Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-01-2017, 05:46 AM - 2 Likes   #31
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,238
I want a full frame 10-300/2.8 which fits in my pocket. Come on, Pentax - get serious or you are DOOOOOOOOMMMED.

05-01-2017, 05:50 AM   #32
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I want a full frame 10-300/2.8 which fits in my pocket. Come on, Pentax - get serious or you are DOOOOOOOOMMMED.
I want that too, why isn't Pentax listening to us? They must be incompetent.
05-01-2017, 08:47 AM   #33
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I want that too, why isn't Pentax listening to us? They must be incompetent.
You will get it when I get my 300-1200 f/4 that weighs less than 4 pounds and is 18 inches long fully extended.
05-01-2017, 09:35 AM   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Or this?
Patent: Canon EF 28-560mm f/2.8-5.6

You have to ask, why 28? Why not 24, or 10?

You know why 560... because Pentax did it.

05-01-2017, 01:12 PM   #35
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
?

We're talking about the K-1 ... check the OP.
I know, but apparently I don't have to own it to contribute in a relevant way.
05-01-2017, 04:38 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I'm sure well eventually see a 24-105 or 24-120, whether it be from Pentax, Sigma, or someone else. Until then, then 24-70mm covers the basics while the 28-105mm is a versatile option for those who bakue compactness.
I think your definition of "eventually" is 5+ years, if ever. Ricoh's strategy is to release lenses slowly so we're unlikely to get such a lens soon. Sigma and Tamron haven't produced new k-mount lenses for a long time. Samyang and similar don't do autofocus zoom yet.
05-01-2017, 04:41 PM   #37
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,558
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
I think your definition of "eventually" is 5+ years, if ever. Ricoh's strategy is to release lenses slowly so we're unlikely to get such a lens soon. Sigma and Tamron haven't produced new k-mount lenses for a long time. Samyang and similar don't do autofocus zoom yet.
Sadly you're probably right!


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:
05-07-2017, 04:45 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I complained for a long time about the 28-105 not being 24. Then I bought the lens and pretty much forgot about it. At this point I'd like a lightweight variable aperture 15-30 to go with it. After all, I have my Sigma 8-16 for my K-3.

Personally, I don't think even 24 saves you form needing an UWA lens. That's my reason for not considering the 16-85, I'd still need my Sigma 8-16, so why switch from my 18-135?
I understand the point of view, but basically this is a personal choice. On a camera like the K1 or any other high pixelized FF, I can see a 24-105 f/4 as doing it all. After that's a 16-70 f/2.5 equiv on APSC and nobody would consider that slow or limiting by any means.

24mm is wide enough so that most landscapes can fit in and often wider view are simply too distorted. 105mm on FF is already some reach but at worst with some crop it is all you need in term of reach outside of specialized application like wildlife. f/4 on FF in particular with K1 low light capabilities is good enough for the bokeh, provide great sharpness and performance, in particular at the longer end.

So that really depend on how you want to see it On my side I do almost everything really with DA15, FA31 and FA77 and I don't feel any limitation with that setup. True when I was in Tanzania for wildlife I used the cheap and nice 55-300 for great results and I use my F135 or DA21 from time to time, but that's about it.

Now why the 28-105 isn't 24-105 and why it is variable apperture? Because it is a kit lens, it is ligtht and cheap. The 28-105 is still an quite interresting range and an equivalent 18-70 f/2.2-3.5 on APSC would certainly be seen quite favorably
05-07-2017, 05:36 AM   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 175
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I agree that's a pain. I have standardized on 77mm filters and wouldn't want to go bigger either. In fact sometimes I'm thinking of going smaller, to 67mm. But most wide angle zooms are 77mm so that's still a no-go. (though I think you are talking about something like a Lee system?)



For landscapes, I personally still want to go wider. Sometimes I left my 12-24 at home because I didn't want to bring too many lenses and my 16-50 could get me wide enough as well. But yeah, I can relate to that filter predicament.

OTOH I've also shot more distant landscapes with the 17-70. I love the versatility of that lens.
DA 17-70 (i have it, and it shines on K3) and DA 16-50 (my son had it) are APS-C. The topic is about K1 FF zooms starting at 24 vs 28 at the wide end.

Do you use these lenses on K1?

---------- Post added 05-07-17 at 02:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I want a full frame 10-300/2.8 which fits in my pocket. Come on, Pentax - get serious or you are DOOOOOOOOMMMED.
300 is too short for wildlife in FF. I want a FF DFA* AW 10-450 f2.8, with built in filters, and not bigger than DA 18-135, and cheaper than DA 28-105!

---------- Post added 05-07-17 at 02:47 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I understand the point of view, but basically this is a personal choice. On a camera like the K1 or any other high pixelized FF, I can see a 24-105 f/4 as doing it all. After that's a 16-70 f/2.5 equiv on APSC and nobody would consider that slow or limiting by any means.

24mm is wide enough so that most landscapes can fit in and often wider view are simply too distorted. 105mm on FF is already some reach but at worst with some crop it is all you need in term of reach outside of specialized application like wildlife. f/4 on FF in particular with K1 low light capabilities is good enough for the bokeh, provide great sharpness and performance, in particular at the longer end.

So that really depend on how you want to see it On my side I do almost everything really with DA15, FA31 and FA77 and I don't feel any limitation with that setup. True when I was in Tanzania for wildlife I used the cheap and nice 55-300 for great results and I use my F135 or DA21 from time to time, but that's about it.

Now why the 28-105 isn't 24-105 and why it is variable apperture? Because it is a kit lens, it is ligtht and cheap. The 28-105 is still an quite interresting range and an equivalent 18-70 f/2.2-3.5 on APSC would certainly be seen quite favorably
On DPreview, several K1 users who have the Holy Trinity FF DFA f2.8 zooms (15-30, 24-70 and 70-200) also bought the DFA 28-105. And they say that, as all the f2.8 zooms are huge, they usually go out with only one of them plus the 28-105 for unexpected occasionnal shots
05-07-2017, 06:01 AM   #40
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Tatouzou Quote
DA 17-70 (i have it, and it shines on K3) and DA 16-50 (my son had it) are APS-C. The topic is about K1 FF zooms starting at 24 vs 28 at the wide end.

Do you use these lenses on K1?
Like I said before, I don't have a K-1. But the 17-70/4 equates to a 26/27-105 in fullframe terms, and the 16-50 equates to a 24-75. I kind of figured people would make that connection.
05-07-2017, 07:20 AM   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Like I said before, I don't have a K-1. But the 17-70/4 equates to a 26/27-105 in fullframe terms, and the 16-50 equates to a 24-75. I kind of figured people would make that connection.
Sometimes people are wanting to know about a particular lens and camera combination, and not generic information on equivalence. I don't have a 17-70, but my guess is the 28-105 on a K-1 is a much higher IQ combo. A lot of us really don't care about equivalence. There are other lens characteristics that are more important.
05-07-2017, 08:35 AM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Sometimes people are wanting to know about a particular lens and camera combination, and not generic information on equivalence. I don't have a 17-70, but my guess is the 28-105 on a K-1 is a much higher IQ combo. A lot of us really don't care about equivalence. There are other lens characteristics that are more important.
The thread is about why the 28-105 starts at 28 and not 24. My posts should be read in that context.

Besides, if people don't care about equivalence, why did they ask if I have a K-1?

Last edited by starbase218; 05-07-2017 at 08:47 AM.
05-07-2017, 08:45 AM   #43
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
The thread is about why the 28-105 starts at 28 and not 24. My posts should be read in that context.

Besides, if you don't care about equivalence, why do you care if I have a K-1?
Because you aren't discussing the 28-105, which is the topic of the thread. I don't care that I have only 18mm wide on my 18-135, because I have the Sigma 8-16 for APS-c. There is no equivalent lens for the K-1. So APS-c and K-1 are in some ways completely different environments. APS-c has lots of choices, the K-1 has very few, and 28 instead of 24 has a completely different context.

With the 15-30 being very big and very expensive, portable 14-27 is a big hole in the K-1 roadmap, whether prime or zoom.
05-07-2017, 09:21 AM   #44
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Because you aren't discussing the 28-105, which is the topic of the thread. I don't care that I have only 18mm wide on my 18-135, because I have the Sigma 8-16 for APS-c. There is no equivalent lens for the K-1. So APS-c and K-1 are in some ways completely different environments. APS-c has lots of choices, the K-1 has very few, and 28 instead of 24 has a completely different context.

With the 15-30 being very big and very expensive, portable 14-27 is a big hole in the K-1 roadmap, whether prime or zoom.
You say you don't care about equivalence, but you also say I can't discuss the 28-105 if I don't have a K-1. Sorry, you lost me.
05-07-2017, 09:41 AM   #45
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
You say you don't care about equivalence, but you also say I can't discuss the 28-105 if I don't have a K-1. Sorry, you lost me.
I usually do.

If you didn't understand the meaning of my post, there's really nothing else I can say.
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, 28mm, 77mm, and/or, consideration, da, dfa, f/4, f2.8, f4, fa, ff, filters, future, hope, k-mount, k1, landscapes, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, pentax-a, pity, reach, slr lens, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pntax 24-90, 28-105, 100-300/4.7..., Tamron 28-300, Sigma 70-300...and new 15-30 jeffreybehr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-19-2016 04:26 AM
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob. LeDave Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 05-16-2016 03:40 AM
What different between SMC K 24/2.8, SMC K 24/3.5 and Takumar SMC 24/3.5 mdmitriy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 07-18-2009 02:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 AM. | 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