[C_Jones]

I have asked a similar question to this in the past, but would like to ask it anyhow.

I have a 16-85 lens that I use on my APS-C K-5IIS right now. I really love the wideness at the short end that it gives me, and the distance that I can get with it on the long end.

I have been looking at the Pentax 24-70 to see if it would possibly be advantageous with the F 2.8 capability, but I do not want to lose the wideness at the short end that the 16-85 gives me.

Would the 24-70 give me the same wide end FOV equivalent on my APS-C as my 16-85 does? In other words, if I was taking a picture of a waterfall with the 24-70 on my APS-C body, would the 24-70 cover the same area on the wide end as the 16-85 is doing for me now.

I am estimating that the 24-70 would yield something comparable to a 16-50 equivalent on an APS-C camera, and am curious if that figure can be directly compared to the 16-85 spec of my present lens, seeing myself losing approximately 35mm (85 minus 50) on the long end if I were to switch to the 24-70.

Also another question, I have a Sigma 150-500 on the K-3II. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Pentax 70-200 F 2.8 would be appropriate for low light sports and if shots are clearly detailed at for example F2.8 to F5 apertures. The 150-500 does great during nice daylight and the length is handy, but I have seen reviews on the 70-200 that say it is a good sports lens in lower light, and I am curious if it retains detail throughout the focal length at for example F 2.8 and would provide clearly detailed images.

Thanks ahead for any answers or opinions.

I don't want to stray from my post questions, but Happy Holidays!! I actually heard a Christmas song on the radio in my car yesterday.

---

Last edited by C_Jones; 11-19-2016 at 05:55 PM.

[marcusBMG]

Field of view depends on focal length. longer focal length = narrower field of view.

See here:

Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

[Wild Mark]

Would the 24-70 give me the same wide end FOV on my APS-C as my 16-85 does?

No. The only thing your changing here is lenses. The focal range of both lenses are defined in FF terms, not APS-C.

So, the 24-70 will give you less at the short end and less at the wide end.

[Adam]

I have asked a similar question to this in the past, but would like to ask it anyhow.

I have a 16-85 lens that I use on my APS-C K-5IIS right now. I really love the wideness at the short end that it gives me, and the distance that I can get with it on the long end.

I have been looking at the Pentax 24-70 to see if it would possibly be advantageous with the F 2.8 capability, but I do not want to lose the wideness at the short end that the 16-85 gives me.

Would the 24-70 give me the same wide end FOV on my APS-C as my 16-85 does? In other words, if I was taking a picture of a waterfall with the 24-70 on my APS-C body, would the 24-70 cover the same area on the wide end as the 16-85 is doing for me now.

I am estimating that the 24-70 would yield something comparable to a 16-50 equivalent on an APS-C camera, and am curious if that figure can be directly compared to the 16-85 spec of my present lens, seeing myself losing approximately 35mm (85 minus 50) on the long end if I were to switch to the 24-70.

Also another question, I have a Sigma 150-500 on the K-3II. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Pentax 70-200 F 2.8 would be appropriate for low light sports and if shots are clearly detailed at for example F2.8 to F5 apertures. The 150-500 does great during nice daylight and the length is handy, but I have seen reviews on the 70-200 that say it is a good sports lens in lower light, and I am curious if it retains detail throughout the focal length at for example F 2.8 and if that or something like an F4 aperture provides enough FOV to provide clearly detailed images. In other words would I be providing myself with something that would cover the lower light activity that my 150-500 is not capable of, or would I be wasting my time and is 200mm enough at the long end for most shots (from side of field)? I know the lengths of the two lenses are vastly different, but just wanted to mention my present situation and see if there would be any advantage to having the 70-200.

Thanks ahead for any answers or opinions.

I don't want to stray from my post questions, but Happy Holidays!! I actually heard a Christmas song on the radio in my car yesterday.

Would the 24-70 give me the same wide end FOV on my APS-C as my 16-85 does? In other words, if I was taking a picture of a waterfall with the 24-70 on my APS-C body, would the 24-70 cover the same area on the wide end as the 16-85 is doing for me now.

Erm, no 24mm is considerably narrower than 16mm. On APS-C, you're talking a difference of about 20 degrees diagonally.

Here's a nice FoV table:
The Crop Factor Unmasked - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

Also another question, I have a Sigma 150-500 on the K-3II. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Pentax 70-200 F 2.8 would be appropriate for low light sports and if shots are clearly detailed at for example F2.8 to F5 apertures. The 150-500 does great during nice daylight and the length is handy, but I have seen reviews on the 70-200 that say it is a good sports lens in lower light, and I am curious if it retains detail throughout the focal length at for example F 2.8 and if that or something like an F4 aperture provides enough FOV to provide clearly detailed images. In other words would I be providing myself with something that would cover the lower light activity that my 150-500 is not capable of, or would I be wasting my time and is 200mm enough at the long end for most shots (from side of field)? I know the lengths of the two lenses are vastly different, but just wanted to mention my present situation and see if there would be any advantage to having the 70-200.

The D FA* 70-200mm is a phenomenal lens optically. It's an excellent choice for APS-C bodies and it should give you more than enough reach for typical applications, IMO. If not, you can always crop or pair it with the 1.4x teleconverter. In either case it should easily outperform the Sigma at the pixel level at comparable focal lengths.

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

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 purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. 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:

[C_Jones]

Erm, no 24mm is considerably narrower than 16mm. On APS-C, you're talking a difference of about 20 degrees diagonally.

Here's a nice FoV table:
The Crop Factor Unmasked - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com



The D FA* 70-200mm is a phenomenal lens optically. It's an excellent choice for APS-C bodies and it should give you more than enough reach for typical applications, IMO. If not, you can always crop or pair it with the 1.4x teleconverter. In either case it should easily outperform the Sigma at the pixel level at comparable focal lengths.

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Thanks Adam. Would the 24 on a Full Frame camera be comparable to what I see on my APS camera using my 16?

[Wild Mark]

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Pentax 70-200 F 2.8 would be appropriate for low light sports and if shots are clearly detailed at for example F2.8 to F5 apertures.

From what I hear this lens is superb in every way. Fit for thte task you outlined.

[stevebrot]

Thanks Adam. Would the 24 on a Full Frame camera be comparable to what I see on my APS camera using my 16?

Yes, 16mm on APS-C has the same FOV as 24mm on 35mm FF. (16 * 1.5 = 24)


Steve

[Wild Mark]

Thanks Adam. Would the 24 on a Full Frame camera be comparable to what I see on my APS camera using my 16?

Yes

[C_Jones]

Adam, this may clear up my question totally. Would the 24 focal length on the 24-70 and the 24 focal length on the 16-85 reveal the same FOV if they were both mounted on K-3II bodies at the 24 focal lengths?

[clackers]

Adam, this may clear up my question totally. Would the 24 focal length on the 24-70 and the 24 focal length on the 16-85 reveal the same FOV if they were both mounted on K-3II bodies at the 24 focal lengths?

Yes. We got there! 😀

[SpecialK]

Adam, this may clear up my question totally. Would the 24 focal length on the 24-70 and the 24 focal length on the 16-85 reveal the same FOV if they were both mounted on K-3II bodies at the 24 focal lengths?

Yes. Same focal length on same camera.

[C_Jones]

Yes. We got there! 😀

Thanks clackers, so both at the same length on the K-3II they will both be showing the same FOV right? I am assuming it is, I just would like a reassuring second.

[Wild Mark]

Glad you got there C_Jones

---------- Post added 11-20-16 at 11:06 AM ----------

Thanks clackers, so both at the same length on the K-3II they will both be showing the same FOV right? I am assuming it is, I just would like a reassuring second.

Please treat my commentary as a 1.5

[C_Jones]

No. The only thing your changing here is lenses. The focal range of both lenses are defined in FF terms, not APS-C.

So, the 24-70 will give you less at the short end and less at the wide end.

Thank you Wild Mark. I realize now that the 24-70 will perform at 24-70, and the 16-85 will perform as a 16-85, and that the FOV can be dependent on which type camera body I am using (APS-C or Full Frame).

[Wild Mark]

Thank you Wild Mark. I realize now that the 24-70 will perform at 24-70, and the 16-85 will perform as a 16-85, and that the FOV can be dependent on which type camera body I am using (APS-C or Full Frame).

Yes, FF is the standard and APS-C is simply adopting that standard but is clearly a different sensor size (hence altering the FoV outcome).

Change to FF sensor and you get the correct FoV reported for that lens.