[Ikarus]

I have to admit, I have no idea what you are doing or why you are doing it. You lost me.

Evidently. I was trying to prove to you that subtracting the mean rating before computing the ratio results in a more sensible rank ordering of the lenses.

[Sandy Hancock]

You really want my opinion? I think the SMCP-FA 31mm ASPH Limited lens is the best Pentax lens - why? it does everything well. Aside from some correctable CA issues, the lens can handle any subject matter you can throw at it and deliver an artful rendering of it.

^THIS.

And the bit about it being a ridiculous question. But I think everyone's taking the original post a little more seriously than it was intended.

For what it's worth, I've had a few of Pentax's better primes go though my hands. I can't imagine parting with the FA31, FA77, DFA100WR or DA*300 ever. For what they do, they will continue to be the best I need.

[normhead]

Evidently. I was trying to prove to you that subtracting the mean rating before computing the ratio results in a more sensible rank ordering of the lenses.

And why would that be true?

The higher the mean rating of the lens, the more you subtract. You're effectively punishing the lens for being good. That's hardly more fair.

[Na Horuk]

Guys, remember, OP is not really asking what the best ever prime is. OP did an experiment as to what the user reviews could be interpreted as claiming. And its an interesting result, something to think about. Doesn't mean we should all just buy M 50mm f2 and sell all out other gear. I think most of us can agree that's not even the best 50mm, much less best, sharpest, fastest, most evoking prime ever.

* I'm not saying you cannot photograph a landscape with a 200mm lens. I have personally used 600mm lenses for such purposes, but there isn't much call for it.

I agree with your overall point, but I have to leave this here: Post your Telephoto Landscapes! - Page 11 - PentaxForums.com

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 10-11-2017 at 06:45 AM.

[normhead]

Guys, remember, OP is not really asking what the best ever prime is. OP did an experiment as to what the user reviews could be interpreted as claiming. And its an interesting result, something to think about. Doesn't mean we should all just buy M 50mm f2 and sell all out other gear


I agree with your overall point, but I have to leave this here: Post your Telephoto Landscapes! - Page 11 - PentaxForums.com

The lens rating system is good, if and only if you look at the posted images, find some images you'd like to emulate, and then look at that guy's rating. Looking at ratings given by people shooting images you'd never want to take is a waste of time. That's always been true, at least for me.

It's intuitive, find the people who do what you want to do, then ask how they get the results they do, including their lens choices.

This forum is the best in terms of people sharing what they do. The lens rating system is just part of that. It's a resource, if it's too complicated for you, don't use it. Easy scheasy.

[Ikarus]

And why would that be true?

The higher the mean rating of the lens, the more you subtract. You're effectively punishing the lens for being good. That's hardly more fair.

The original post used "dollars over rating" and sorted low to high. I used "mean-subtracted rating over dollars" and sorted high to low, the benefit being that you avoid division by zero for a lens that hits the mean rating.

[normhead]

The original post used "dollars over rating" and sorted low to high. I used "mean-subtracted rating over dollars" and sorted high to low, the benefit being that you avoid division by zero for a lens that hits the mean rating.

Ah, well OK then. I tend to reject such math operations , such as "dollars over rating" in any case. I must have blocked it out. Just because you can do math, doesn't make your results in any way meaningful. You need a well thought out meaningful formula to give you meaningful results.

Lenses are such that there is a law of diminishing returns, the cheapest lenses give you the best bang per buck, the more expensive lenses should be purchased only if you really need what they have to offer. Top quality comes at a premium, but it's only worth it if your work flow is such that you actually make use of it. And that is not a given.

Owning a great lens, and being able to make use of the properties that make the lens great are two different things.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

FA50/2.8 Macro = 110 Lpmm @ f/5.6.

Done and Done.

And unlike the 200mm macros and the 135/1.8 the F/FA/DFA 50mm macro is common and inexpensive. And it belongs on the top 10 list. Underpriced. Everyone should get one!

[normhead]

And unlike the 200mm macros and the 135/1.8 the F/FA/DFA 50mm macro is common and inexpensive. And it belongs on the top 10 list. Underpriced. Everyone should get one!

I got mine, but it's been displaced by the D AF 100 Macro 2.8 WR on the K-1. I'd still consider it as an option on APS-c.

[Wheatfield]

If you want to rate lenses by "bang for the buck" that's fine. What you will be ignoring is that the money/quality scale is one of diminishing returns.
Since your thread title is what us the best pentax lens, you are moving the goalposts before you even started.
If your purchases are dictated by bang for the buck you will be forever using second tier equipment.

[UncleVanya]

Having owned the FA 77 Limited and the A* 85 - and many many more top tier lenses I can say that the differences between upper end lenses and each other is small and even the lower end lenses have improved greatly over the years. The limitations on most photographs are photographer generated - but there are edge cases where these things of beauty are needed.

My A* 85 was the finest lens I think I have ever owned. I sold it (no regrets) due to lose of visual acuity and ability to focus a manual focus lens accurately - I replaced it with the FA 77 Limited and had money left over. The FA 77 may not be the full equal of the FA* 85 (I too trust LeRolls on this point) but it offers a large fraction of the same stunning image quality at a much smaller size. I also think no one prime can possibly be the "best" since so much depends on what you want to accomplish.

[Rondec]

If you want to rate lenses by "bang for the buck" that's fine. What you will be ignoring is that the money/quality scale is one of diminishing returns.
Since your thread title is what us the best pentax lens, you are moving the goalposts before you even started.
If your purchases are dictated by bang for the buck you will be forever using second tier equipment.

It is tough. Probably the best deals on Pentax lenses are the DA 50, DA 35, and 50 macro, just because of their low cost. Lenses like the DFA zooms may be nice, but they are also pretty expensive.

But the question always used to come up how much better the FA 31 limited was than the FA 35. This was particularly a big deal when the FA 35 was available for 260 US Dollars, while the FA 31 was in the 800 range. All sorts of people want to know what you get for the extra 500 dollars other than better build. The same would be true now for the DA 35 and the FA 31 or the DA 50 and the DA *55.

I suppose the answer is if you look at photos and can't really tell the difference then you should probably go for the cheaper lens.

[normhead]

I suppose the answer is if you look at photos and can't really tell the difference then you should probably go for the cheaper lens.

That is the most important issue. What can you see? What looks good to you?

We compared pictures Tess and I took of an Eastern Red Wolf me with the DA*60-250 and her with the Sigma 18-250. The subject was the same but the DA*60-250 had slightly better bokeh. She never happily used the 18-250 again and we eventually gave it away. Once she saw what the difference was, she saw it in every photograph taken with it. Initially she didn't see it, I had to point it out. once I did so, it was the end of that lens. Ignorance is bliss, and knowledge can cost you money.

But like Tess, someone shooting with the 18-250 won't see the difference because they are looking in the wrong place. They are looking at the subject, which at close distance even with my cheapest lens is pretty good.

And as a commentator, if someone comes on the forum all happy to be owning the Sigma 30 1.4 and claiming it's better than the 31 ltd. that's a disaster.
If the guy would just say "I'm really happy with my Sigma 30 1.4." that would be the end of it. But they have to add "It's better than the 31 ltd." And then the fight starts.

---------- Post added 10-11-17 at 02:45 PM ----------

If you want to rate lenses by "bang for the buck" that's fine. What you will be ignoring is that the money/quality scale is one of diminishing returns.
Since your thread title is what us the best pentax lens, you are moving the goalposts before you even started.
If your purchases are dictated by bang for the buck you will be forever using second tier equipment.

And then you buy or borrow a top quality lens, and all the sudden it's the only lens you want to use and all that "best bang for buck" stuff sits on the shelf. Once you catch on to what you get for the extra money, that's it, you're spoiled, there's no going back.

(Not that I've ever experienced something like that.)

My advice to those with those 18-55 - 70-300 type lenses is "Use it as long as you can because it's going to cost you a pile of money when they aren't good enough anymore."

[UncleVanya]

It is tough. Probably the best deals on Pentax lenses are the DA 50, DA 35, and 50 macro, just because of their low cost. Lenses like the DFA zooms may be nice, but they are also pretty expensive.

But the question always used to come up how much better the FA 31 limited was than the FA 35. This was particularly a big deal when the FA 35 was available for 260 US Dollars, while the FA 31 was in the 800 range. All sorts of people want to know what you get for the extra 500 dollars other than better build. The same would be true now for the DA 35 and the FA 31 or the DA 50 and the DA *55.

I suppose the answer is if you look at photos and can't really tell the difference then you should probably go for the cheaper lens.

Honestly I own both the FA 31 and FA 35. They are not that different in many situations. There are differences. The FA 35 is sharper at the same f stop across the frame. The 3d rendering is close but not quite the same. If my FA 35 had not been dropped and lost Autofocus I would probably sell my FA 31 since I am not using it as much as I should.

[Sandy Hancock]

The FA 77 may not be the full equal of the FA* 85 (I too trust LeRolls on this point) but it offers a large fraction of the same stunning image quality at a much smaller size.

Yep.

I have been using the FA*85 daily this month, and one thing the process has done is made me realise how wonderful the FA77 is. At f/1.8 the output is almost indistinguishable, and at wider apertures I'm not really warming to the 85. I am also an admirer of Chris' glamour photography, but his earlier work with the 77 on crop was already excellent. Who's to say any improvement since he got the FA*85 has not been due to developing skills with lighting, model interaction and post processing (and the K-1) rather than the new lens?