K3 users - are the limiteds good enough on 24mpix?

npc · 02-24-2015, 02:44 PM

I have a K-5 IIs and I am definately ok with the performance of my 15/21/35 limiteds on it. But the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever and the 15 is known for its corner issues.
The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter and I was somewhat dissapointed with the results (the sony has a 24mpix sensor but I'm not sure if it has AA filter or not) ...

So I was wondering - what is your experience with these lenses on K-3 ? Are they up to the 24 mpix sensor?

panoguy · 02-24-2015, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by npc

The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter

You can stop right there. Any adapter is going to be less precise than the mount made by the original company on a purpose-built camera body. That's a variable that has nothing to do with the lens or the sensor.

FYI: the two lenses you mention that I have (the 15 and 35) are both stellar on the K-3, which is what I experienced on the K-5, as well. 24MP isn't that much more resolution than 16.

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-24-2015, 03:12 PM

Forget the K3, look at the sample images done with a Q

The equivelent sensor size on an APS-C format would be about 160 MP

I think even old legacy lenses are sharp enough

**jatrax** · 02-24-2015, 03:14 PM

Not sure what you are asking, maybe I'm misunderstanding. But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better.

If the limiting factor is the lens and you try it on two different sensors you should not see any difference as both sensors out resolve the lens.
If the limiting factor is the sensor then you should see an improvement on the better sensor as the lens is capable of more resolution than the poorer sensor.

But in no case would the lens look worse on a better sensor.

In the specific case of the k-5IIs and the k-3 they are different sensors. In some situations some have reported that they prefer the k-5IIs though I think in general terms there is no question the k-3 sensor is better. I use both k-5IIs and k-3 with DA limiteds and after allowing for the differences in the sensor characteristics I don't see any significant difference. Which leads me to assume that the DA limiteds out resolve both sensors.

Keep in mind that these cameras use different sensors and you need to develop the images differently. When I first got the k-3 I was unimpressed because I was using the k-5 develop preset. After tossing that out and developing a new preset specifically for the k-3 I am very happy with the k-3 and it produces images at least as good as the k-5IIs but with more pixels.

AquaDome · 02-24-2015, 03:25 PM

They're awesome on the K-3. The DA15 Ltd is my favorite.

tvdtvdtvd · 02-24-2015, 03:55 PM - **2 Likes**

Has the originator of the 'camera X will out-resolve that lens Y' argument been found and strung yet?

Learn your camera. Learn your lenses. Love each for what each does. Don't expect either to
be what they're not. Follow that simple mantra and you will enjoy the images produced by any
camera and any lens.

Stavri · 02-24-2015, 03:56 PM

check out normhead's posting on a comparative graph

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/289020-why-...ml#post3170854

stevebrot · 02-24-2015, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

...the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better.

To be honest, it is more likely that a digital sensor will limit a lens than the other way around.

Steve

Dukeatoakland · 02-24-2015, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

Keep in mind that these cameras use different sensors and you need to develop the images differently. When I first got the k-3 I was unimpressed because I was using the k-5 develop preset. After tossing that out and developing a new preset specifically for the k-3 I am very happy with the k-3 and it produces images at least as good as the k-5IIs but with more pixels.

I found this exact thing with the 35ltd. I used the develop process from the K-50 on the K-3 and got very different results. Both are great, just different.

jddwoods · 02-24-2015, 05:00 PM

I have used the 15, 21, 35 macro and the 70 limiteds. All are superlative on the K-3. The only one I haven't tried is the DA 40, but I would expect it would be just as good as the others. I have a K-5 and my general impression is the pictures on the K-3 and K-5 look very similar, but the K-3 pictures can be cropped more and still stay sharp.

DSims · 02-24-2015, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

Has the originator of the 'camera X will out-resolve that lens Y' argument been found and strung yet?

Agreed (well, maybe mere imprisonment will be adequate).

There's so much more to the quality of a photo. Even when such measurements are made analytically they don't seem to pan out in real life. Especially if you're trying to create photos that capture people's attention.

Perhaps there are scientific applications where this is relevant, but they should generally be buying different cameras anyway.

audiobomber · 02-24-2015, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better.

That is the correct answer to this thread, for any lens, not just the Limiteds.

lesmore49 · 02-24-2015, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by npc

I have a K-5 IIs and I am definately ok with the performance of my 15/21/35 limiteds on it. But the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever and the 15 is known for its corner issues.
The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter and I was somewhat dissapointed with the results (the sony has a 24mpix sensor but I'm not sure if it has AA filter or not) ...

So I was wondering - what is your experience with these lenses on K-3 ? Are they up to the 24 mpix sensor?

I don't understand what you mean about the 21mm ...' the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever.'

It works very well for me...on my K5, K10D, Km.

r0ckstarr · 02-24-2015, 10:24 PM

The problems that you'll see going from a K5 to a K3 won't be because of the lens. The larger image will show off your faults in technique even more (motion blur, missed focus, etc).

npc · 02-24-2015, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

Not sure what you are asking, maybe I'm misunderstanding. But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better.

To put it in a different way - I know they are not going to be any worse, but is the resolution noticably better on k-3? Like if I take the same image with k-5 iis and k-3 and up-size the 16 mpix image to 24 - will I be able to really tell the difference?

I've seen some really impressive sapmples from the longer lenses and with the teleconverter where the ability to crop more is also very handy but I rarely use telephotos and I'm trying to figure if it is worth upgrading to K-3 some time in the future considering these are the lenses I have.
Anyway, seems everybody is happy with their limiteds on the K-3 so I take it as good sign

Originally posted by stevebrot

To be honest, it is more likely that a digital sensor will limit a lens than the other way around.

Well, if a lens outresolve a sensor across the frame, you won't be able to see any difference in sharpness between the center and edges of the image.

Of the 3 lenses in question (my copies of course) on K-5 IIs I can only say this for the 35 ltd. I guess if measured there is difference, but to my eyes it is as good as it gets.
That's why I was so surprised with the results on the a5100. Maybe it's just that it has an AA filter...

02-24-2015, 02:44 PM	#1
npc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 313	K3 users - are the limiteds good enough on 24mpix? I have a K-5 IIs and I am definately ok with the performance of my 15/21/35 limiteds on it. But the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever and the 15 is known for its corner issues. The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter and I was somewhat dissapointed with the results (the sony has a 24mpix sensor but I'm not sure if it has AA filter or not) ... So I was wondering - what is your experience with these lenses on K-3 ? Are they up to the 24 mpix sensor?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Will the Q be good enough?	GabrielFFontes	Pentax Q	5	07-16-2014 04:25 PM
Kit lenses - are they good enough for the K3?	regislea	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	04-13-2014 10:56 PM
K-5 IIs - are my lenses "good enough" ?	linds	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	20	02-19-2013 04:34 AM
Advice requested: Are my photos good enough to charge for?	dude163	Photographic Technique	13	10-14-2010 07:30 PM
how good are the weather seals on the star * lenses?	kauaiguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-06-2009 11:48 AM

02-24-2015, 03:12 PM	#2
panoguy Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,327	Originally posted by npc The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter You can stop right there. Any adapter is going to be less precise than the mount made by the original company on a purpose-built camera body. That's a variable that has nothing to do with the lens or the sensor. FYI: the two lenses you mention that I have (the 15 and 35) are both stellar on the K-3, which is what I experienced on the K-5, as well. 24MP isn't that much more resolution than 16.

02-24-2015, 03:12 PM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Forget the K3, look at the sample images done with a Q The equivelent sensor size on an APS-C format would be about 160 MP I think even old legacy lenses are sharp enough

02-24-2015, 03:14 PM	#4
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Not sure what you are asking, maybe I'm misunderstanding. But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better. If the limiting factor is the lens and you try it on two different sensors you should not see any difference as both sensors out resolve the lens. If the limiting factor is the sensor then you should see an improvement on the better sensor as the lens is capable of more resolution than the poorer sensor. But in no case would the lens look worse on a better sensor. In the specific case of the k-5IIs and the k-3 they are different sensors. In some situations some have reported that they prefer the k-5IIs though I think in general terms there is no question the k-3 sensor is better. I use both k-5IIs and k-3 with DA limiteds and after allowing for the differences in the sensor characteristics I don't see any significant difference. Which leads me to assume that the DA limiteds out resolve both sensors. Keep in mind that these cameras use different sensors and you need to develop the images differently. When I first got the k-3 I was unimpressed because I was using the k-5 develop preset. After tossing that out and developing a new preset specifically for the k-3 I am very happy with the k-3 and it produces images at least as good as the k-5IIs but with more pixels.

02-24-2015, 03:25 PM	#5
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	They're awesome on the K-3. The DA15 Ltd is my favorite.

02-24-2015, 03:55 PM - 2 Likes	#6
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Has the originator of the 'camera X will out-resolve that lens Y' argument been found and strung yet? Learn your camera. Learn your lenses. Love each for what each does. Don't expect either to be what they're not. Follow that simple mantra and you will enjoy the images produced by any camera and any lens.

02-24-2015, 03:56 PM	#7
Stavri Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: at a Bean & Leaf Photos: Albums Posts: 1,832	check out normhead's posting on a comparative graph https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/289020-why-...ml#post3170854

02-24-2015, 04:33 PM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by jatrax ...the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better. To be honest, it is more likely that a digital sensor will limit a lens than the other way around. Steve

02-24-2015, 05:00 PM	#9
Dukeatoakland Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Mount Shasta, CA Posts: 66	Originally posted by jatrax Keep in mind that these cameras use different sensors and you need to develop the images differently. When I first got the k-3 I was unimpressed because I was using the k-5 develop preset. After tossing that out and developing a new preset specifically for the k-3 I am very happy with the k-3 and it produces images at least as good as the k-5IIs but with more pixels. I found this exact thing with the 35ltd. I used the develop process from the K-50 on the K-3 and got very different results. Both are great, just different.

02-24-2015, 05:00 PM	#10
jddwoods Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Newark, Delaware Posts: 1,035	I have used the 15, 21, 35 macro and the 70 limiteds. All are superlative on the K-3. The only one I haven't tried is the DA 40, but I would expect it would be just as good as the others. I have a K-5 and my general impression is the pictures on the K-3 and K-5 look very similar, but the K-3 pictures can be cropped more and still stay sharp.

02-24-2015, 08:58 PM	#11
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd Has the originator of the 'camera X will out-resolve that lens Y' argument been found and strung yet? Agreed (well, maybe mere imprisonment will be adequate). There's so much more to the quality of a photo. Even when such measurements are made analytically they don't seem to pan out in real life. Especially if you're trying to create photos that capture people's attention. Perhaps there are scientific applications where this is relevant, but they should generally be buying different cameras anyway.

02-24-2015, 09:21 PM	#12
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by jatrax But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better. That is the correct answer to this thread, for any lens, not just the Limiteds.

02-24-2015, 09:36 PM	#13
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	Originally posted by npc I have a K-5 IIs and I am definately ok with the performance of my 15/21/35 limiteds on it. But the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever and the 15 is known for its corner issues. The 35 is fine on K-5 IIs but recently i saw some pictures taken with it mounted on sony a5100 via adapter and I was somewhat dissapointed with the results (the sony has a 24mpix sensor but I'm not sure if it has AA filter or not) ... So I was wondering - what is your experience with these lenses on K-3 ? Are they up to the 24 mpix sensor? I don't understand what you mean about the 21mm ...' the 21 is not the sharpest lens ever.' It works very well for me...on my K5, K10D, Km.

02-24-2015, 10:24 PM	#14
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	The problems that you'll see going from a K5 to a K3 won't be because of the lens. The larger image will show off your faults in technique even more (motion blur, missed focus, etc).

02-24-2015, 11:03 PM	#15
npc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 313 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax Not sure what you are asking, maybe I'm misunderstanding. But the lens is not going to be any worse than it was on the k-5, though it might be better. To put it in a different way - I know they are not going to be any worse, but is the resolution noticably better on k-3? Like if I take the same image with k-5 iis and k-3 and up-size the 16 mpix image to 24 - will I be able to really tell the difference? I've seen some really impressive sapmples from the longer lenses and with the teleconverter where the ability to crop more is also very handy but I rarely use telephotos and I'm trying to figure if it is worth upgrading to K-3 some time in the future considering these are the lenses I have. Anyway, seems everybody is happy with their limiteds on the K-3 so I take it as good sign Originally posted by stevebrot To be honest, it is more likely that a digital sensor will limit a lens than the other way around. Well, if a lens outresolve a sensor across the frame, you won't be able to see any difference in sharpness between the center and edges of the image. Of the 3 lenses in question (my copies of course) on K-5 IIs I can only say this for the 35 ltd. I guess if measured there is difference, but to my eyes it is as good as it gets. That's why I was so surprised with the results on the a5100. Maybe it's just that it has an AA filter...