that one at least is now on his short list of best autofocus lenses.
He also named the S-M-C Takumar 50 1.4 in his famous My Favorite Lens article.

The guy knows Pentax for it's strengths. He also really likes the K20D, and in fact he made some CaNikon folks mad a little while back when he rated the K20D as having the "better sensor" than the equiv Nikons & canons, and had the K20D tied for 2nd place among the 2008 cameras. He also showed some examples of the same nighttime image taken with the full-frame Nikon D700 and K20D, and discussed how the K20D image was basically almost equivalent. (that didn't go over too well in certain forums, either )

I've corresponded with him just a bit, and he happened to mention that he was sorry he hadn't written more about the K20D or tested many more lenses on it yet.




.
02-16-2009, 08:53 PM   #13
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
I've heard great things about the 43mm, especially since it's nearly exactly what the human eye sees.
02-17-2009, 01:21 PM   #14
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
I've heard great things about the 43mm, especially since it's nearly exactly what the human eye sees.
That's an oft-repeated assertion, but it's not really accurate - or at least, it's a *gross* oversimplification of a far more complex topic. If you want to talk about everything the eye can perceive - including peripherally - it's a *lot* wider than the FOV of a 43mm (whether used on APS-C or on 35mm). So you might want to say, "well, 43mm corresponds to the non-peripheral part". The problem is, there is no hard and fast line one can draw between "peripheral" and "non-peripheral" vision; we're stuck with kind of subjective ways of looking at it that can vary pretty widely depending on exactly what we are trying to say.

For instance, 43mm on film (28mm on APS-C) does kind of match my own perception of what I'm most likely to *notice* about a scene and be able to recall with any clarity. 43mm on APS-C (65mm on film) kind of matches my own perception about what I am likely to "be most aware of" in a good number of scenes, in the sense that I feel I can really discern detail. But in both cases, the eye is actually aided a lot by moving back and forth. If I'm forced to focus on just one spot and need to test how much I can *really* focus on at once, the field of view is far narrower still - more like 100mm on APS-C (150mm on 35mm).
02-17-2009, 01:38 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
That's an oft-repeated assertion, but it's not really accurate - or at least, it's a *gross* oversimplification of a far more complex topic. If you want to talk about everything the eye can perceive - including peripherally - it's a *lot* wider than the FOV of a 43mm (whether used on APS-C or on 35mm). So you might want to say, "well, 43mm corresponds to the non-peripheral part". The problem is, there is no hard and fast line one can draw between "peripheral" and "non-peripheral" vision; we're stuck with kind of subjective ways of looking at it that can vary pretty widely depending on exactly what we are trying to say.

For instance, 43mm on film (28mm on APS-C) does kind of match my own perception of what I'm most likely to *notice* about a scene and be able to recall with any clarity. 43mm on APS-C (65mm on film) kind of matches my own perception about what I am likely to "be most aware of" in a good number of scenes, in the sense that I feel I can really discern detail. But in both cases, the eye is actually aided a lot by moving back and forth. If I'm forced to focus on just one spot and need to test how much I can *really* focus on at once, the field of view is far narrower still - more like 100mm on APS-C (150mm on 35mm).
Marc, that's very true. Add to that, that the field of vision is limited in sharpness to a central area, wheras all the peripheral area is simply not sharp. For me in practice this always meant, that I used 2 standard lenses on 35mm, a 35mm to take the "whole picture" in - i.e. the fill field of vision incl. some slight, but completly subconscious eye movement - and a 85mm lens, which more less covers the sharp central part of the eye's field of view.

Ben
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!
af, k-mount, leica, lens, lenses, nikon, pentax, pentax lens, photographers, quality, slr, slr lens, zeiss
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So many lenses so little money! mba1971 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 05-18-2010 09:49 PM
Want to buy a K-x...but not sure about the lenses Pretender Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 11-05-2009 07:34 AM
Same money - two choices, which one to buy and why ? netuser Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 01-10-2009 06:20 PM
The Best Autofocus Lens Money Can Buy carpents Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 06-19-2007 02:44 PM
What lenses should I buy? allie181 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-01-2007 03:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 AM. | 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