Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-01-2016, 11:09 AM   #16
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,347
How about use your 16-50 in crop mode for travel. You then get the best of both worlds. You get K-5IIs resolution and DR, weathersealed, not too big, improved AF.

Crop mode was created for folks that have a lot invested in APS-C glass but also want to have a better overall camera.

10-01-2016, 11:38 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
Thanks for your answer! Actually, I don't have the 16-50mm anymore. And it wouldn't make sense to use it instead of a 28-105, would it? Well, expect for the 16mm => 24mm.
Otherwise the 28-105 should be close. And it's probably lighter and not as bulky (compared to the 16-50mm). Am I right?

I don't want to shoot in APS-C mode any more, at least if there are any alternatives.
10-01-2016, 02:14 PM - 3 Likes   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by zeitlos Quote
Thank you all for your answers and sorry for the delayed answer!

It's was an interesting read and I appreciate your comments! Using a prime lens instead of a zoom lens might be a solution for certain situations, but if that's what it takes to go full frame I'd seriously consider changing to a smaller system (Olympus/Fuji X etc.)

But still I see good changes that using a different zoom lens instead of my current 24-70mm while traveling can be the solution.

Currently, I consider buying the 28-105 while keeping the 24-70 (for a while?). If it's really a replacement in most cases, I'll sell my 24-70mm. Otherwise it might be a good supplement to my 24-70mm.

Maybe it's justified to have both, the 28-105 for traveling and the 24-70 for, hm, for what then?
So I hope that the 28-105 is a good choice for traveling even though I might miss the 24mm and f2.8 at all focal length. To be hones, I'm mainly struggling with the thought of "degrading" a full frame camera when using a lens like the 28-105 because of the f3.5-5.6.

As I said, traveling and taking pictures with a dslr never really bothered me. The K-5/K-30/K-3 and the 16-50mm was okay in size and weight. Took all my pictures while traveling Georgia (Georgien (Kaukasus): Reise nach Eurasien - einige Eindrücke. ? Pentaxians) for a couple of times using this combination and never worried about size and weight too much. Anyway, the K-1 and the FA31 could also make for a good travel companion.
In a first step I would really insist a bit. Force yourself to take you gear, see if really that's an issue or you got lazy. Try maybe a different strap or something that bring nice handling and make the camera far less annoying...

Then, you should ask yourself why you did buy a K1 ? Where you previous shoots with your 16-50 disapointing you? Does the quality of pictures lacking sometwhat? Was there an obvious lack?

I mean the K1 is great, but you may not need it, in particular you may not fully appreciate the compromize you have to do. If it stay at home or in the hotel most of the time, it doesn't make sense, really. People on theses forum always want latest greatest and will push you. Marketing and legitimate desire to try new toys too. But this doesn't mean having more is always better.

Yes, If you really need the ultra low light performance and extreme sharpness, well there not that many solution than a K1, D810 or A7R... If you are sure you'll use your K1 on quite some occasion that's important for you because it has features you really need but the rest of the time it really bother you. Buy a second system/camera. You can keep K1 and 24-70 for demanding conditions and buy a m4/3 + some pancake zoom lens for the travel light situation with the familly. Anyway, when the light is good, any camera does well.

But really maybe you got into something you don't really need: a big heavy cumbersome camera with associated big heavy cumbersome lens. At the result you get less photos, less pleasure. There nothing bad about making a mistake. You can resell everything and get something smaller/lighter. I don't think you'd loose much... if that's what you really need/want, go for it. Don't let the spec sheet force you to buy and use something you don't like because it is theoretically better...

It is not like you can't make nice shoot with APSC or even smaller sensor cameras.

(A few examples from K3 and small light primes)













Girl





10-01-2016, 03:13 PM - 1 Like   #19
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by zeitlos Quote
Thanks for your answer! Actually, I don't have the 16-50mm anymore. And it wouldn't make sense to use it instead of a 28-105, would it? Well, expect for the 16mm => 24mm.
Otherwise the 28-105 should be close. And it's probably lighter and not as bulky (compared to the 16-50mm). Am I right?

I don't want to shoot in APS-C mode any more, at least if there are any alternatives.
Sounds like you want 24-70mm full frame field of view with a constant f2.8 aperture that covers a full frame sensor.... but the same size as your 16-50. Sorry, such a lens does not exist. You are going to have to compromise somewhere. Either a smaller aperture, a field of view that isnt as wide, or a bigger lens.

10-01-2016, 11:51 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In a first step I would really insist a bit. Force yourself to take you gear, see if really that's an issue or you got lazy. Try maybe a different strap or something that bring nice handling and make the camera far less annoying...
First let me say thank you for your elaborate answer. I really made me think a lot.

About the strap. I'm using Carryspeed strap right now, so I'd say there's nothing better out there in this respect. Still, I didn't feel comfortable while walking around with my combo.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Then, you should ask yourself why you did buy a K1 ? Where you previous shoots with your 16-50 disapointing you? Does the quality of pictures lacking sometwhat? Was there an obvious lack?
The K-1 was simple a result of the chase for the best image quality. So low-light capabilities and also the "natural" viewing angle of the famous FA Limiteds are the main reasons why I decided to upgrade from aps-c.
About the 16-50. Actually I was pretty satisfied most of the time with my copy. If you're interested, have a look at the pictures (sorry, spread over 31 pages ) I took in Georgia to get an idea. Maybe 80% of them were made with the 16-50mm (Georgien (Kaukasus): Reise nach Eurasien - einige Eindrücke. ? Pentaxians).


QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I mean the K1 is great, but you may not need it […]
At least you made me seriously think about this for the first time

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Yes, If you really need the ultra low light performance and extreme sharpness, well there not that many solution than a K1, D810 or A7R... If you are sure you'll use your K1 on quite some occasion that's important for you because it has features you really need but the rest of the time it really bother you. Buy a second system/camera. You can keep K1 and 24-70 for demanding conditions and buy a m4/3 + some pancake zoom lens for the travel light situation with the familly. Anyway, when the light is good, any camera does well.
It's interesting that virtually no one considers the 28-105mm as a good way to eliminate or reduce my problem. A really hought-provoking fact! Why is that?
If I ask in the German Pentax forum (Pentaxians ? Portal) most people say the 28-105 is a great lens and reduces weight and size to a reasonable degree. If f2.8 really matters, some of the guys there recommend the Tamron 28-75. These were my initial thoughts, but you guys seem to disagree on them being a proper solution.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
But really maybe you got into something you don't really need: a big heavy cumbersome camera with associated big heavy cumbersome lens. At the result you get less photos, less pleasure. There nothing bad about making a mistake. You can resell everything and get something smaller/lighter. I don't think you'd loose much... if that's what you really need/want, go for it. Don't let the spec sheet force you to buy and use something you don't like because it is theoretically better...
Wise idea. You're right. It makes no sense to stick to something that stops your creativity and prevents you from following your instincts. However, after thinking about it again I've come to the conclusion that the 24-70mm might be good for certain situations (family celebrations etc. => even though it's not really famous for its bokeh – and also for traveling if I'm only there for taking pictures) and the 28-105 for traveling cities and when I'm not really on a photo trip. However, I'm still not really sure if it's a real solution. Maybe a Olympus mft would be the better pick for those situations. Still I'm trying to avoid a second system. I really want to stick with Pentax only and if possible use my K-30 only in case the K-1 stops working.

Btw. I bought a Ricoh GR II before traveling to the US and didn't really use it, which I ascribe to the focal length.


QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
It is not like you can't make nice shoot with APSC or even smaller sensor cameras.
Really nice pictures you are showing here! Thanks! Love the picture of the girl. Great shot!
Hope some of my shots on Flickr and in my "Georgia-Thread" are worthy of APS-C too
10-02-2016, 12:28 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,132
I don't understand the problem. The DFA24-70 is basically the same size as the DA*16-50. Sure, total volume and weight are more, and the front element is bigger, but the hood is much more compact (relative to the lens' girth) and the length (both retracted and extended) is almost identical.

My DA*16-50 is currently on loan to my brother, so I can't take photos to prove it. Rondec has posted some comparative shots which I'll try to dig up.

Found them




Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 10-02-2016 at 12:41 AM.
10-02-2016, 12:37 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I don't understand the problem. The DFA24-70 is basically the same size as the DA*16-50.
Pentax 16-50mm:
98,5 mm x 84 mm
565g


Pentax 24-70mm
Ca. 109,5 mm x 88,5 mm
Ca. 787 g


Both without hood. With hood it's 600 g vs. 812 g.

As you said, in combination with the bodies its even more.

Btw. the 28-105mm
approx. 86.5mm x 73.0mm
Ca. 440 g


Tamron 28-75mm
73 x 92 mm
510 g

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 07:45 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote

Found them



Thanks I knew this pictures. They were one reason for choosing the 24-70
This time, figures are telling the truth more accurately. At least to me. Both on the same body may not make for such a big difference. But if lens AND body size increase, it does. As I said, just for traveling under certain circumstances.

Finally I will have to decide wether to choose the Tamron or the Pentax 28-105. If I go for the Tamron, the Pentax 24-70 might leave. If I go for the Pentax 28-105, the 24-70 might stay. Could make sense.

Tanks for your thoughts! Appreciate it!
10-02-2016, 01:40 AM - 1 Like   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by zeitlos Quote
First let me say thank you for your elaborate answer. I really made me think a lot.
You are welcome Good if it make you think more about it... There no hurry so take a bit of time to try more your gear and also think of the solution...

QuoteQuote:
The K-1 was simple a result of the chase for the best image quality. So low-light capabilities and also the "natural" viewing angle of the famous FA Limiteds are the main reasons why I decided to upgrade from aps-c.
But was there a problem before really? I know personnally I much prefer FA77 field of view on APSC crop than FF. One of the reason to not upgrade is that FF body would require a DFA100 macro or even longer F135 that are far from offering the same type of rendering and are bigger... I understand this is fully personnal but really there nothing interresting about having the lens at its native sensor format... It is much more interresting to have the lens working at the field of view you like the most. If your prefered field of view for the 77 is the FF format, basically a DA*55 or FA43 would do wonder for you. I agree that I'd like the 31 act like 21 at time maybe but then I have the 21 and 15 so I am covered. But there no small/light ltd after 77 so the bigger the format, the bigger the lack is visible (100% personnal vision on it).
QuoteQuote:
About the 16-50. Actually I was pretty satisfied most of the time with my copy. If you're interested, have a look at the pictures (sorry, spread over 31 pages ) I took in Georgia to get an idea. Maybe 80% of them were made with the 16-50mm (Georgien (Kaukasus): Reise nach Eurasien - einige Eindrücke. ? Pentaxians).
Then maybe it is what you need. K3 + 16-50 or something like an m4/3 + 12-40 for when you want to travel light but keeping quality, The K1 and the FA ltds or 24-70 when you need ultimate low light or you are out for a photos. If you can wait a bit, maybe wait for the next APSC flagship before buying APSC again to see what APSC body would best match you.

Beside I may be stupid saying that but if you use your 16-50 most of the time as it appear (at least in the past), and prefer the conveniance of a zoom in many occasion and the ltd get used from time to time, was it really that important to have the sensor format that match the ltd? That's just a few shots from time to time... And at least on APSC the FA77 gave you a new focal length. While all ltd included fit in the 24-70 field of view meaning they have far less value to you.

QuoteQuote:
It's interesting that virtually no one considers the 28-105mm as a good way to eliminate or reduce my problem. A really hought-provoking fact! Why is that?
If I ask in the German Pentax forum (Pentaxians ? Portal) most people say the 28-105 is a great lens and reduces weight and size to a reasonable degree. If f2.8 really matters, some of the guys there recommend the Tamron 28-75. These were my initial thoughts, but you guys seem to disagree on them being a proper solution.
Let's be honest, the K1 is half the problem and the 24-70 is the other half. Both are a bit bigger, heavier and together it is quite significant. Trying the 28-105 is an option or the tamron 28-75... You should get still better low light performance than the 16-50 if only marginally better and 105mm would be very conveniant... But 28mm may be an issue. There a reason I have a DA15... I don't know for you but 28mm limit the shoots you can get... If you have theoretically better shots, something that only visible on 100% crop that nobody care of but miss 5-10% of the shot, some critical because you don't have the field of view anymore, that's a much bigger issue. So yes why not starting 28mm, but then check honestly how much you care of 24mm before first.

QuoteQuote:
However, I'm still not really sure if it's a real solution. Maybe a Olympus mft would be the better pick for those situations. Still I'm trying to avoid a second system. I really want to stick with Pentax only and if possible use my K-30 only in case the K-1 stops working.
Take your time, no hurry think about it, try again working with the K30 or with the K1 You don't have to decide now. If you take 3 months to decide, that's 100% ok.

I am kind of in similar situation (maybe not the same) I think as you. I am not convinced by m4/3, I see the loss in quality (or I think I see it anyway) and don't see it much smaller than APSC. It is smaller, there at least as much difference between m4/3 and APSC than APSC and FF, but you understand what I mean. With f/2.8 lenses it is still far from small.

But if I go FF I get much bigger again. The 28-105 is a bit heavier/bigger than the tamron 17-50. As I am a prime guy I can go out many time with K3, DA15, FA31, FA77. That reasonably small, light and give me lot of possibilities. The DA15 is slow, but in term of low light etc I am as able as you with K1 and 24-70 f/2.8 using my FA31 or FA77. In some cases I get a bit less sharpness, that true, but also get lovely rendering of the ltd... Not bad.

If I go FF that's FA20, FA43 and DFA100 macro. And even I'll not fully like the new set of focal length. DFA100 macro too short, F135 too long. I guess the DFA100 macro should be preferred but is it really what I want for portraiture? And then basically I have to redo my whole lens line-up with a real risk to not be one bit more happy after than before. People here push for FF but that make sense only if I get some pleasure out of it.

What I want is an APSC or FF K-mount mirrorless with EVF. The body would be 500g and not 800g, In between K01 and KS2 for size and if it is FF, I'd be able to choose APSC or FF framing in the OVF as I like so FF is at no cost to me, I can use the lens at the framing I want. It doesn't exist, K1 is the opposite of that, so I wait and keep the K3.

QuoteQuote:
Btw. I bought a Ricoh GR II before traveling to the US and didn't really use it, which I ascribe to the focal length.
As a second camera as the same time as your K1 if you only have a tele mounted or something like that, that's practical. But a single field of view is a bit too limited for me. I don't change focal length often but 2 field of view seems the minimum for me (DA15, FA77).

QuoteQuote:
Hope some of my shots on Flickr and in my "Georgia-Thread" are worthy of APS-C too
Quite few nice shots here!


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-02-2016 at 01:45 AM.
10-02-2016, 02:03 AM   #24
Pentaxian
redcat's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Paris
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
As I am a prime guy I can go out many time with K3, DA15, FA31, FA77. That reasonably small, light and give me lot of possibilities.
This is the best combo ever If they can make a small wide angle for the K1, it'd be awesome, for OP, please consider using prime, you have the 3 FA limited, any of those 3 can be on your camera and make it a challenge for you, you may be surprised by the result with one lens setup
10-02-2016, 02:12 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by redcat Quote
This is the best combo ever If they can make a small wide angle for the K1, it'd be awesome, for OP, please consider using prime, you have the 3 FA limited, any of those 3 can be on your camera and make it a challenge for you, you may be surprised by the result with one lens setup
for now I understand the FA20 is the lens but unfortunately it is somewhat hard to find.

As for keeping one focal length, I discovered that most of the shots I like the most come from FA77. For the field of view, the rendering, the perspective compression... And that DA15 please me a lot too. I don't have to switch lenses often. I can take 1 hour with the FA77 or the DA15 just fine. I find no hurry to have to cover a scene with 74 different field of view. I am quite happy with a few primes. I even wonder if I should not sell the DA21
10-02-2016, 02:52 AM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,559
I guess I would say that if you want 24mm equivalent and are OK with f4 equivalence, then I would use an APS-C body with a 16-50 f2.8. Particularly if you would use a body like a K-70 or KS-2 you would have a significantly smaller combo than a K-1 plus a 24-70 f2.8. The other option, as other say, is to use primes.
10-02-2016, 03:35 AM   #27
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,231
QuoteOriginally posted by redcat Quote
This is the best combo ever If they can make a small wide angle for the K1, it'd be awesome, for OP, please consider using prime, you have the 3 FA limited, any of those 3 can be on your camera and make it a challenge for you, you may be surprised by the result with one lens setup
Much wisdom in this.

I have a small wide angle and it does finish things off nicely... (20mm Voigtlander)
10-02-2016, 11:05 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,032
The 28-105 is a great choice. But is it small enough for you? Is the 28-75? Either seem fine, and the question is does the 24mm vs. 28mm field of view matter to you. The 28-105 being slower is offset by the more capable sensor in the K-1 - you lose very little if anything in terms of low light performance and your depth of field effectively at the same framing. The option of a travel camera is certainly viable. If you go that route I suggest you look a the Panasonic GX7, or GX85 and the 12-32 f/3.5-f/5.6 but you are giving up a LOT of iso and depth of field.
10-02-2016, 11:52 AM   #29
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,405
Size and weight are a valid issue but I really don't think switching to a slower and slightly lighter zoom is going to make all that much difference. My much smaller and lighter K5 gets heavy and annoying after lugging it around all day. I did a somewhat similar trip in the spring. Three days in Vegas and 5 more visiting and hiking in the Valley of Fire, Red Rock Canyon, and then 3 days in Death Valley. ANY DSLR is going to get get heavy by the end of the day. First off, consider getting a carrying system vest like the Cotton Carrier that keeps your camera handy without the weight hanging off your neck or shoulder. It's a great way to carry your camera while hiking.

In the city, a vest like the Cotton Carrier isn't so good, especially if you're tall. At chest level in a crowd, it can do some annoying head bumps to shorter people. Rather than sell a good lens and buying something inferior just because it's lighter, Invest in a good, small P&S zoom to carry around. They're much better to carry around in the city anyhow. Then plan your shots. After sightseeing and going through some shots, go back and get your K1 and do some shooting if you want some higher quality shots of certain scenes, night shots, etc. In Vegas, I got a lot of really good shots with my iPhone.

I just say this because if carrying a K1 and 24-70 becomes such a physical burden that you leave it behind, you will become just as weary with a K3 and a Limited prime in about 1/2 hour longer.
10-02-2016, 12:50 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Coast, NSW
Posts: 278
I have found the 28-105 an excellent walk round lens for the K-1. It's light and really does provide a good range while still getting high quality shots.

Now....I love my primes (any of my three amigos on the K-1 are superb and would certainly be my first picks), but in unpredictable weather (rain, snow, mist etc) or when there's lots of dust or pollen around and changing lenses might be unwise, the 28-105 has done the job.

I have carried it through Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks, as well as locally, and compared to having say, the 50-135 mounted which weighs almost as much as the 24-70, it is a breeze.

Not sure why so many people here seem to dismiss it - it is a viable option.

There are some good compacts around, but once you're used to a DSLR, they don't quite cut it IMHO.
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!
24-70mm, bag, body, burden, ca, camera, da, day, fa31, hike, hood, jacket, k-1, k-mount, lack, lens, lenses, mm, pentax, pentax lens, size, slr lens, tamron, time, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron vs Pentax 1.4 jeffryscott Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 11-14-2015 11:11 AM
43mm Pentax Ltd vs 50mm Pentax M (1.4) vs 50mm Pentax M (1.7) vs 50mm Sears MC (1.7) easyreeder Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 11-10-2014 08:44 AM
PENTAX vs TAMRON ZOOM LENSE? PHOTOCOP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 04-04-2010 06:54 PM
zoom lens face off - tamron vs sigma vs pentax Wired Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-18-2010 12:36 PM
Tamron 28-75 vs. Pentax 16-50 DA* vs. Pentax 50mm FA 1.4 jeremy_c Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-09-2008 09:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 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