Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-22-2016, 05:31 PM   #1
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Two questions.

I'm thinking about my own lens roadmap and wishfully thinking about the K1. I udnerstand prices vary drastically, but if you only considered overall usefulness and IQ.

Simply put, how would you compare these?
F 50 1.7 (including at 1.7)
DA* 55 (including at 1.6)


And these?
F 24-50
FA 20-35
DFA 24-70

Thank you kindly

03-22-2016, 06:10 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,412
24-50 is a very small, very light, 2x, f/4 lens
24-70 is a very big, very heavy, 3xish, f/2.8 lens
20-35 is a uwa to wa lens not really comparable to the other 2 imho.
I am eager to test the 24-50 on the k-1 I would much prefer the lighter weight but we will have to wait and see.
03-22-2016, 06:15 PM   #3
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
20-35 is a uwa to wa lens not really comparable to the other 2 imho.
Thanks for your response. I find that interesting, as I've read elsewhere that some who've acquired the 20-35 no longer use the 24-50.
03-22-2016, 06:33 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,412
Quite possible if they have another lens picking up at 35mm such as the 35-105.
But the intended use of the two lenses is quite different imho. If you need 20mm then 24mm just doesn't work.

20-35 is a nice landscape lens. 24-50 is a lightweight standard zoom.

03-22-2016, 06:38 PM   #5
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Original Poster
Obviously we're just speculating, but how do you expect the 24-50 to compare to the 28-105 kti? I haven't tried the 24-50, but am considering it.
03-22-2016, 06:45 PM   #6
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
I'm not a huge fan of the "modern is better" point of view, in fact I tend to favor the look of older optics. Even regarding coatings, HD and the supposed nano-tech coatings rely a bit more on hype than actual image enhancement, IMHO.

That said, it is pretty darn clear that a lot of R&D has gone into making digital UWA - especially in zooms - demonstrably better in the last few years. Also, unfortunately, size in UWA tends to correlate to improved overall IQ. So, I do suspect that the DFA 24-70 will be far more impressive than the earlier designs, especially when you factor in the AF speed and accuracy - in which early tests on the K-1 are indicating excellent results.

A lot of this will be speculation until you start seeing results from the specific combo of the K-1 and the lenses you mention.

As for the fast 50s - they will tend to show similar differences as you see with the crop sensor bodies. The DA has snap, and the FA tends to be softer with more apparent depth due to the smooth transitions. As for shooting wider than f/2, it will be interesting to see; but it might not be nearly as nice as the crop IQ wide open. My only FF experience was with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 which is a decent lens (but not in the same league as the two Pentax lenses, of course). The Canon was barely acceptable at f/2 on FF, but terrible wider at the edges. The lens (designed for film, clearly) was fine on a crop body.
03-22-2016, 06:46 PM   #7
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 49,677
I think it's best to wait and see. I have a hunch that many of the legacy lenses, especially zooms, won't feel as good as we remember them from the film days.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-22-2016, 06:49 PM   #8
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I think it's best to wait and see. I have a hunch that many of the legacy lenses, especially zooms, won't feel as good as we remember them from the film days.
Yeah, I'm wondering if we'll see similar results that we get when we shoot with TC's--meaning the lens issues will be magnified.

03-22-2016, 06:54 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,412
Tell you in a month or so.

Just speculative as yet but my expectations are that the 24-50 will be comparable in general image quality but will likely require a contrast boost in pp to match the newer lens coatings. I quite like the F 24-50 and since I own it am hoping it will be adequate on the k-1 for me. If not then I will get one of the new dfa lenses.

I am currently thinking: F 17-28FE, FA 20-35, F 24-50, and DA*60-250. None of those are designed for the k-1 so how they will work for me is as yet unknown.
03-22-2016, 08:54 PM   #10
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Original Poster
TBH, I'm pretty tempted by the F 24-50. I recently acquired the F 50 1.7 and F 100 2.8. I'm quite fond of the F series for some reason. I used to have the FA 100 2.8 and sold it. I've always followed a 1 in 1 out policy to prevent LBA, or at least keep it reasonable. I see one on ebay for 219 USD. Is that a reasonable price?
03-22-2016, 10:01 PM   #11
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
Hard to say if that is a bit much. Of the six reviews here, none paid over $200, but most of the reviews are pretty old. I think they all got good deals. The FA version - which has a different optical formula - definitely tends to go for quite a bit more. Presumably the FA has an edge...
03-22-2016, 10:26 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 759
QuoteOriginally posted by wissink Quote
Simply put, how would you compare these?
F 50 1.7 (including at 1.7)
DA* 55 (including at 1.6)

I've owned a couple copies of the F50/1.7, and own the 55 now. Both are capable of making great photos - 55 is a bit better in most regards as one would expect given price difference of 3x or so.

50 - faster AF, maybe a touch more consistent/accurate AF (though 55 good, too), louder AF, a little wider FOV, smaller/lighter, not quite as sharp as 55 (but no slouch), less contrasty than 55 (particularly wide open), good bokeh but not as good as 55
55 - larger and heaver, slower AF (but still quite accurate, and is silent), sharper, smoother bokeh, significantly more contrast at the apertures you're talking about, WR, renders a bit cooler (easily adjusted in PP)

Can't comment at all on corner/edge performance, as my shooting style with these focal lengths doesn't tend to emphasize sharpness across the frame.

Overall if the only thing that matters is IQ, the choice is clear - 55. If you need fast AF, then go with the 50. If you are interested in the superior price-performance proposition, probably the 50.

Hope this is helpful.
-Brandon
03-22-2016, 10:34 PM   #13
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,767
QuoteOriginally posted by wissink Quote
I'm thinking about my own lens roadmap and wishfully thinking about the K1. I udnerstand prices vary drastically, but if you only considered overall usefulness and IQ.

Simply put, how would you compare these?
F 50 1.7 (including at 1.7)
DA* 55 (including at 1.6)
The F50 is a lot smaller, focuses a lot faster and you won't worry about SDM. I think it's sharp enough. It isn't great for manual focusing, mostly because the ring is so thin.

The DA* is definitely better for image quality: 3D effect, pixie dust, sharpness, that extra 5mm, wider aperture, more blades. WR is nice. SDM only. It's decent to focus manually. It's a lot bigger than the F50 but not really monstrous.

What would make me pause is using the DA* on a K1. I really like it but it was designed for a job on APS-C. If you end up not taking K1 portraits at 55mm, it's a waste of money as a general purpose lens. The F50 would be fine in general use.
03-23-2016, 04:39 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 45,500
IMHO modern lens designs and coatings have made the greatest improvements at more extreme focal lengths, that is, the wider you go or the longer you go, the more likely a modern optic will be significantly better that a legacy optic. At near normal focal lengths, around 35mm to maybe 135mm, there are legacy optics that are good to outstanding. But going to 21mm or 15mm, or out to 300mm +, it's likely a modern optic will on average outperform a legacy. OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions: the 600mm f4 Pentax is outstanding by any measure, but how about the 135~600 zoom or 400~600 reflex zoom? I doubt either of these compares favorably to a Pentax 150~450 or a Sigma/Tamron 150~600.
03-23-2016, 06:21 AM   #15
Veteran Member
wissink's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: S-ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 606
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bpv_UW Quote
Hope this is helpful. -Brandon
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
What would make me pause is using the DA* on a K1. I really like it but it was designed for a job on APS-C. If you end up not taking K1 portraits at 55mm, it's a waste of money as a general purpose lens. The F50 would be fine in general use.

Thanks guys. I've been getting into doing events more and often my ISO's are skyrocketing even with flash. I was in a church helping with a wedding and I was struggling to balance preventing motion blur and avoiding ISO 3200 and 6400+. We weren't allowed flash and we were told not to make much noise. There have been other similar situations. The reception was a little easier, having brought a Westcott Apollo Orb.

My current kit:
Sigma 18-35 1.8
DA* 50-135
DA 15, 35 2.8
F 50 1.7, 100
Sigma 100-300 f4

I got the two moderate zooms because I was finding it difficult doing events with the DA 15, 35 and 70 (sold). It was really stressful trying to find the right place to stand when there were people swarming around and tables and chairs everywhere. Not to mention constantly changing lenses. My DA 35 is probably my favourite lens, but I gave up using it to chase people. I'm finding every event I've been doing to be quite dark and am constantly playing catch up with noise in images. I'm not great at salvaging them.. or at least I'm not satisfied with the results. This is my reason for wanting to go FF. ISO 6400, maybe even 12800, would be a god send.

My thoughts are to alter the kit (which is why I've been picking up the F's) towards the K1 with a K3 second body. I seem to have a set of lenses that I like for general "for-the-love-of-photography" days and a couple for events. These should be quieter i think, but for some reason I care less about them--less "special" or something.

Here's what I'm thinking. I'd appreciate feedback.
Something like this? Still not considering price at this point. I'll likely have to wait.. or finance irregardless of what I do, as I'm nearly out of household items to sell. I'll sell lenses though of course.
Events:
K1: 24-70? Sigma 24-60? Sigma 100-300 (70-200 substitute)?
K3: Maybe 50-135? DA* 55?

Walkabout:
K1: DA 35 ltd (I wish) F 50 1.7 (or Da* 55?) F 100 2.8 maybe a UWA too (I'm considering getting into real estate)

The sigma 100-300 will float between K1-k3 depending on distance to subjects.

I really appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks guys

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 09:23 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
IMHO modern lens designs and coatings have made the greatest improvements at more extreme focal lengths, that is, the wider you go or the longer you go, the more likely a modern optic will be significantly better that a legacy optic. At near normal focal lengths
Good insight, thanks.
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!
da, da*, events, k-mount, k1, lengths, lens, lenses, pentax lens, reason, sigma, slr lens, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two simple questions about O-GPS1 with the K-3 bdery Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 11 03-20-2016 06:15 AM
Two questions about the K3 Azergoth Pentax K-3 5 07-01-2015 12:35 PM
Just got my K-3. Two questions for you guys please TrailRunner Pentax K-3 28 11-27-2014 05:37 AM
Two questions regarding my photo files. lawjie Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 10-06-2014 03:12 PM
Two big questions? losecontrol Pentax Film SLR Discussion 5 02-09-2011 01:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 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