Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2015, 10:28 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Please, just stop talking about the DA*60-250. It's pretty clear you don't own the lens. When you stick to what you know, I usually agree with what you say.
I can replace it with this 50-135 if you prefer: I had for 2 years and sold it because I got after an FA77 and the 50-135 couldn't match it. It can't match it because one is f/1.8 but also because simply at the same apperture the FA77 manage to punch more constrast/micro constrast (while staying quite natural). It is because the picture the 77 provide just "pop" and it is also because I was tired to have an heavy lense. The FA77 is much better for candids because people don't think a such small lense can be a tele.

I would never get something shoots like that with the 50-135. And I don't think the 70 macro, 90 macro or 60-250 would not neither:

FA77, f/2



And stopped down, my 50-135 never managed something like that neither. I never seen a 60-250 shoot like that, here and I gone throw quite many because I was playing with the idea of buying one for next year safari... Of course this doesn't mean they don't exist. Here the FA77 make the subject look like it would pop out the screen.

FA77, f/4.5




Still the 50-135 is very highly regarded and I think one would often call it a stack of prime because it combine sharpness of prime with large appertures. Of course, it would get the sharpness one stop later than the FA77 (the 77 is as sharp as f/2 as the 50-135 is as f/2.8 and is as sharp as f/2.8 than the 50-135 is at f/4) but I could say if you want this is a stack of primes.

And really if I look at MTF at f/4 of f/5.6 on review I don't see anythink that may justify any of the lense against a 300€ tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or a 550€ tamron 70-200. Not the FA77, not the 50-135, not the 60-250... None of them in fact.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-08-2015 at 10:34 AM.
08-08-2015, 11:47 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,753
You haven't seemed to pick up on the fact that I'm not really interested in what you think you would get. And I disagree that you can get with a 50-135 what you'd get with a 60-250 at comparable magnification. Your 77 at ƒ2 image for me would be too soft to be useable and would go into my trash bin on the first pass, and I usually do at least 3 passes. And I'm a guy with very low standards as to whats in acceptable focus. I don't know why you're doing this. I'd love to see some 77ltd compared to DA*50-135 compared to DA* 60-250, compared to some 70 macro and 90 macro images, but I don't have all those lenses. Commentary by some guy who thinks one would be something and the other would be something else, it really doesn't hold my interest. If I've learned anything in this type of discussion it's that, making these types of assumptions, you can be horribly wrong.

When I say my DA*60-250 is comparable to my Tamron 90 macro... it's because I put them both on the camera without moving the tripod position and took pictures with that and my 18-135 and Sigma 70-300. And without going in to how that turned out, all I'll say is I doubt there's a person on this forum who's opinions would predict the results. I know what the differences are visually. I use the numbers, because the numbers back up how I think about these lenses. Without visual confirmation, I don't trust the numbers for anything except possible reasons of my results. We aren't playing on the same playing field.

Last edited by normhead; 08-08-2015 at 11:53 AM.
08-08-2015, 03:06 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You haven't seemed to pick up on the fact that I'm not really interested in what you think you would get. And I disagree that you can get with a 50-135 what you'd get with a 60-250 at comparable magnification. Your 77 at ƒ2 image for me would be too soft to be useable and would go into my trash bin on the first pass, and I usually do at least 3 passes. And I'm a guy with very low standards as to whats in acceptable focus. I don't know why you're doing this. I'd love to see some 77ltd compared to DA*50-135 compared to DA* 60-250, compared to some 70 macro and 90 macro images, but I don't have all those lenses. Commentary by some guy who thinks one would be something and the other would be something else, it really doesn't hold my interest. If I've learned anything in this type of discussion it's that, making these types of assumptions, you can be horribly wrong.

When I say my DA*60-250 is comparable to my Tamron 90 macro... it's because I put them both on the camera without moving the tripod position and took pictures with that and my 18-135 and Sigma 70-300. And without going in to how that turned out, all I'll say is I doubt there's a person on this forum who's opinions would predict the results. I know what the differences are visually. I use the numbers, because the numbers back up how I think about these lenses. Without visual confirmation, I don't trust the numbers for anything except possible reasons of my results. We aren't playing on the same playing field.
I'd say this is sharp enough for a portrait, we already see the pores of the skin and we can see hint of the landscapes in the reflections inside the eyes. Actually I reduced micro constrast to avoid such skin defect to not be too present.

Say you don't like it, don't say it is soft... Or then be sure you did your 3 pass on the bird shoots you post here.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
08-08-2015, 04:06 PM - 1 Like   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
Nicholas06 and Normhead. A few weeks ago Nicholas was saying that you can't talk about rendering of a sensor because different rendering could be erm, rendered, by post-processing, yet now you state that there is "no way an FA render like a DA".

Normhead refuses to accept that people can discuss a lens if they don't own it.

In the midst of many of the rather long posts from both of you there is often some interesting information, and dare I say it, personal opinion, something you both seem to hate in other

---------- Post added 08-09-15 at 07:13 AM ----------

people. I just wish you would both cut other posters some slack, and not be so strident about supporting your own deeply entrenched positions.

Back to the original 'stack of primes' idea - I think it's more of a marketing label than anything else, but zooms are very useful. I just prefer to use primes most of the time, even though I have five zooms. I shouldn't have to defend my position, it's just a preference, not something I am trying to impose on other people...

08-08-2015, 04:24 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,753
Lord help me.

QuoteQuote:
Normhead refuses to accept that people can discuss a lens if they don't own it.
Normhead believes people who discuss lenses they don't own and tell actual owners they know more than the owners do about their lenses are always wrong, and that's my experience. You can find out more from a guy like Digitalis who owns and tests almost anything and everything, than you can from a hundred posters interpreting test charts. Discuss all you like, just expect to be corrected when you're wrong.

Or do you expect folks to just get a free pass when they spread mis-information. When did this turn into the little girlie's social club?

Last edited by normhead; 08-08-2015 at 04:34 PM.
08-08-2015, 04:51 PM - 2 Likes   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
There you go again. The point I was trying to make was that people don't need to make a totally valid point using confrontational, insulting or sneering language. You respond by using sneering language.

I totally agree that the best way to judge a lens is to own it, but you have to remember that you only have one copy thereof, so your copy might be better or worse than usual. So you (meaning people in general norm, not just you), you have to take even your own opinion with a pinch of salt. Few of us are godlike experts.

Furthermore, I would love to own a 60-250, I think it's a lovely lens, and my wife longs to own one. So you see normhead - you are now sneering at someone who agrees with you. How is that logical?

I just wish you would read your own posts, and consider how you would respond if someone spoke to you that way.
08-08-2015, 06:49 PM - 1 Like   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,783
There is something special about primes. If I have time, I will choose one and shoot with it. I have nice zooms too, but there is something about the rendering you get with primes that you don't get with zooms.

FA 31 limited.



FA 77 (at f2)



DA *55 (at f2)



DA 15 limited.



Zooms will get me 90 percent of the rendering/flare resistance/contrast that I get with primes, but many times there is still something missing. Zooms have come a long way. I wouldn't get rid of my 16-50 or 50-135 -- there are just too many times where I need the flexibility they offer, but I am still a prime guy at heart.
08-08-2015, 06:58 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,753
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There is something special about primes. If I have time, I will choose one and shoot with it. I have nice zooms too, but there is something about the rendering you get with primes that you don't get with zooms.

FA 31 limited.



FA 77 (at f2)



DA *55 (at f2)



DA 15 limited.



Zooms will get me 90 percent of the rendering/flare resistance/contrast that I get with primes, but many times there is still something missing. Zooms have come a long way. I wouldn't get rid of my 16-50 or 50-135 -- there are just too many times where I need the flexibility they offer, but I am still a prime guy at heart.
So you'd take a good prime over an excellent zoom, even though the zoom produced superior images. I'm a "best lens for the job" kind of guy. I don't care whether it's zoom or prime. There are more circumstances where flare residence etc don't matter than that they do.

Taken with an 18-135 exactly where is th problem with the flare? This isn't even a HD lens...


This isn't even a DA*. I don't believe all zooms are better than all primes at all focal lengths. But I also don't believe there is any particular magic to primes. Then there's also the pixie dust thing. Which no one has been able to demonstrate it exists either. This all sounds like some kind of photgpraher voodoo to me.

I don't know how many times I have to ask you not to post images for comparison, with no image to compare them to, Is it that much of a stretch to understand that to make the case that a prime has some magic a zoom doesn't, you'd need two photographs taken at the same time of the same thing so a comparison could be made?

All you're saying is "I took this great picture with my camera." It doesn't speak to the zoom verses prime thing at all, because for all we know the zoom might be just as good, and possibly even better.

Are you understanding that?

I'm thinking this would be a good topic for one of my polls. Maybe 12 image like the following two, taken at the same time and place and see how many people can tell which is the zoom and which is the prime.






Last edited by normhead; 08-08-2015 at 07:14 PM.
08-08-2015, 07:15 PM - 1 Like   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
Well now. I prefer the sun areas and their reflections on both of Rondec's pictures. That proves nothing really, because they are all affected by being posted on the web.

I bet Rondec is really ashamed that he didn't realise how many times you have had to ask him not to post images for comparison with no image to compare them to... But then, so did you.
08-08-2015, 07:17 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,753
QuoteQuote:
But then, so did you.
The devil made me do it.
08-08-2015, 07:21 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
I suppose in future that we must cover all focal lengths with duplicate lenses, take each picture more than once using different lenses, and only then can we state which we prefer. A preference which is in fact only a matter of opinion, and nobody else's business.

---------- Post added 08-09-15 at 10:21 AM ----------

Ha ha normhead, I love that answer!
08-08-2015, 09:23 PM   #42
Senior Member
jkomp316's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 227
the highest grade zoom i've ever owned was the tamron 28-75 f2.8 af ect. for such a highly rated lens i could never get anything sharp out of it at f2.8. i didn't give it much time, perhaps it was back-focusing or something. maybe my expectations were flawed. i kept comparing portraits on it to my old 50mm primes. i ended up selling it.

imho the only thing thats changed in lens technology over the last 40yrs is zooms and coatings. most of the decent primes are still using 40+yr old formulas.
08-09-2015, 02:11 AM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,294
Original Poster
The trouble with the 50-135 is that there is no contemporary 135mm (I.e. DA HD DC) prime to compare it to at the long end. Clearly one is required! Come on, Pentax; fill that gap!
08-09-2015, 02:41 AM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,783
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
So you'd take a good prime over an excellent zoom, even though the zoom produced superior images. I'm a "best lens for the job" kind of guy. I don't care whether it's zoom or prime. There are more circumstances where flare residence etc don't matter than that they do.

Taken with an 18-135 exactly where is th problem with the flare? This isn't even a HD lens...


This isn't even a DA*. I don't believe all zooms are better than all primes at all focal lengths. But I also don't believe there is any particular magic to primes. Then there's also the pixie dust thing. Which no one has been able to demonstrate it exists either. This all sounds like some kind of photgpraher voodoo to me.

I don't know how many times I have to ask you not to post images for comparison, with no image to compare them to, Is it that much of a stretch to understand that to make the case that a prime has some magic a zoom doesn't, you'd need two photographs taken at the same time of the same thing so a comparison could be made?

All you're saying is "I took this great picture with my camera." It doesn't speak to the zoom verses prime thing at all, because for all we know the zoom might be just as good, and possibly even better.

Are you understanding that?

I'm thinking this would be a good topic for one of my polls. Maybe 12 image like the following two, taken at the same time and place and see how many people can tell which is the zoom and which is the prime.


I can't answer your question. I own DA * zooms and FA limited/DA */DA limited primes -- they are all good lenses in their own right, but the primes have certain things they are better at. All I can say is that in my current lineup, I enjoy shooting my primes more. It probably has as much to do with size of the lenses and the fact that they have wider apertures than my zooms, but that's where it is at. I specifically included a couple of photos shot at f2, because my zooms don't open to f2 and there is no comparison to be made there.

If you are shooting at f8 and aren't shooting straight into the sun, you probably won't see a difference between most lenses. The DA * zooms are probably worse for flare than, say, the 18-135 because they do have wider apertures and a lot more glass to cause internal reflections.

I like glass with wide apertures and will continue to shoot the primes I have when I can. Sorry if I didn't post comparison shots. I just usually go out shooting with a lens or two and if I am shooting with a zoom, I don't often have a prime with me.

(DA *16-50)

08-09-2015, 05:17 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,753
My zooms are heavy, my primes are lighter, I prefer to have the lightest lens possible on the camera, if for no other reason than for ease of handling...My 21 and 40 and Sigma 70 macro give me excellent image when I use them. But, I've never for a moment hesitated to use a zoom that was one the camera instead of changing to a prime. I'm not really sure what that has to with the topic of what a "stack of primes" is.

Oh wait, there is a faction that refuses to acknowledge the term has any meaning at all, it's just marketing.

Based on what I've seen here, the reluctance to acknowledge the stack of primes concept would seem to be based on soley ephemeral data. It's a kind of feeling people have about their lenses. You have a special situation, you get out your prime, you take a few images, you say to yourself "this wouldn't have looked as good taken with a zoom." (The self fulfilling prophecy.) Pat yourself on the back for your brilliance, and head off to the internet too explain your new found discovery.

I wonder if there's such thing as a "stack of zooms" That could be like an 18-300 or something like that.

I should point out this opinion isn't shared even in my own house. Tess will walk around with that tamron 90 on the camera and doesn't care a hoot how many other images she misses. The Tammy is her definition of quality and anything that doesn't measure up is not worth putting on the camera.

SO far, I don't think she's found anything else that measures up, she uses a Tammy 17-50 in the wide end because she has to use something... and she won't use the 21 ltd, DA 35, or 40 xs but she loves the FA 50 1.7. Who knows how these preferences happen, I can't figure it out.

I pretty sure explainable logic has almost nothing to do with it,

I have to go for coffee, but it's been good entertainment. Not much science, but good entertainment.

Last edited by normhead; 08-09-2015 at 05:46 AM.
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!
aperture, da, day, e.g, f/3.5, fl, glass, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, ltd, normhead, pentax lens, people, primes, slr lens, stack
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC-A 35-105 f/3.5 "Stack of Primes" Zoom Lens Fat Albert Sold Items 7 04-15-2014 06:21 PM
Good hood for A 35-105 "Stack of Primes"? Fat Albert Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10 02-06-2014 08:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: "Stack o' Primes" Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 Macro (WORLDWIDE) cheekygeek Sold Items 3 10-27-2013 12:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: "Stack o' Primes" Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 Macro (WORLDWIDE) cheekygeek Sold Items 5 08-09-2013 01:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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