Which limited lens?

Driline · 07-18-2013, 07:00 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by builttospill

A tripod helps reduce blur. It's a necessary tool for some shots, but I don't think it will ever make an unsharp lens produce a sharp photo.

Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner

calsan · 07-18-2013, 08:20 PM

You should try it sometime.
I've been on the 'there's more to photography than sharpness' bandwagon, but it strikes me as very odd that the 'sharpness is king - everything else is icing on the cake' team don't want to use tripods. Because if you want sharpness and you've gone and spent money on a nice lens, you're not getting your money's worth, if sharpness was the goal.

Docrwm · 07-18-2013, 09:54 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by calsan

You should try it sometime.
I've been on the 'there's more to photography than sharpness' bandwagon, but it strikes me as very odd that the 'sharpness is king - everything else is icing on the cake' team don't want to use tripods. Because if you want sharpness and you've gone and spent money on a nice lens, you're not getting your money's worth, if sharpness was the goal.

Don't forget the IIs and its role in the pursuit of sharpness. By your reasoning every IIs should come with a permanently attached tripod......

calsan · 07-18-2013, 11:58 PM

No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor.

tclausen · 07-19-2013, 01:29 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by calsan

No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor.

No question about what you say above - agree fully.

I've said it often: the most important photographic accessory for improving image quality is to use a hood. Sadly 99% of the photographing population doesn't use one (cf. cameraphones, P&S and all those folks with DSLRs running around without a hood, or with the hood reversed). It's a lot easier to schlep a hood along than it is to do the same with a tripod, though

It's interesting that in a lens-thread, we're discussing accessories for improving IQ that do not intersect with the optical path, though, isn't it?

drypenn · 07-19-2013, 02:03 AM - **1 Like**

As they say, "never judge a lens' sharpness without a tripod."

I was ready to sell my M28 f/3.5, then I used a tripod.

As for the hood, let me modify that axiom: "never judge a lens' contrast without a hood."

I was ready to sell my FA50 f/1.4, then I used a $5 hood from eBay.

calsan · 07-19-2013, 02:23 AM

Which hood are you using? I'd like one for my FA50 too.

drypenn · 07-19-2013, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by calsan

Which hood are you using? I'd like one for my FA50 too.

Something like this:

New Metal 49mm 49 Tele Telephoto Lens Hood Shade | eBay

Regards,

tclausen · 07-19-2013, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by drypenn

Something like this:

New Metal 49mm 49 Tele Telephoto Lens Hood Shade | eBay

Regards,

Spot on

Unregistered User · 07-19-2013, 02:58 AM

Not trying to start a fight here, but I must say that the tripod advice is somewhat patronising, considering that it is to be encountered in virtually every introductory book on photography. This lo-the-wheel-have-I-invented demeanour is the reason why I have a hard time reading the pseudo-profound ramblings of Mr Rockwell. There are times when a tripod could prove useful, but holding the camera in your own hands, singling out a target, and "pulling the trigger" - not to mention the beautiful, loud, mechanical sound of the shutter on Pentax cameras - are among the most gratifying aspects to photography. I agree that that lenses have a "character" which hinges on many more factors than merely sharpness, but sharpness is the very substratum of a good lens. The less I have to exert myself by means of auxiliary equipment in order to achieve this sharpness, the better the lens.

calsan · 07-19-2013, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Kozlok

Dominic, The limited lenses are all sharp. They are all very very sharp. Unless you print extremely huge prints all the time, or really like pixel peeping, the sharpness difference can be ignored. There are many reasons to choose one over the other, but really, sharpness isn't one of the more significant ones. My DA40 is sharper than my 15 at pretty much any aperture. The DA12-24 is sharper than the 15. My 35 macro is sharper than the 15. Your 90mm, and probably your 10-20 is sharper than it as well. I would still choose it if I were in your shoes. It renders colors and light in an amazing way. There is no "90mm macro controls my mind" thread. There is no "DA12-24 controls my mind" thread. There is a reason for the "15mm limited controls my mind" thread.

Kozlok already answered the question really, anyway. I can confirm that my simga 10-20 is noticably sharper than my 15 limited, particularly at the edges and my sigma 17-70 is as sharp as my 35 limited, with the benefit of 17-70mm zoom range. The limiteds are my preference, however. A few other people have already said you won't get a limited that is sharper than a 90mm macro.

On topic hijack - those hoods look nicely machined. Can't believe the price.

FA50 can be as soft as a baby's bum, that's what makes it a stellar lens. At it's shapest apertures it's bland.

Docrwm · 07-19-2013, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by calsan

No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor.

You say "no" and then contradict yourself with the balance of your sentence. The entire point of the IIs is that without the AA filter it is intended to capture the sharpest possible image, that's what it's designed for. So, logically based on your assertions, ever IIs should ALWAYS be attached to a tripod.

Na Horuk · 07-19-2013, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

. The entire point of the IIs is that without the AA filter it is intended to capture the sharpest possible image,

This is where you make a huge jump. Its designed to ALLOW the capture of the sharpest possible image. But the photographer can still CHOOSE to do whatever they wish. They can mount a pinhole lens with dismal sharpness and take lomo photos. And besides, no camera brand is making cameras attached to tripods, that would be just far too inconvenient for travel, storage, anything. And if a photographer wants to always use their camera on a tripod, they still can.
Btw, can anyone point out a photo taken with a FA limited where the lack of sharpness ruins an otherwise stellar photo? But the photo cant be misfocused or blurred by handshake.
I think sharpness is one of those things where a lens is either "sharp enough" or not; its not a linear scale where "more sharpness"=better everything. Heck, in many cases high sharpness can be a bad thing, like the 40mm f2.8 for portraits, because its unflatteringly sharp to anything but a perfect subject

Driline · 07-19-2013, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by calsan

No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor.

That's a given. I use my tripod every single time I photograph my model train layout. But I can tell you for a fact my DA*50-135 and the FA43 are much sharper than my kit lens or A 28mm sitting on that tripod.

Docrwm · 07-19-2013, 05:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

This is where you make a huge jump. Its designed to ALLOW the capture of the sharpest possible image. But the photographer can still CHOOSE to do whatever they wish. They can mount a pinhole lens with dismal sharpness and take lomo photos. And besides, no camera brand is making cameras attached to tripods, that would be just far too inconvenient for travel, storage, anything. And if a photographer wants to always use their camera on a tripod, they still can.
Btw, can anyone point out a photo taken with a FA limited where the lack of sharpness ruins an otherwise stellar photo? But the photo cant be misfocused or blurred by handshake.
I think sharpness is one of those things where a lens is either "sharp enough" or not; its not a linear scale where "more sharpness"=better everything. Heck, in many cases high sharpness can be a bad thing, like the 40mm f2.8 for portraits, because its unflatteringly sharp to anything but a perfect subject

Sorry, No. It's entire reason for existance is that it has no AA filter and is therefore sharper. If that were not the case we would only have the K-5II. End.

07-19-2013, 02:03 AM - 1 Like	#51
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	As they say, "never judge a lens' sharpness without a tripod." I was ready to sell my M28 f/3.5, then I used a tripod. As for the hood, let me modify that axiom: "never judge a lens' contrast without a hood." I was ready to sell my FA50 f/1.4, then I used a $5 hood from eBay. Last edited by drypenn; 07-19-2013 at 02:26 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens comparison- which is which	normhead	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	52	06-18-2014 06:34 PM
Which Limited to get?	rrwilliams64	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	04-21-2013 10:52 PM
Wedding - which lens with which body?	The Kellyboy	Photographic Technique	16	04-13-2012 05:06 PM
Which limited series lens for weddings and portraits?	phuey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	07-16-2010 10:05 AM
Which Limited Lens?	hsu1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-22-2009 11:03 AM

07-18-2013, 07:00 PM	#46
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by builttospill A tripod helps reduce blur. It's a necessary tool for some shots, but I don't think it will ever make an unsharp lens produce a sharp photo. Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner

07-18-2013, 08:20 PM	#47
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	You should try it sometime. I've been on the 'there's more to photography than sharpness' bandwagon, but it strikes me as very odd that the 'sharpness is king - everything else is icing on the cake' team don't want to use tripods. Because if you want sharpness and you've gone and spent money on a nice lens, you're not getting your money's worth, if sharpness was the goal.

07-18-2013, 09:54 PM - 1 Like	#48
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by calsan You should try it sometime. I've been on the 'there's more to photography than sharpness' bandwagon, but it strikes me as very odd that the 'sharpness is king - everything else is icing on the cake' team don't want to use tripods. Because if you want sharpness and you've gone and spent money on a nice lens, you're not getting your money's worth, if sharpness was the goal. Don't forget the IIs and its role in the pursuit of sharpness. By your reasoning every IIs should come with a permanently attached tripod......

07-18-2013, 11:58 PM	#49
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor.

07-19-2013, 01:29 AM - 1 Like	#50
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	Originally posted by calsan No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor. No question about what you say above - agree fully. I've said it often: the most important photographic accessory for improving image quality is to use a hood. Sadly 99% of the photographing population doesn't use one (cf. cameraphones, P&S and all those folks with DSLRs running around without a hood, or with the hood reversed). It's a lot easier to schlep a hood along than it is to do the same with a tripod, though It's interesting that in a lens-thread, we're discussing accessories for improving IQ that do not intersect with the optical path, though, isn't it?

07-19-2013, 02:23 AM	#52
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	Which hood are you using? I'd like one for my FA50 too.

07-19-2013, 02:25 AM	#53
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	Originally posted by calsan Which hood are you using? I'd like one for my FA50 too. Something like this: New Metal 49mm 49 Tele Telephoto Lens Hood Shade \| eBay Regards,

07-19-2013, 02:28 AM	#54
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	Originally posted by drypenn Something like this: New Metal 49mm 49 Tele Telephoto Lens Hood Shade \| eBay Regards, Spot on

07-19-2013, 02:58 AM	#55
Unregistered User Guest	Not trying to start a fight here, but I must say that the tripod advice is somewhat patronising, considering that it is to be encountered in virtually every introductory book on photography. This lo-the-wheel-have-I-invented demeanour is the reason why I have a hard time reading the pseudo-profound ramblings of Mr Rockwell. There are times when a tripod could prove useful, but holding the camera in your own hands, singling out a target, and "pulling the trigger" - not to mention the beautiful, loud, mechanical sound of the shutter on Pentax cameras - are among the most gratifying aspects to photography. I agree that that lenses have a "character" which hinges on many more factors than merely sharpness, but sharpness is the very substratum of a good lens. The less I have to exert myself by means of auxiliary equipment in order to achieve this sharpness, the better the lens.

07-19-2013, 04:24 AM	#56
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	Originally posted by Kozlok Dominic, The limited lenses are all sharp. They are all very very sharp. Unless you print extremely huge prints all the time, or really like pixel peeping, the sharpness difference can be ignored. There are many reasons to choose one over the other, but really, sharpness isn't one of the more significant ones. My DA40 is sharper than my 15 at pretty much any aperture. The DA12-24 is sharper than the 15. My 35 macro is sharper than the 15. Your 90mm, and probably your 10-20 is sharper than it as well. I would still choose it if I were in your shoes. It renders colors and light in an amazing way. There is no "90mm macro controls my mind" thread. There is no "DA12-24 controls my mind" thread. There is a reason for the "15mm limited controls my mind" thread. Kozlok already answered the question really, anyway. I can confirm that my simga 10-20 is noticably sharper than my 15 limited, particularly at the edges and my sigma 17-70 is as sharp as my 35 limited, with the benefit of 17-70mm zoom range. The limiteds are my preference, however. A few other people have already said you won't get a limited that is sharper than a 90mm macro. On topic hijack - those hoods look nicely machined. Can't believe the price. FA50 can be as soft as a baby's bum, that's what makes it a stellar lens. At it's shapest apertures it's bland.

07-19-2013, 04:44 AM	#57
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by calsan No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor. You say "no" and then contradict yourself with the balance of your sentence. The entire point of the IIs is that without the AA filter it is intended to capture the sharpest possible image, that's what it's designed for. So, logically based on your assertions, ever IIs should ALWAYS be attached to a tripod.

07-19-2013, 05:22 AM	#58
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by Docrwm . The entire point of the IIs is that without the AA filter it is intended to capture the sharpest possible image, This is where you make a huge jump. Its designed to ALLOW the capture of the sharpest possible image. But the photographer can still CHOOSE to do whatever they wish. They can mount a pinhole lens with dismal sharpness and take lomo photos. And besides, no camera brand is making cameras attached to tripods, that would be just far too inconvenient for travel, storage, anything. And if a photographer wants to always use their camera on a tripod, they still can. Btw, can anyone point out a photo taken with a FA limited where the lack of sharpness ruins an otherwise stellar photo? But the photo cant be misfocused or blurred by handshake. I think sharpness is one of those things where a lens is either "sharp enough" or not; its not a linear scale where "more sharpness"=better everything. Heck, in many cases high sharpness can be a bad thing, like the 40mm f2.8 for portraits, because its unflatteringly sharp to anything but a perfect subject

07-19-2013, 05:25 AM	#59
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	Originally posted by calsan No, by my reasoning, every photographer who wants the sharpest possible shots should be using a tripod. Because it will make more difference than any other factor. That's a given. I use my tripod every single time I photograph my model train layout. But I can tell you for a fact my DA*50-135 and the FA43 are much sharper than my kit lens or A 28mm sitting on that tripod.

07-19-2013, 05:27 AM - 1 Like	#60
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by Na Horuk This is where you make a huge jump. Its designed to ALLOW the capture of the sharpest possible image. But the photographer can still CHOOSE to do whatever they wish. They can mount a pinhole lens with dismal sharpness and take lomo photos. And besides, no camera brand is making cameras attached to tripods, that would be just far too inconvenient for travel, storage, anything. And if a photographer wants to always use their camera on a tripod, they still can. Btw, can anyone point out a photo taken with a FA limited where the lack of sharpness ruins an otherwise stellar photo? But the photo cant be misfocused or blurred by handshake. I think sharpness is one of those things where a lens is either "sharp enough" or not; its not a linear scale where "more sharpness"=better everything. Heck, in many cases high sharpness can be a bad thing, like the 40mm f2.8 for portraits, because its unflatteringly sharp to anything but a perfect subject Sorry, No. It's entire reason for existance is that it has no AA filter and is therefore sharper. If that were not the case we would only have the K-5II. End.