Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-05-2016, 01:02 PM   #31
bxf
Pentaxian
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,289
QuoteOriginally posted by BarryE Quote
the Princesses and their pockets of fairy dust
I thought it was sackfulls

10-07-2016, 06:25 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,285
DFA24-70 is first of all a zoom lens and performs very well for its specs and price. It is not a 1:1 copy of the Tamron and will be the only 2.8 standrd zoom for FF in Pentax land for a couple years. Pentax coating, Pentax housing, Pentax turning direction for all rings... AF is silent and works well. IQ is absolutely fine for the specs - are primes better? Yes, but not in all aspetcs - we are waiting for new FF primes. FA ltds have their own problems.

Need a zoom, go for it.
Need a prime, wait for next year..
10-07-2016, 07:04 AM   #33
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,289
It depends how you look at it. If switching systems from CaSoNikon it is average performer compared to its modern peers and price is not in line with the performance. If coming from APS-C Pentax background it performs as well as you believe it performs and costs what it costs.

Again, if it would cost as much as the original lens (Tamron) + 50$ for added sealing and FullHD coating (does it really matter...) it would have very good price/performance ratio. Now, not even close.

Prices here:
1) Tamron version ~800 euros
2) Pentax version 1450 euros...

FAIL?

Any price advantage K-1 has over CaNikon FF offerings is zeroed with these modern D-FA options. Sony cannot be compared, they sell decentered duds for even higher price than Pentax.

Last edited by MJKoski; 10-07-2016 at 07:09 AM.
10-07-2016, 07:13 AM - 1 Like   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,604
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
It depends how you look at it. If switching systems from CaSoNikon it is average performer compared to its modern peers and price is not in line with the performance. If coming from APS-C Pentax background it performs as well as you believe it performs and costs what it costs.

Again, if it would cost as much as the original lens (Tamron) + 50$ for added sealing and FullHD coating (does it really matter...) it would have very good price/performance ratio. Now, not even close.

Prices here:
1) Tamron version ~800 euros
2) Pentax version 1450 euros...

FAIL?
The issue to me is that I am "stuck" with Pentax because I own a closet full of lenses that wouldn't mount on a D810 or auto focus with an A7r II. With that in mind and bearing in mind as well that I wanted a normal f2.8 zoom that went to 24mm, there were only two options -- the Sigma 24-70 or the Pentax 24-70.

Sure, there is a price premium with this lens over the Tamron version, but since that Tamron lens is not available in the K mount then it isn't a big deal.

It isn't a sackful of primes, but then few zooms really are. Even a lens like Nikon 24-70, while an excellent performer, will have significantly more flare and weaker corner performance compared to a prime in its focal length range.

10-07-2016, 07:37 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,027
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The issue to me is that I am "stuck" with Pentax because I own a closet full of lenses that wouldn't mount on a D810 or auto focus with an A7r II. With that in mind and bearing in mind as well that I wanted a normal f2.8 zoom that went to 24mm, there were only two options -- the Sigma 24-70 or the Pentax 24-70.

Sure, there is a price premium with this lens over the Tamron version, but since that Tamron lens is not available in the K mount then it isn't a big deal.

It isn't a sackful of primes, but then few zooms really are. Even a lens like Nikon 24-70, while an excellent performer, will have significantly more flare and weaker corner performance compared to a prime in its focal length range.
I do not know of too many zooms that are "perfect." As the adage goes, "zoom lenses are a compromise." The good thing is that the compromise has been cut to a minimum in modern zoom lenses. I would not hesitate to get the Pentax 24-70 even for a second. I am saving up for one. The only issue I have is that it would put most of my primes of that range on the closet shelves to collect dust. There is no denying that zooms are waaaaay more useful for the fact they can change focal length without having to switch lenses. In fast paced, dusty, and other rough environments, zooms can be lifesavers. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I owned the Canon version of the Tamron. If the Pentax version is anything like the Tamron I shot with, It is a big time winner.
10-07-2016, 08:14 AM   #36
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,289
My short summary of FF zooms I have operated so far:

-Canon 70-200L IS MK2 = outstanding, as the new Pentax 70-200 seems to be, Nikkor 70-200 V2 almost there
-Canon 24-70L MK2 = outstanding
-Canon 16-35/4L = outstanding
-Nikkor 14-24 = outstanding, comparable to 15-30 Penron
-Sony 24-70 GM = outstanding
-Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 = godlike heavy WA zoom (Zeiss eyecandy all over except 35mm end which dips a bit)

All modern zooms from competition seem to raise the bar higher and higher. Pentax 70-200 is there as well. They just need to get those 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 done like they should be.
10-07-2016, 06:16 PM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Boston,MA
Posts: 256
Just got my 24-70 2hours ago,it's a big lens for sure. I did some simple indoor test, my 31mm is definitely sharper from f2.8-4, but I do have to zoom in to see the difference. Things became pretty close after f5.6.
10-10-2016, 02:40 PM - 1 Like   #38
Senior Member
xmeda's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brno
Posts: 121
The problem with many guys here is that they simply do consider F2.8 lens stopped to F5.6 or even F8 as good. Oh.. but then you can use cheap old FA28-105/3.2-4.5 which is small, light and affordable. No need to spend $$$ on F2.8 lens..

F2.8 lenses are meant to be used at F2.8, this is why they are F2.8 lenses. Same works for F1.4 lenses. If you try any modern 50/1.4, you can use it even on F1.4 and it is sharp and has even contrast. What is the point of using for example FA50/1.4 lens that needs to be closed to F2.8 to provide enough detail to feed modern sensors? That lens simply is obsolete. Yes it is nice lens, I have it too... it was bombastic on K100D, quite sharp with K20D, barely usable with K5, crap with 24mpix body and simply is outdated. But we have no other choice like for example Milvus 50/1.4

Why then have the 36mpix pixel shift machine... if you put this mediocre or submediocre lenses on it. And yes, even the FA limiteds are nothing stellar when compared to current designs. It is 2016, wake up.

10-10-2016, 02:46 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,323
I think one advantage of big aperture lenses is their ability to focus in low light situations and to offer more accurate focusing due to their shallower DoF compared to a variable zoom lens for instance. I regularly shoot my lenses stopped down to f/2.8 - f/3.2 to get some extra DoF.


10-13-2016, 10:18 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado Front Range
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 202
QuoteOriginally posted by BarryE Quote
This worked OK with the DA* 16-50/50-135 gear. I now appreciate I'll be concerning myself with the 24-70s variations as I've had to do before. Although, as I've said, the 1:1 crop option in firmware 1.3 does offer me a lot of new compositional options, which will probably negate some of the 24-70's frame softness at the extremes.

.
Good news! Cropped to the 1:1 shape, the DA* 50-135 fills that square with sharp, fully illuminated corners. Try it! It's like the Tele-Rolleiflex I always wanted.

---------- Post added 10-13-16 at 11:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
The problem with many guys here is that they simply do consider F2.8 lens stopped to F5.6 or even F8 as good. Oh.. but then you can use cheap old FA28-105/3.2-4.5 which is small, light and affordable. No need to spend $$$ on F2.8 lens..

F2.8 lenses are meant to be used at F2.8, this is why they are F2.8 lenses. Same works for F1.4 lenses. If you try any modern 50/1.4, you can use it even on F1.4 and it is sharp and has even contrast. What is the point of using for example FA50/1.4 lens that needs to be closed to F2.8 to provide enough detail to feed modern sensors? That lens simply is obsolete. Yes it is nice lens, I have it too... it was bombastic on K100D, quite sharp with K20D, barely usable with K5, crap with 24mpix body and simply is outdated. But we have no other choice like for example Milvus 50/1.4

Why then have the 36mpix pixel shift machine... if you put this mediocre or submediocre lenses on it. And yes, even the FA limiteds are nothing stellar when compared to current designs. It is 2016, wake up.
- That's a pretty bombastic claim. Do you have any experience using "inferior" lenses on the K-1, and photos to show how lousy the results were? Or are you making an abstract ideological appeal for "only the best"? Who deputized you into the Lens Police?

As it happens, I have about seven years of full frame DSLR use, utilizing first-generation AF lenses. Beginning in 2009, I did pro work with a Sony a850 and several well-chosen Minolta Maxxum lenses. These were beloved and cherished by a-mount fans, who gave them pet names like "the "Beercan" and the "Secret Handshake." Newer Sony and Zeiss lenses were costly, bulky and slow in arrival. Sound familiar?

Today, I'm one of the fortunate few with a K-1. I've used it with a dozen F and FA lenses, along with some Tamrons. All but one gave me very impressive results. I'm happy with my photos, and I don't lust after newer, faster lenses. When Pentax adds high-ISOs and SR to the camera, that makes the old lenses work better, not worse. That's my experience, anyhow.

As for your first rhetorical question, I would stop down either 50mm lens to get more in focus. DOF is pretty slim at FF, don't you know...

---------- Post added 10-13-16 at 11:47 PM ----------

Here's my midrange zoom solution- the Pentax-F 24-50/4. It fills the role of three primes, and is the same size and weight as a fast 50mm. Wide open, it's a little hazy at 100% examination, but that clears up and it's quite sharp at f5.6. Unless you're devoted to bokeh, you'll be stopping down further. Narrow DOF is the toughest challenge I've faced in the FF transition.

Although I have to admit, the two copies of the Pentax-F 35-70/4 are prime-sharp at every aperture. And it's cheap as a filter for the DFA zoom.

I'm not a total cheapskate. At either extreme, I have costlier lenses like the DA*300 and the Sigma 12-24. But in the middle focal ranges, the options abound. It's not that hard to build a sharp lens if you don't also demand it be fast and have a wide range.
10-14-2016, 02:53 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,604
QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
The problem with many guys here is that they simply do consider F2.8 lens stopped to F5.6 or even F8 as good. Oh.. but then you can use cheap old FA28-105/3.2-4.5 which is small, light and affordable. No need to spend $$$ on F2.8 lens..

F2.8 lenses are meant to be used at F2.8, this is why they are F2.8 lenses. Same works for F1.4 lenses. If you try any modern 50/1.4, you can use it even on F1.4 and it is sharp and has even contrast. What is the point of using for example FA50/1.4 lens that needs to be closed to F2.8 to provide enough detail to feed modern sensors? That lens simply is obsolete. Yes it is nice lens, I have it too... it was bombastic on K100D, quite sharp with K20D, barely usable with K5, crap with 24mpix body and simply is outdated. But we have no other choice like for example Milvus 50/1.4

Why then have the 36mpix pixel shift machine... if you put this mediocre or submediocre lenses on it. And yes, even the FA limiteds are nothing stellar when compared to current designs. It is 2016, wake up.
Nice. Not sure why you are so grumpy...

Most lenses are going to have peak performance stopped down two stops and will be sharp down a stop. There are a few highly corrected lenses that are sharp wide open -- lenses like the Otus 55 and 85 are in this category, but they are also out of most of our price ranges.

The 24-70 has decent center sharpness wide open and is quite nice at f4. I have seldom shot things at f2.8 where I needed edge to edge sharpness. I suppose you shoot a lot of astro photography, as I can see that would be important there, but for things like landscapes, my preference is to be stopped down and use a tripod.

As for the FA limiteds, they are relatively modern designs -- certainly more modern than most of the modern 50s available from Canon and Nikon, which are based on formulas that are 40 years old. Anyway, I would really recommend considering a brand switch. Most people buy into Pentax precisely for the small, tightly made primes, including that FA limiteds and if you don't see the value in those, than certainly Nikon and Canon are out there and have more third party options available as well.
10-14-2016, 08:11 AM   #42
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,289
People who want small, tiny and quality primes should also look at Sony FE system like A7R2 + Loxia line. Longer focal M-mount lenses also work nicely. While Sony system has its quirks and fails it will open eyes as it has some innovative features in there. Pentax engineers could also learn something from there. It seems Sony has done their homework the other way considering the soon to be released A9.
10-14-2016, 08:34 AM - 1 Like   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,604
A couple of f2.8 shots...



10-21-2016, 08:21 PM - 2 Likes   #44
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,528
QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
F2.8 lenses are meant to be used at F2.8, this is why they are F2.8 lenses
No, they aren't. Not all f/2.8 lenses are equal, even the very best lenses improve when you stop them down. Only mediocre lenses are always at their best.

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
What is the point of using for example FA50/1.4 lens that needs to be closed to F2.8 to provide enough detail to feed modern sensors? That lens simply is obsolete.
All lenses need to be stopped down to reach optimal resolution, this is true from 35mm to 8X10 format. No lens gets anywhere near to producing peak IQ across the frame at the widest aperture. I own two diffraction limited lenses* - lenses where all aberrations and optical flaws have be reduced to the point where the only resolution limit the lens has is caused by diffraction itself....and even these lenses show improvements in MTF from stopping down one or two stops from wide open.

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
the FA limiteds are nothing stellar when compared to current designs.
You are sitting on a powder keg with a lit match making statements like that: the FA limited lenses are unique, and have tangible advantages among boring 14,16,24,35,50,85,100mm "me too" lens line ups.

*they are both designed by Schneider and are intended for use on high resolution medium format digital backs with pixel pitches smaller than 6μm. True Diffraction limited lenses simply do not exist for 35mm cameras...but there are lenses that come ever so close to this ideal.

Last edited by Digitalis; 10-22-2016 at 06:19 AM.
10-23-2016, 11:03 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 710
Original Poster
Well I've had the 24-70 for a few weeks now and I'm still underwhelmed by its performance. I've deliberately not tried to make direct comparisons, say with a k-3/16-50 combination, preferring instead to just use it. But, comparing similar photos taken in very similar locations in the past with the k-3/16-50 and I'm not particularly impressed with the 24-70.

It's easy for me to compare lenses on the k-3 as I've several that overlap and I've got extensive experience with it. However, I just have one of lens in the 24-70 range so it's trickier on the k-1.

I can improve things in ACR by using more input sharpening than I had to do with the k-3, maybe this is the answer to some extent, but it doesn't help the softer edges of the frame.

Is there a technical reason why to get equivalent centre sharpness on the k-1/24-70 as the k-3/16-50 I need more input sharpening in ACR ? I'm not talking about final/output sharpening I do in Photoshop and I realise sharpness isn't the prime measure of a lens, but the prints I sell the most are those where 'natural' sharpness is obvious.

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!
24-70mm, compromise, dfa, edges, f/8, f2.8, flickr, frame, image, images, k-1, k-3, k-mount, landscape, lens, lenses, pentax lens, price, primes, quality, results, review, reviews, slr lens, tamron, variations, vc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DFA 24-70 or DFA 15-30 for the K-1? Hattifnatt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 10-25-2016 08:03 AM
DFA 24-70 Barrel wobbles when extended pearsaab Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-29-2016 05:50 AM
24-70? Or several primes? hadi Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 06-03-2016 02:08 PM
Help me evaluate the DFA 24-70 jatrax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 47 04-21-2016 07:51 PM
Lack DFA 24-70 reviews Mattox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 46 02-14-2016 10:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 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