[GeneV]

From the images I've seen the 15 and 21 have better flare resistance, and a bit more resolution, than the 12-24, but there's not a huge gap in quality.

But there is a gap in focal range. Surely we buy a 12-24 to use 12, just as we would buy a xx-500 to use 500. And 12mm gives a very different FOV from 15mm. There aren't a lot of choices in very wide primes. You could put a Samyang 10mm f2.8 prime in the kit with the 15 and 21 but then you would have lost any advantage in weight or bulk over the UWA zoom (albeit with some gain in speed), at a much higher price.

I was responding to your post about picking the DA 15 and 21 for quality. Of course the ability to zoom or get to the FL at either end is a big benefit to the zoom.

I regularly use all of those lenses except the Samyang (which is not comparable in FL or speed). The main reason I use those primes is size. You can drop the 15mm and 21 into a waist pack, even throw in the 40 and 70, and still have room to spare. I don't see a quality difference in favor of the WA prime under anything but the most extreme flare producing circumstances, but there are a lot of situations where the 12-22 just isn't practical to carry, especially with the hood. To me, that is the biggest benefit of the DA Ltd WA lenses.

BTW, the Samyang 12mm F/2 for my Sony E-mount is two stops faster than the DA 12-24, but is still half the weight and smaller in diameter. I doubt that a 12mm, 15mm, and 21mm F4, together, designed as a Pentax DA Ltd, would be as large or weigh as much as the zoom, but that is speculation. I wish Pentax would offer a 12mm and we could find out.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 06-02-2015 at 11:40 PM.

[normhead]

On the opposite the example of normhead is interresting because well it is very likely in can try the same picture in a billion place of the forest because the subject is very common and so he has almost infinite choice of exact background, focal length etc. That he can find a better framing/shoot that in got even with a different focal length is almost certain. He can't get it as the time required to shoot one or 2 will mean the light changed but it is not like the it would not be possible to get a similar shoot, a bit worse or a bit better with a different lense.

To be short... no, no, no, The shot is taken on a steep incline on the side of a lake. All you're saying here is I can waste precious time in a sunset where the light is different every 2 or three minutes, walking around with a prime trying to match what I could have done in a couple of seconds with a zoom. For what? You're not getting a better picture. Your comment is invalid because you haven't wrapped you head around the situation...

Just because the image is a simple image, doesn't mean it was easy to take.

[atupdate]

First let me confess, I am a super-zoom user. My favorite lens is a ProMaster (Tamron) 28mm-200mm. I love the convenience of not having to change lenses when I am out and about.

I always find these Prime vs Zoom discussion interesting. Most the prime users preach the IQ sermon. Most of the zoom users serve the convenience platter with a side of IQ. Probably both are right and both are wrong........depending.

When people discuss IQ, I always wonder what their end product is. Poster sized prints? Posting on Flickr? Weddings? Prints for sale at festivals? How much IQ do they need vs how much brings them joy?

The sub-forums I follow the most have very few strictly prime users. I fully appreciate the bokeh aspect of a fast prime but it is not a major consideration in my lens selection. The sharpness aspect of a prime is less appreciated because the zoom fits my end usage (web posting and prints 11"x14" and smaller) and I am more than happy with the sharpness I end up with after post processing.

Norm shares a ton of exceptional outdoor shots on this forum and fully understands the environmental conditions he is working in (changing light, iffy weather, shade vs sun). I consider him a master with his zooms and I respect his lens discussion input considerably.

However, I find it very difficult to read the "what lens should I buy" and the "should I upgrade my camera" threads because the OP seldom give enough detail about what they are trying to achieve and the people responding to the OP seldom post examples of their work to support their recommendations. I'm sure that I don't fully appreciate the IQ discussion because I don't shoot with the higher end equipment but I think I get my fair share of keepers. At least for my "end use" needs.

Tim

[normhead]

First let me confess, I am a super-zoom user. My favorite lens is a ProMaster (Tamron) 28mm-200mm. I love the convenience of not having to change lenses when I am out and about.

I always find these Prime vs Zoom discussion interesting. Most the prime users preach the IQ sermon. Most of the zoom users serve the convenience platter with a side of IQ. Probably both are right and both are wrong........depending.

When people discuss IQ, I always wonder what their end product is. Poster sized prints? Posting on Flickr? Weddings? Prints for sale at festivals? How much IQ do they need vs how much brings them joy?

The sub-forums I follow the most have very few strictly prime users. I fully appreciate the bokeh aspect of a fast prime but it is not a major consideration in my lens selection. The sharpness aspect of a prime is less appreciated because the zoom fits my end usage (web posting and prints 11"x14" and smaller) and I am more than happy with the sharpness I end up with after post processing.

Norm shares a ton of exceptional outdoor shots on this forum and fully understands the environmental conditions he is working in (changing light, iffy weather, shade vs sun). I consider him a master with his zooms and I respect his lens discussion input considerably.

However, I find it very difficult to read the "what lens should I buy" and the "should I upgrade my camera" threads because the OP seldom give enough detail about what they are trying to achieve and the people responding to the OP seldom post examples of their work to support their recommendations. I'm sure that I don't fully appreciate the IQ discussion because I don't shoot with the higher end equipment but I think I get my fair share of keepers. At least for my "end use" needs.

Tim

Add to that, that when we take our superzoom instead of our full kit.... we are often quite pleased with the results. Maybe if each image was taken with a top quality prime and compared we wouldn't be, but from where we stand right now, the benefits of having the best glass are ridiculously overrated. We've sold 3 copies for close to 1k of an image Tess took with a 10 MP camera printed to 30x20. Any image taken with a K-5 and our Sigma 18-250.. is way better technically, but, that doesn't affect how much people seem to enjoy the image. So if we can get great images with a 10 MP point and shoot, how does the argument that a Sigma 18-250 on a fantastic 16MP sensor, isn't going to be more than "good enough."

The simple truth is, we carry the best glass we can, but we don't fret if we end up carrying less than our best. The chances of not having our best making a difference is very small. Even printing to 30x20.

There is a certain amount of snobbery in these lens discussions.

I love my DA*60-250, but there have been many days I left in home in favour of the Sigma 18-250 or 18-135. And I can't remember even once thinking.. this picture would have been better using the DA*. Part of that is, if I think the DA* will make a difference I take it, and part is that, you can go through a whole 12 day trip without taking a single image where maximum resolution would make the image better. Most of the time, it's colour pattern, texture etc that make the pictures. Not infinitely fine detail.

Resolution is a long way down the list, of the things that make a picture a good picture. And too much resolution for the type of image taken is a real thing.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2015 at 12:32 PM.

[alamo5000]

At the end of the day for me... this is what I am (I guess) coming to the conclusion of... If you have a good zoom (yes there are junk zooms) but I am talking a good one, that flexibility adds to your ability as a photographer to shoot certain material in certain settings. So for example when Norm and Tess go on walks through the woods a zoom will allow for a quick reflex to capture that bear on the side of the river or that special ray of light coming between the trees onto a flower or whatever it might be.

I don't know what you call it, but to me that is more 'reactionary' type of material and photography... ie you see something cool and you shoot it. In ways it's being opportunistic. It doesn't have to all be in the woods though. It could be on the streets of Sydney or in downtown London or anywhere where things are moving about.

The other one is 'actionary' shooting.... say I go out and scope out a location the day before... I find a good background... I figure out when the light will be good there by looking at my watch and a compass and figuring out when shadows will appear and so on... I can then add in elements as I see fit. It could be a model an object or whatever. If I really plan I will know what focal length I will need before I ever show up. It's kind of like a guy that walked in front of a building every day for a month. He would admire it and then it dawns on him... 'this would make a good shot' and he can plan out what he wants to do...

The latter is much slower paced but (to me) can result in some stellar images because you can pick your light, your angle, your model, your composition, your whatever.

Then there is something in between---which sort of crosses over... where that line is I don't know. It's blurry at best. But if I find myself all the time in a reactionary situation and I only carry primes... I will wind up in the middle somewhere. But if I am in an actionary situation where say I ask to take someone interesting's portrait.... I might be wishing for a slight bit more sharpness, bigger aperture, or whatever (just saying maybe).

One situation is being a predator and the other situation is being a chef.

I think part of my problem is I am in predator territory a lot and rarely have the chance or opportunity to cook... if that makes any sense.

[Des]

I was responding to your post about picking the DA 15 and 21 for quality. Of course the ability to zoom or get to the FL at either end is a big benefit to the zoom.

I regularly use all of those lenses except the Samyang (which is not comparable in FL or speed). The main reason I use those primes is size. You can drop the 15mm and 21 into a waist pack, even throw in the 40 and 70, and still have room to spare. I don't see a quality difference in favor of the WA prime under anything but the most extreme flare producing circumstances, but there are a lot of situations where the 12-22 just isn't practical to carry, especially with the hood. To me, that is the biggest benefit of the DA Ltd WA lenses.

BTW, the Samyang 12mm F/2 for my Sony E-mount is two stops faster than the DA 12-24, but is still half the weight and smaller in diameter. I doubt that a 12mm, 15mm, and 21mm F4, together, designed as a Pentax DA Ltd, would be as large or weigh as much as the zoom, but that is speculation. I wish Pentax would offer a 12mm and we could find out.

Interesting points Gene. The DA 12-24 has a large 77mm front element. I can live with it, but it's certainly not pocketable. Will be interesting to see whether either of the new wide zooms on the roadmap will be more compact. The proposed DFA is described as large diameter, so it won't, but the DA one might be.

[dadipentak]

if that makes any sense

It does. I'm a predator for the most part but will whip up something tasty from time to time. There's not a perfect predator/zoom, chef/prime correlation--but perhaps a tendency.

---

Last edited by dadipentak; 06-04-2015 at 05:29 AM.

[pathdoc]

So far as far as I am concerned this is the most interesting lens. Is the aperture a constant f1.8?

It is, and the optical quality is supposed to be the equal of many primes all the way through. The sour note for Pentax owners is a reputation for not playing at all well with Pentax AF, which is what made me decide NOT to buy it. Some people have had no problems straight out of the box, others have found that they can tweak it with Sigma's lens dock and others still just want to throw the damn thing off a tall building for all the focusing heartache it's given them.

Ricoh/Pentax should IMO bite the bullet, licence the optics from Sigma (if Sigma will let them) and incorporate their own bespoke AF system for this lens. We need it that badly, and it would sell for sure if they could guarantee accurate focus control.

---------- Post added 04-06-15 at 10:16 ----------

When people discuss IQ, I always wonder what their end product is.

Exactly. Are you shooting to the charts, or shooting for an actual image of something in the real world? You can shoot at charts from a heavy tripod all day, but if the diffraction you get from f/11 onward doesn't actually show in the glossy six-by-fours you print out at Walmart and stick in your album, you may as well park the family in front of that historic monument, stop your 18-270 down to take the whole thing in, and go for it.

[alamo5000]

It does. I'm a predator for the most part but will whip up something tasty from time to time. There's not a perfect predator/zoom, chef/prime correlation--but perhaps a tendency.

Maybe we should start a thread..."are you a predator or a chef?"

[Nicolas06]

To be short... no, no, no, The shot is taken on a steep incline on the side of a lake. All you're saying here is I can waste precious time in a sunset where the light is different every 2 or three minutes, walking around with a prime trying to match what I could have done in a couple of seconds with a zoom. For what? You're not getting a better picture. Your comment is invalid because you haven't wrapped you head around the situation...

Just because the image is a simple image, doesn't mean it was easy to take.

There millions of tree elements that look like the one in your photo as the main subject. More important there million that are different and could be worse... or better. There sunset and sunrise everywhere, everydays and many are much longer than 2-3 minutes. More importantly, many different backgrounds could be as interresting. Just cut the damn subject from the tree and you'll have much more freedown to shoot it in exactly the situation you want. With much more freedom in what you'll achieve than to have to narrow on a 2 minute timeframe and a specific orientation, distance etc to get your results.

Hey you could even make pictures like that all the time like ruppert does many squirel shoots or Amelie does picture of garden gnome in every city of the world as a joke.

I respect what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it, but there not one true way that is good and other way that have to be inferior. There pro that shoot the Olympic with large format film camera and they may sell their picture for much more than you or me could pretend... and their subject move faster and the even repeat only every 4 years.

If they can do it, you, me, everybody can do it too.

[normhead]

NIcholas06, with all due respect... give it up. Find someone to tell how they should shoot, who actually might believe your nonsense. Every one of your "scenarios" involves exponential amounts of time and effort and a better result is not guaranteed. I decide how much I want the shot, I decide how much time and effort I want to put into it. Unless you're there, you have nothing to add about what I should do. I like the shot, I like having the shot, I got it on the spur of the moment and I'm happy with it. It represents the best shot I could have achieved with the amount of time I had to invest in it. If you can't see that, it really doesn't matter to me. I just wish you quit trying to sound like some kind of expert jumping in on other people's threads and spouting nonsense.

And to be honest with you... I've never seen one of your images, so I have no way of evaluating if there's piece of advice you might offer that would interest me. I tend to look at the people who's work makes me wonder what their work flow was. IF you haven't taken a few pictures I'm interested in, I don't know how to evaluate what you're saying. Until I see a few pictures, I don't know if you know anything... or you read a few books and you're spouting off. But you clearly don't understand the situation I'm in, in my workflow. Otherwise you wouldn't post such nonsense. I do know, that when you discuss my work, your points bear absolutely no relevance to the situations I shoot in. I can only assume it's the same when you critique other people's work.

A smart person knows what he knows well. and what he doesn't know at all, and only comments on what he knows. Smarten up dude.

The fact is, I liked that grouping of pine needles, in that sunset, with that horizon line and those colours. In all your chosen "You could have done this" scenarios, you never suggest how I could have incorporated the things I like into this shot, without a zoom lens. In fact in your given scenarios, there is no guarantee I could have produced an image I even liked. Even if I'd done exactly what you suggest. But I could have wasted the moment trying what you are suggesting and got nothing. A possibility you seem to be totally oblivious to.

Most of the time, you just take what you see the best you can and move on. It's not rocket science. I'm never going to sell that image, but i love having it in my slideshow of the trip. It ads something different.

http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Canoe-trips/2014-Auges...ifer-Mike-Norm

Not everything has to be about creating the perfect picture. Sometimes you just want what you see in front of you, because it's special.

[Nicolas06]

NIcholas06, with all due respect... give it up. Find someone to tell how they should shoot, who actually might believe your nonsense. Every one of your "scenarios" involves exponential amounts of time and effort and a better result is not guaranteed. I decide how much I want the shot, I decide how much time and effort I want to put into it. Unless you're there, you have nothing to add about what I should do. I like the shot, I like having the shot, I got it on the spur of the moment and I'm happy with it. It represents the best shot I could have achieved with the amount of time I had to invest in it. If you can't see that, it really doesn't matter to me. I just wish you quit trying to sound like some kind of expert jumping in on other people's threads and spouting nonsense.

And to be honest with you... I've never seen one of your images, so I have no way of evaluating if there's piece of advice you might offer that would interest me. I tend to look at the people who's work makes me wonder what their work flow was. IF you haven't taken a few pictures I'm interested in, I don't know how to evaluate what you're saying. Until I see a few pictures, I don't know if you know anything... or you read a few books and you're spouting off. But you clearly don't understand the situation I'm in, in my workflow. Otherwise you wouldn't post such nonsense. I do know, that when you discuss my work, your points bear absolutely no relevance to the situations I shoot in. I can only assume it's the same when you critique other people's work.

A smart person knows what he knows well. and what he doesn't know at all, and only comments on what he knows. Smarten up dude.

The fact is, I liked that grouping of pine needles, in that sunset, with that horizon line and those colours. In all your chosen "You could have done this" scenarios, you never suggest how I could have incorporated the things I like into this shot, without a zoom lens. In fact in your given scenarios, there is no guarantee I could have produced an image I even liked. Even if I'd done exactly what you suggest. But I could have wasted the moment trying what you are suggesting and got nothing. A possibility you seem to be totally oblivious to.

Most of the time, you just take what you see the best you can and move on. It's not rocket science. I'm never going to sell that image, but i love having it in my slideshow of the trip. It ads something different.

Canoe-trip-Allan-Amy-Brian-Jennifer-Mike-Norm Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

Not everything has to be about creating the perfect picture. Sometimes you just want what you see in front of you, because it's special.

If you want to see what I shoot before you criticise it, help yourself but don't pretend you can't get it. It's one link away if you are that interrested. I also post pictures from time to time on the forum true, but you are not often on the threads I post in, I don't care and I think you should not care neither.

I didn't criticize your picture that is quite nice, this is just I don't think this is especially difficult or whatever to get or that is require advanced material of any kind except maybe something that can provide a bit of shallow deph of field.

Second you state your point of view: zoom are better, permit more, their quality is enough and one doesn't need primes that are less practical. That's a point of view you go own with examples and your practice. There no issue with all of that.

Then suddenly of somebody respond to you it is indeed far possible with a prime, you get ofence and say that no is impossible or very bad idea. Again that's a point of view.

There isn't much more to say.

And just for the fun, a picture I didn't take much time to take, just a snapshoot, without tripod, without special zoom, just using my F135... and quite heavily cropped at that. Like you not every picture has to be perfect, and I think it is good enough:




Another one just when walking in the street, without even stopping, takken with FA77... This isn't that sharp neither. But hey it did work.



An again the FA77



It doesn't have to be difficult, boring or long you know. Maybe you thing this is utter crap, but anyway I think this is a valid practice to use primes and I don't think that you should explain how bad I'am because I don't share the same habits as you.

[normhead]

I carry , on a regular basis the 21 ltd, the 40 XS, my Sigma 70 macro and my A-400. For zooms i carry the Sigma 8-16, the DA 18-135, and the DA* 60-250 or F 70-210. I'm not the zooms are perfect guy. I'm the guy that says there are a lot of times a zoom gets you a better image. And there are also a lot of times I get a prime out of the bag. You seem to be a bit confused in your last post. I'm the guy that says, you need to know how and when to use all the tools available and make the best use of all of them.

Now if you would like to extend the courtesy of allowing that I might know when to use a zoom and when to use a prime, that's cool. If you have some ridiculous "primes only" doctrine we are never going to see eye to eye. Just stop commenting on my posts. With that kind of attitude you'd have no hope of understanding what i'm saying.

[Nicolas06]

@normhead

You taken care to explain the "nonsense" of zooming with your feets, how it is important to shoot fast to exploit the short time when an interresting thing happen and given an example with a tripod shoot of a static subject. You also taken care to explain how better a 135mm shoot @135 would be opposed to a cropped 100mm prime, in particular if the zoom is the 18-135. You were very clear on that last point how this very zoom @135mm would outperform a 100mm prime cropped to 135m. You expressed also how important for you to keep all thoses 24MP of K3.

While the overall meaning is true and you definitely have a point, it was just overstated and I do think looking at the wildlife pictures you often post to this forum - maybe I'am wrong - that you tend to crop much more often than your statements would make somebody guess it.

Your next point was that finally both primes and zooms are usefull, were I would agree without reservation.

But you didn't forget to include in the argumentation how my posts look confused, how I never post pictures and how I should avoid to quote you while you don't seems to restrain yourself much in this area when you see fit. That's a bit funny and unecessary.

[normhead]

Well then thanks Nicholas, I think..... and I do love a good rant... but, in my experience a point is always better, illustrated with some images. Many of my posts are overkill... from my own perspective.... but once people start telling me I believe things I don't, I said things i didn't and start going to lengths to show everyone what I didn't say is wrong, I tend to try and put together something that will end their obvious confusion. Sometimes people get it the first time, sometimes I have to go on a bit. Sometimes I just give up.