Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia |
Since we are talking non-Ltd, I'll leave aside the FA43 Ltd and FA77 Ltd. Should also put aside the DFA 100 WR which is a Ltd in all but name. Each is a superb lens, but not cheap.
That leaves eight others that I have or have had. I like each in its way (my bias is towards nature photography): DA 12-24: The price is close to the Limiteds, and it isn't really an ordinary lens. It's not only sharp and contrasty (with excellent colours) but surprisingly versatile. At 24mm, there is not a lot of distortion and the FOV is just on the wide end of normal. At 12mm the effect is completely different. I use it for landscapes mainly (wonderful for forests and rivers), but it can work for buildings, portraits and pets. At the wide end I like to have a strong foreground subject, like a flower or an animal - I think it takes you into the scene. Also I like to change the angle - e.g. getting down near the ground to shoot an animal takes you into the world they see. The distortion can work to effect too - for example making eyes seem larger. Tamron 18-250: This was my only lens for 6 years, and it did everything from wide angle to wildlife. In good light, the slowness doesn't matter so much. I got thousands of enjoyable photos with it. Photozone said the image quality is "fairly amazing" for such a wide-range zoom, and I agree. It's relegated to a record or travel lens now (or when it is impractical to change lenses), but with a little post-processing images can be really good. At f8 between about 24mm and 80mm you wouldn't think it was a humble superzoom. The relatively short MFD gives it a useful close-focus ability too. The versatility is gold: on a single walk it can do flowers, trees, insects, vistas, birds and animals. It's now a great buy second-hand. Pair it with a fast-ish compact prime and you have a great travel kit. DA 35 f2.4: Great value lens, All the versatility of a normal FOV. Excellent for landscapes, flowers and "still shots", good for portraits too. The detail and contrast blew me away when I first used it. Some people find it boring because it is slower and lacks the 3D effect of say the FA Ltds (I usually prefer the FA43 for portraits and flowers), but that doesn't matter for landscapes. Very resistant to CA and sharp across the image when stopped down a bit. DA 50 f1.8: Another great value lens. I gave it to a friend after I got the 43 - maybe I shouldn't have as the effect is quite different. A very good portrait lens, and very good for flowers, trees, animals and landscapes if the narrower FOV works. A poor man's DA*55. I have one poster made from a shot of a snow gum taken with this lens and it is very pleasing. The extra stop over the DA35, and the longer FL, give more scope for subject separation and the bokeh is very pleasant. A 50 f1.7: My first prime (now on semi-permanent loan). I loved the feel of it, and enjoyed going back to a MF lens after a long break. Prone to flare and CA, but the lovely rendering made it worthwhile. Pets, portraits, flowers, trees etc. DA-L 55-300: Outstanding value. I use it most often at 300mm for birds and wildlife. Not being an IF lens, 300mm means 300mm and 250mm means 250mm at any distance from the subject - much better "magnification" for birds and the like than say the 18-250. MFD is a limitation. The bokeh is not very appealing, but overall IQ is excellent for a budget lens. Downside is that noisy AF can drive the critters away. Sigma 170-500: Used mainly for birds and wildlife of course. Jekyll and Hyde lens. Or perhaps like the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead: when she was good she was very very good and when she was bad she was horrid. Stopped down and with the subject not too distant, images were very good (especially after adding some contrast in PP); but otherwise ... There is no free lunch in long lenses. Sigma 400mm f5.6 tele macro: Currently my most-used lens, mainly for birds and wildlife, but pseudo-macro makes it good for flowers too. It is light enough that I usually get away with hand-holding. A bit slow and the AF is a bit noisy, but quite sharp wide open. Very good colour and resolution. 400mm is a big gain on 300mm for birds and wildlife (well, with a 16mp sensor anyway - if you have a K-3 you might find 300mm and cropping to be sufficient). Usable with a TC but only in very good light. I find it a big improvement on the 170-500, which was a similar weight (about 1300g). Personally I think I would find the 2kg lenses (e.g. Sigma 50-500 or 150-500, or the DFA 150-450) very heavy after using this. Great value lens at half the price of a second-hand DA*300, without the worry about possible SDM failure.
For sharpness, each of the primes would beat each of the zooms, although the 12-24 is close to prime standard.
As between the primes, the DA 35 would be hard to beat, but the DA 50 would be right up there and the A 50 not far off. Centre sharpness is very good on the 400; corner and edges less so, but they don't matter so much for wildlife.
Strange as it seems, the Tamron 18-250 at f8 would give the 35 and the 50s a close run for centre sharpness at the corresponding length, although the edge and corner performance on the primes would be significantly better.
As between the zooms, at their optimal aperture and FL, I would rank them:
1. DA 12-24
2. Tamron 18-250 (centre) and Pentax DA-L 55-300.
3. Sigma 170-500
But in choosing your favourite ordinary lenses, there is more to it than just sharpness.
Last edited by Des; 10-13-2015 at 08:07 PM.
|