Originally posted by pepperberry farm DIGLOYD: yes, the Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM Art is available in Pentax K mount at about $899, and it is a very fine lens, much better corrected than the Pentax prime lenses in that range. And so, a must-have lens for the K1. Optically, the about $1000 Pentax smcP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited is not in the same league as the Sigma 35/1.4, a fact driven home trying to focus the two in magnified Live View: the Sigma is relatively crisp at f/1.4, the Pentax 31/1.8 a hazy affair, the Pentax apparently being a classic feel-nice lens, not a performer in any technical sense. The Pentax 31/1.8 is beautifully built, but it certainly is Limited (in performance and value).
I'm starting to question the value of professional reviews. They do tell things like "they are" but "like they are" tends to focus on really small details and performance and trying to get 40MP of image out of a 36MP camera. So much emphasis on resolution..
.so much emphasis on resolution and MTF charts. Most of the discussions you see around the web break down to pixel counting. And what happens at maximum aperture because so many people subscribe to the "It's a 1.8 lens so it should be shot there or it's a waste. And all portraiture must be done below f/2.8." I guess that is what 'the people' want to read?
I'd really like to think professional photographers are above MP counting and pixel peeping arguments but I guess not because if they weren't, these articles wouldn't be written. Or is that the point? They're
not written for them and instead written for the guy who shoots with a 5D Mark III simply because it costs more and is therefore
must be necessary. I learned Canon made a 50mm f/1.0 lens for $6000k+...but why? I can't imagine anything anyone would
need this for....or heck, even want it. But I'm sidetracking.
Let me start over. Who are reviews written for these days? The stuff that's in them can't be for professionals; anyone who
needs all that resolution should be shooting MF. So instead, we have products designed for....people with too much money on their hands? People who are not succeeding in the 'business' and think better lenses and more pixels will get them there? That could just be the forum audience. That would make sense. Certain reviewers become popular because they focus on a certain quality of the product that the people who are likely to read these reviews care about.
It's not the say that the bloggers have driven the megapixels war. Somewhere, people wanted this as the screen sizes increased because viewing an image at 30% makes it look better than at 75% and that can greatly hide your lack of skill. I find it interesting that there's still so much emphasis on MP at all, as the hype over the 5DR/s shows us. Aside from the few magazines and other print media, 'normal people' just want to put their pictures on Instagram and Facebook. Heck, over 50% of my Flickr viewership comes from phones. Resolution is becoming less important because the screens are shrinking. The pixel counts on them are going up but at some point, they're too small to see the difference. Once you get 10 good MP, that probably does it for the way most people consume images.