Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2016, 08:00 AM - 1 Like   #16
Veteran Member
Outis's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 922
I wish more reviews would pay attention to the user experience when running around with the lens. I spend a lot of my time with wide-angle lenses with the camera slung across my back while I climb up and over rocks and stuff. Is the lens big and heavy and awkward to carry around long distances? How likely is it that the lens cap would fall off? How good of a job would the lens hood really do at preventing the lens from knocks?

For instance, the 15mm Limited is great for this sort of thing-- it's small, it's compact, and it has a screw-on lenscap so it's absolutely not going to fall off. The 14mm Rokinon is not-- it's big, it's front-heavy, and it has a huge exposed glass element at the front.

I mean, the relative optical quality of lenses is all well and good, but it doesn't really matter that Lens A is 10% better optically than Lens B if I'd take Lens B with me to 70% more places than Lens A.

02-13-2016, 08:23 AM   #17
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,188
QuoteOriginally posted by Outis Quote
I wish more reviews would pay attention to the user experience when running around with the lens. I spend a lot of my time with wide-angle lenses with the camera slung across my back while I climb up and over rocks and stuff. Is the lens big and heavy and awkward to carry around long distances? How likely is it that the lens cap would fall off? How good of a job would the lens hood really do at preventing the lens from knocks?
I think these type of questions are more related to each individual, rather than the majority. As far as lens caps falling off, I use neoprene end covers, and they never fall off. There are many systems on the market that are useful for those that climb, etc., with their equipment; to keep the camera in place.
02-13-2016, 08:26 AM   #18
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,188
QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
In the spirit of transparency and expectation management, just wanted to announce that a new review has gotten the green light (although don't hold your breath - the final publication is going to be a while because of how much there is involved in this review). It's one that Adam and I have talked about for quite some time, and now it's really happening

That, and for all of you who have no intention of upgrading to the K-1 full frame, we also wanted to reaffirm that PF's commitment remains to everything Pentax and Ricoh - including APS-C.

The intent behind this review was to compare once and for all the 4 widest lenses currently available for K mount (for the APS-C sized sensor)*. Two from the Rectilinear side (one prime, one zoom), and two from the Fisheye side (one prime, one zoom).

For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night).

Attachment 298561

So if you could only choose one, which would you select?

-Heie

*Yes, there is the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye, however it's so incredibly niche as a circular fisheye (the other two are diagonal) that it didn't warrant inclusion.
I'd like to see a couple of lenses in the 10-24? range that are not fisheye included if possible.
02-13-2016, 08:34 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Suceava, Romania
Photos: Albums
Posts: 139
QuoteOriginally posted by Outis Quote
For instance, the 15mm Limited is great for this sort of thing-- it's small, it's compact, and it has a screw-on lenscap so it's absolutely not going to fall off. The 14mm Rokinon is not-- it's big, it's front-heavy, and it has a huge exposed glass element at the front.
Valid points, for me as well. And it seems the Pentax lens developers had this in mind almost always. But look at how that helped them sell their lenses. It's all about how "sharp" this and that is and tests of brick walls for something that can either be corrected in camera or, for the raw, in post processing with 1-2 clicks. What's the APS-C lens most discussed in the past years? Sigma 18-35 or it's prime siblings, right? A glass behemoth.

Don't want to derail the topic but (at least us, forum/internet lurkers and commenters and testurbators) should make up our mind, or at least know how to interpret and judge a lens' philosophy.

02-13-2016, 08:47 AM   #20
Resident Bagpiper
Loyal Site Supporter
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,853
This would be nice just some ideas for other lenses to include:
DA 15/4
DA 14/2.8
Rokinon 14
Sigma/Tamron 10-24
Pentax 12-24

It'll be interesting to see the results
02-13-2016, 09:08 AM   #21
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,188
QuoteOriginally posted by bertwert Quote
This would be nice just some ideas for other lenses to include:
DA 15/4
DA 14/2.8
Rokinon 14
Sigma/Tamron 10-24
Pentax 12-24

It'll be interesting to see the results
+1. I'll be getting a lens in the range the OP mentioned, but am very interested in these as well; before I make my mind up!
02-13-2016, 09:08 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Outis's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 922
QuoteOriginally posted by Penumbra Quote
Valid points, for me as well. And it seems the Pentax lens developers had this in mind almost always. But look at how that helped them sell their lenses. It's all about how "sharp" this and that is and tests of brick walls for something that can either be corrected in camera or, for the raw, in post processing with 1-2 clicks. What's the APS-C lens most discussed in the past years? Sigma 18-35 or it's prime siblings, right? A glass behemoth.
Oh yeah, that irritated me to no end, how the 20-40 and Sigma 18-35 came out at around the same time and I remember a review of the 20-40 that said something along the lines of, "What were you thinking, Pentax?!?! We don't know WHY anyone would ever buy this when the 18-35 is sharper and faster!" Umm...because the 18-35 isn't weather-sealed and is big and heavy and won't fit in my purse and generally isn't the sort of thing I'd want to haul around with me long distances while hiking. Do these people test lenses, or actually use them? So, yeah. Heie, don't be that guy
02-13-2016, 09:10 AM   #23
Resident Bagpiper
Loyal Site Supporter
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,853
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
+1. I'll be getting a lens in the range the OP mentioned, but am very interested in these as well; before I make my mind up!
Yes I thought of you as I wrote the comment because I remember you wanted an UWA lens and saw your name on the comment above
I'll eventually get one in that range as well

02-13-2016, 09:12 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,495
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
I'd like to see a couple of lenses in the 10-24? range that are not fisheye included if possible.
Have you seen this? DA 12-24mm vs Sigma and Tamron 10-24mm Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
02-13-2016, 09:16 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,397
how many copies of the Sigma 8-16mm did you go through to find a good one?
02-13-2016, 09:27 AM   #26
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,188
Matt, thanks!
02-13-2016, 09:43 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 995
Heie, if you need astro photos for the samyang/bower/rokinon 10mm, just ask. I've got plenty of shots already taken and can always go out on a clear night. I have some daytime shots taken as well. Definitely a monster for low light, but highly prone to flare issues if light catches the lens from the side.
02-13-2016, 10:05 AM   #28
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,408
I bought the DA 10-17 several years ago. I've always liked the effect a fisheye lens produces. It was first lens I purchased after buying my K10D and original kit of the DA 18-55 and Sigma 70-300. At the time, my daughter was in college and rowing on the crew team. I wanted a lens that could get a whole 8 man rowing shell in the frame from a close distance like looking straight down from a bridge. I've got nothing but good things to say about this lens. Yes, I do get some flare and a little CA but from what I have been able to learn, these "flaws" have a lot to do with the ultra wide FOV and are common with all fisheyes. Hopefully, this review will cover all that stuff. A lot of people buy the 10-17 because it is cheaper than the rectilinear options out there and plan on "de-fishing" their shots in PP, only to be disappointed and end up really slamming the lens and the software that claims to "correct" it.

When I bought the 10-17, none of the other lenses were available at the time or if they were, they weren't being advertised or promoted.

Since I'm covered with my ultra wide and wide angle needs, I'm not shopping but I'll be interested in reading the reviews.
02-13-2016, 10:51 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,266
QuoteOriginally posted by Outis Quote
Oh yeah, that irritated me to no end, how the 20-40 and Sigma 18-35 came out at around the same time and I remember a review of the 20-40 that said something along the lines of, "What were you thinking, Pentax?!?! We don't know WHY anyone would ever buy this when the 18-35 is sharper and faster!" Umm...because the 18-35 isn't weather-sealed and is big and heavy and won't fit in my purse and generally isn't the sort of thing I'd want to haul around with me long distances while hiking. Do these people test lenses, or actually use them? So, yeah. Heie, don't be that guy
Soldier that he is, I suspect Heie understands all too well the potential problems posed by awkward, poorly balanced and fragile equipment. However, I think he sees these tests as presenting the best examination of optical performance that he can reasonably devise, while leaving the responsibility of practical handling decisions in the court of the end user.

To be sure, I think it is something that should be addressed in reviews. Looking at the picture of all those lenses taken together, I would reach for the Pentax 10-17 in a heartbeat and would not even bother examining the rest. I remember rejecting the FA31/1.8 partly on the basis of weight and balance, because I didn't realise at the time how outstanding a reputation it had and because the lens I had on my K-5 at the time was the SMC DA40/2.8. Had I been hauling my DA 18-250 around with me, or had I realised the quality and excellence I held in my hand, the 31 might have made a more favourable comparison!!
02-13-2016, 11:09 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,669
QuoteOriginally posted by Outis Quote
I spend a lot of my time with wide-angle lenses with the camera slung across my back while I climb up and over rocks and stuff. Is the lens big and heavy and awkward to carry around long distances? How likely is it that the lens cap would fall off? How good of a job would the lens hood really do at preventing the lens from knocks?
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
However, I think he sees these tests as presenting the best examination of optical performance that he can reasonably devise, while leaving the responsibility of practical handling decisions in the court of the end user.

I can understand what you're asking, but I have to agree with the second comment. When I was a soldier, I had a small padded camera case that I strapped onto my body armor. Now that I'm a civial I still hike a lot, and I use a CaseLogic Camera Holster. Smaller than a backpack, it holds my K-5 with a long lens, as well as accessories. It gives me piece of mind about camera protection while moving through the woods, jumping over gaps, wading a stream, or climbing. It zips shut, but I also use a D-ring fastener for quickly securing the case. I use a wrist strap on the K-5 when it's outside the case. Lenses are expensive, protection is cheap.
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!
aps-c, fisheye, k-mount, pentax lens, review, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
$10 vs $1000 or Takumar SMC 55mm F1.8 vs Sony Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 kindakaa Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 107 04-03-2016 02:59 AM
Would it be worth getting the Pentax 10-17 if you have the Sigma 8-16? VoiceOfReason Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 12-17-2015 06:11 PM
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Battle of the older telephotos JinDesu Pentax Lens Articles 45 11-03-2014 06:30 AM
Focal Length of 10-17 Fisheye; vs an 8-16mm ohyouloveme Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-08-2012 09:24 PM
Ultra wides: Sigma 10-20 or 8-16? Balog Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 05-05-2011 03:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 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