Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-19-2017, 06:12 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,183
Does it have to be a zoom lens? Recently there have been a number of really interesting UWA primes. Laowa 12mm and 15mm, Irix 15mm. And of course the Samyang 14mm, 20mm, 24mm. Sure, these lenses have some tradeoffs since they are primes and don't have AF. But they have high image quality, decent aperture, are reasonably compact, not insanely expensive..
Of course, if you want top notch quality with all the features, you have the DFA* 15-30mm waiting for you.

12-19-2017, 07:04 AM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,021
I don't have the k-1, but I did notice that the Da 20-40 had reasonable coverage on ff for some focal lengths. Since 20 was a "nice to have" not a requirement you might also look at sample shots made with this lens to see if you can live within it's limits.
12-19-2017, 07:31 AM   #18
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,977
If you don't meed the absolute best in IQ and don't need to pixel peep, and if you can find one, the Tamron 24-135 is a great walk around lens. I have to admit it spends a lot of time on my K1 for normal photography.
12-19-2017, 01:46 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 181
Original Poster
Great, another harvest of nice suggestions =)!

QuoteOriginally posted by Gedeon Quote
yes the sigma 21-35mm is manual

an exemple from last hour, in front of my home
Looks good (but then again most lenses do at 7 and image reduced in size..), but for this I must have AF...won't have time to focus manually many time, but thanks for the suggestion!

QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I have no problem pixel peeping with my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM.
Ah great, then I'll add it to the "candidates" list to research more! A quick look at the reviews indicates that many feel it's not quite there at 2.8, but if can still be an ok solution for the time being if the price is right. (but seems it can be a bit pricey..). The sigma 20-40 2.8 mentioned above maybe has a chance of being better if speculating due to less of a zoom, but then again the HSM may be a generation newer...will look into them.

QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Does it have to be a zoom lens? Recently there have been a number of really interesting UWA primes. Laowa 12mm and 15mm, Irix 15mm. And of course the Samyang 14mm, 20mm, 24mm. Sure, these lenses have some tradeoffs since they are primes and don't have AF. But they have high image quality, decent aperture, are reasonably compact, not insanely expensive..
Of course, if you want top notch quality with all the features, you have the DFA* 15-30mm waiting for you.
Yes, agree, I've seen those and they look promising, but I'm afraid for this I'll need the zoom to avoid switching lenses, and also AF...all for not having time (to switch or focus manually).

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I don't have the k-1, but I did notice that the Da 20-40 had reasonable coverage on ff for some focal lengths. Since 20 was a "nice to have" not a requirement you might also look at sample shots made with this lens to see if you can live within it's limits.
Interesting...I more or less started with the summary-thread about DA lenses on FF by falc (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/54-pentax-lens-articles/31629-da-lenses-...ts-thread.html) and it wasn't there so I assumed it was hopelessly DA-sized...but it seems not! But after looking into the details, it seems to be a bit too much limitations (24-40 ok wide open, but vignette here and there if stopping down etc...) so, I think there are other better suggestions for now....if only they could make it FF that would be what I need.

QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
If you don't meed the absolute best in IQ and don't need to pixel peep, and if you can find one, the Tamron 24-135 is a great walk around lens. I have to admit it spends a lot of time on my K1 for normal photography.
I was hoping for end-game quality so I don't have to buy another lens in this range ever again =), but if I find one at a nice price I'm sure I could work for some time...but not my ideal solution for this, rather have a 20-40 that is faster and better IQ.

---------- Post added 12-19-2017 at 10:05 PM ----------

A quick recap and clarification in case I get more suggestions:

Requirements:
- Focal range: at least 24-35 but preferably 20-40 or even 70 if possible
- Aperture: No smaller than F4, but 2.8 would be nice
- AF is required
- WR: Nice but not required
- Size: I'll say it doesn't matter (and perhaps complain after a few years..)
- Price: Could go as far as say $1250 for an endgame-never-look-at-this-range-again 24-70*-lens with edge-edge-sharpness from 2.8, AW etc etc, (doesn't exist), but if offering less the price needs to be less.

Temporary solutions not fulfilling it all also considered =)

As it stands now of "qualifying" lenses; DFA24-70 seems to be the best overall, but I'm reluctant due to price at 67% of the 70-200* -lens while having less sharp edges than for example 28-105 at F4. Sigma 20-40 F2.8 could be promising, but seems rare. F/FA 20-35 and 24-50 are possible candidates, but I'll have to have a closer look, and reviews aren't as raving ("just" positive) as they'd be for an endgame lens I think, but they (and sigma 24-70 hsm) could be an ok solution for a time if I find one at a good price. And I have the Tokina 20-35, but it has some strange glow so IQ isn't quite there.


Last edited by Igor123; 12-19-2017 at 02:06 PM.
12-19-2017, 02:10 PM   #20
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,462
QuoteOriginally posted by Igor123 Quote

Yes, the F/FA of this lens seem ok, and you mention film, which is always something but I hoped to see if someone can compare any of them to a more modern lens on digital, but thanks for the input! (Or did you use it on digital as well, and if so on what bodies?)
Yes, on film for years, and on my D*ist, K-7, K-5 and of course , now on my K-1, (which it had patiently been waiting some 17years for...........)

Always looked great on digital, no problems, and it is known for being sharp.

I see plenty of peoples sample pics from the lens in the reviews.


Arrrr
cmohr
12-19-2017, 02:51 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by Igor123 Quote
I have seen and read similar threads, so forgive me if I'm redundant, but I haven't seen the exact requirement, or a suggestion that fits me in those, so I'll try a new thread. Feel free to point me to an answer otherwise! =)

When shooting in tight quarters with my K5, the DA12-24 has been a miracle in IQ vs zoomrange. Sure, a tad slow, but my copy has been all but a stack of primes. Now I got a K1 and want to maximize the sensor, so I want a similar, or even perhaps not as wide lens for FF (barely used 12mm, or 14). I thought I was prepared, but turns out I'm not quite after having tried my options so I need advice.

First what I want and what I miss:
- I have realized I very rarely go below 14 and could make by on 16mm apsc even, so a 24mm FF will be ok - I don't like the distortions that follow below (16mm apsc)
- Focal length of up 35mm is nice, but if longer, that would be great to reduce the need to swap lenses.
- I rarely used 20mm equiv, but would be a plus if I got it (instead of "just" 24)
- 28mm is too narrow
- I don't think I'm that sensitive to weight/size, so in theory the 24-70 could do it ...BUT

Entering pentax-land 10 years ago as a student on very limited budget, having time to swap and use old great manual primes with SR to get super IQ, was the main lure with pentax (their edges may not have been up to standard, but they were ff primes so on apsc it was great). Now I have more funds, and can sell some gear to get the 24-70...BUT being the first lens in that class that I'd buy (unless the 12-24 counts), I'm somewhat bummed that it doesn't seem to be quite up there on the top, "just" very high...edge sharpness is only "ok" from several reviews (beaten by the 28-105 at F4, but 28 is too long and F4 is ok but rather 2.8 if possible). I think I'd even be willing to pay 30-50% more for a *-endgame-lens of 24-70 if that existed...Now I'd get "just" good glass for more or less *-money (currently the 24-70 sells for $1k and 70-200* for 1.5k and that's a lot more glass metal and *-rating), which doesn't sit great with me going for the 24-70.

So what have I tried:
- Using the 12-24 in FF mode...sure at 24mm it more or less covers ff, but is only great in the 1:1 -part..the edges aren't great even at 24. Also having a bit more lenght when isolating subjects would be nice instead of cropping.
- I got the Tokina 20-35 F3.5-4.5. It's said to be even sharper than the 2.8 version, and well, its good for focal length and acceptable speed, but even if sharpness is barely ok, it has some kind of glow...not as good as the 12-24 and having to stop down to 5.6 or more to get there is taking it too far for me to be satisfied.
- I had the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro (non-hsm) on the K5 a few years, but sold it due to not great wide open iq (even on aps-c).

What I have seen that might fit?:
The F20-35: Looks like nice range and so on, but ratings maybe don't place it far above the tokina...is it any better?
The F24-50: Nice range and supposed to have better newer ghostless coatings, but again, ratings are good, but is it the end-game I want?
Sigma 24-70 HSM? Supposed to be better than the one I had but good enough, or at least good enough for the price?

Other thoughts:
- Tamron 28-75, ok for the price, but 28 is too narrow
- 28-105 DFA seems nice, but 28mm would force me to swap lenses, so 24mm is max for me now, preferably 20
- The 15-30 is a little bit too short perhaps and a lot of money spent on the wrong end of the zoom for this case - I want to avoid swapping if possible when indoors, 35mm is min for the upper limit to have at least a shot at portrait-ish pics.

So to sum it up, I have the funds now if selling gear, which I think I have, but i don't have time to be swapping primes, and would like something that covers at least 24-35-ish and preferably 20-40 or more, F4 can be ok but 2.8 is better, WR is a plus of course, and must be AF. Is there anything for me? (if considering the DFA24-70 is a little bit to little for too much money or not quite endgame)?

(If that's relevant, I'd then reduce my gear to this lens, Tamron 70-200, F*300 4.5, A400 5.6, and probably not be able to part with the F50 1.7, but the idea is that I won't consider it worth swapping to the 50 if this lens, whatever is recommended, is on the camera)

Thanks!
I have both the FA20-35mm F4 and the Tokina 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 and yes the Pentax FA20-35mm is definitely a better lens at least on my K-5iis. The Tokina holds it own and is also a very good choice if you need the range. Money-wise the Tokina is at least 50% cheaper than the Pentax FA version and a good buy. You may want to consider the Pentax-FA 24-90mm F3.5-4.5 as it works pretty well on APSC and show folks have felt it worked pretty decently on the K1.

Last edited by eminker; 12-19-2017 at 04:53 PM. Reason: Spelling
12-19-2017, 03:11 PM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cmohr Quote
Yes, on film for years, and on my D*ist, K-7, K-5 and of course , now on my K-1, (which it had patiently been waiting some 17years for...........)

Always looked great on digital, no problems, and it is known for being sharp.

I see plenty of peoples sample pics from the lens in the reviews.


Arrrr
cmohr
Ok thanks, seems to be going to the shortlist then! (about the sample pics on the review page they're mostly in good conditions/downsampled/and or stopped down, so hard to tell lenses apart in quality from that.. but I'll try to google around for more)

---------- Post added 12-19-2017 at 11:13 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by eminker Quote
I have both the FA20-35mm F4 and the Tokina 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 and yes the Pentax FA20-35mm is definitely a better lens at least on my K-5iis. The Tokina holds it own and is also a very good choice is you need the range. Money wise the Tokina is at least 50% cheaper than the Pentax FA version and a good buy. You may want to consider the Pentax-FA 24-90mm F3.5-4.5 as it works pretty well on APSC and show folks have felt it worked pretty decently on the K1.
Ok, great to hear! Then it seems to be an upgrade and if getting rid of the glow (at least in my copy) it'll probably be alright for the most part. Now let's see about what the offers look like...
12-19-2017, 04:28 PM - 1 Like   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,628
Get the Pentax DFA 24-70.

Maybe the edges aren't as sharp wide open as some alternatives. It doesn't matter for typical(*) scenes because things at the edges are going to be at varying distances from the center; you'll still have to stop down for depth of field regardless of how sharp the lens might be.

(*) Landscapes, architecture, and many other 3D scenes. If you frequently photograph flat 2D artwork, documents, or blank brick walls in low light while holding the camera, then edge to edge sharpness at f2.8 will be more important to you than I think it is.

12-19-2017, 05:04 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by Igor123 Quote
Ok thanks, seems to be going to the shortlist then! (about the sample pics on the review page they're mostly in good conditions/downsampled/and or stopped down, so hard to tell lenses apart in quality from that.. but I'll try to google around for more)

---------- Post added 12-19-2017 at 11:13 PM ----------



Ok, great to hear! Then it seems to be an upgrade and if getting rid of the glow (at least in my copy) it'll probably be alright for the most part. Now let's see about what the offers look like...
The Glow may be flare which Tokina doesn't handle as well as the Pentax (better coatings). Only rule to avoid flare is to use lens and don't shot directly at the Sun.
12-19-2017, 07:03 PM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,689
This has been an interesting thread. The main reasons for going to a good FF body it seems are- better high ISO/low noise performance, better for wide angle to normal and short telephoto with lower distortion and able to design this FOV with a faster lens, more DOF control, and to use good legacy glass in their original FOV. The latter is my own main interest. The Tokina AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 came in three models. The earliest was one having a 72mm filter size and was highly rated for sharpness, but had some serious vignetting at wider apertures. Then came the 2nd one which has a 77mm filter size, and tested out to be actually 19mm, still with metal-body construction and a fine lens overall. Last came the 19-35mm in a plastic body construction, but of good quality, and was less expensive. It was probably the same optics as the previous model.

@Igor123- If your very fine DA 12-24mm f/4 was delivering the goods (I also have one and agree) what was your reason for going to the K-1? For landscape use, is deeper DOF control that important? Why not go for a KP which has near the same advantages of high ISO/low noise and advanced resolution, better AF, etc and save yourself some weight-carrying?

Now that you have your K-1, I address your question. While test charts, DxO, lens-teeing machines, etc can be a useful guide to a point, I am always very interested to see how a lens performs when taking an actual image compared to another highly-rated lens. As to corner softness, let us not forget we are talking about corners, of which there are only four to a frame. A very small percentage of the photo. In reality, how much important information do we find in a corner, and how often? Edges are obviously much more important, though they are not always important.

So let us take a look at test shots of the same subjects. I think we should disregard the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 because Canon chose not to include image stabilization, as one reviewer commented, to achieve the greatest-possible sharpness. Well, what? I'm sorry, but SR can be an advantage at slower shutter speeds, even at 24-70mm, so there goes any sharpness advantage on a test bench, unless for tripod use only- then there goes the versatility of a 24-70mm walk around lens.

Google the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. When they come up, disregard the G2 version, and look for the test on Imaging Resource of the Di VC USD SP version, which is the counterpart of the Pentax DFA lens. There are more tests of the Tamron than the Pentax. When you get this test up, scroll down to the still life test shot. On the way down, you will notice several alternative lenses which have been tested in the same shot. We will come back later to compare the VR version of the Nikon, which was done using the same camera as used with the Tamron. Now go on down to the test shot for the Tamron and click on it. Up will come two tests of that shot with this lens, one APS-C, which be sure to disregard and use the FF one with the Nikon D800e camera- click on 24mm f/2.8. You will now get a high-res image. Forget corners, let's look at edges. To your right will be a cup with 2 bruhes and a numbers chart. Put your pointer between the far right brush and the numbers chart and click. Now you will have a super blowup very near an edge. You can judge for yourself how much sharpness or lack in this extreme blowup. Click again to go back- now put you pointer on the lettering at the bottom of the Samuel Smith label, also near an edge. Look at this, then go down to the charts lying below. You will see some added softness creep in but only right at the very, very edge!

Click aging to go back then close the page. Then close the page showing the 2 images with the APS-C shot. Now you are back to the main teat page, and go up to the Nikon VR lens, click on it and to scroll down to do the same examination, being sure it is the FF one. While you are there, also check out the 70mm shot. Unfortunately, the two lenses are tested differently at middle FLs- 35mm for Nikon and 50mm for Tamron. When you are finished and are back to the Nikon lens main test page, use your back button to get back to the Tamron main test page and check out the FF 70mm test in the same spots of the image. I think you will find the Nikon to be better at the longer FLs. but not so at 28mm and probably not so at 35mm. So in the mainly shorter FL range of your concern, what is your impression in this actual scene? Even the Nikon's better results at 70mm were just at the very edge area. Going inward just a little, and the two are quite similar. Remember-this is a very extreme blowup and I think even this difference will be unnoticeable in normal size viewing. And not to forget- the DA 12-24mm is wide open at f/4 so with any of these 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, there will be some improvement at f/4.

Last edited by mikesbike; 12-20-2017 at 02:15 AM.
12-20-2017, 07:43 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
@Igor123- If your very fine DA 12-24mm f/4 was delivering the goods (I also have one and agree) what was your reason for going to the K-1? For landscape use, is deeper DOF control that important? Why not go for a KP which has near the same advantages of high ISO/low noise and advanced resolution, better AF, etc and save yourself some weight-carrying?
Why the K-1 instead of aps-c? My reason for going FF were a little bit of almost everything:
- AF: The K-5 AF was ok for non-moving objects in ok light, and now having small kids, taking pics of them was a pain, ever so slight movement towards or away from the camera and the AF wouldn't cope, especially if a bit dark in the room. I know the K-1 may not be in canikon predictive league, but som far I'm satisfied, a big improvement. Newer apsc bodies probablu have better af too but more on that below.
- Alternatives and IQ: I tried to wait until the K-3II replacement was released to see what's new, but it never came, so there was the KP or the K-3II in apcs-c. Both certainly being great cameras, but I was afraid it wasn't really much of an upgrade except for af, and some resolution at the price of pixel size, resulting in about the same overall snr/DR. While resolution is nice in good light, the k5 had base iso 80 with it's deeper bin in the sensor resulting in better DR in those cases over the newer cameras, and no slouch in high iso, even if the KP seems to be a next gen there.
- Glass: All glass I have except for the DA12-24 is FF, so I would make better use of it. Perhaps I've been anticipating an FF upgrade for years, or just enjoyed the improved edges on apcs of using ff glass, but thats how it is.

So I felt the K1 was the only worthwhile upgrade available, and it also kept the pixel pitch of the K5 (meaning the glass I have would not look softer per pixel except for edges/vignetting effects), it had the better focus, slightly better per-pixel dr and snr etc, so together with the doubling of sensor size, would perhaps give me at least "1.5 stops of better IQ" (and the AA filter removal, but all newer cameras had that). Then there are some fun/minor things like astotracer, pixel shift, wifi, gps, the third wheel and some more that made me feel it was worth the price difference.

My plan was that the DA could be used as a 24mm prime, but the edges aren't there...and then I want to be able to take images of both an entire room and individuals without switching lenses (no time for that with kids...), and 24 on ff only covers the room part (to be fair, it barely did the individual part on apcs either), so using it as a prime is a lot less convenient, even if I accept the edges.

---------- Post added 12-20-2017 at 03:44 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
Now that you have your K-1, I address your question. While test charts, DxO, lens-teeing machines, etc can be a useful guide to a point, I am always very interested to see how a lens performs when taking an actual image compared to another highly-rated lens. As to corner softness, let us not forget we are talking about corners, of which there are only four to a frame. A very small percentage of the photo. In reality, how much important information do we find in a corner, and how often? Edges are obviously much more important, though they are not always important.

So let us take a look at test shots of the same subjects. I think we should disregard the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 because Canon chose not to include image stabilization, as one reviewer commented, to achieve the greatest-possible sharpness. Well, what? I'm sorry, but SR can be an advantage at slower shutter speeds, even at 24-70mm, so there goes any sharpness advantage on a test bench, unless for tripod use only- then there goes the versatility of a 24-70mm walk around lens.

Google the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. When they come up, disregard the G2 version, and look for the test on Imaging Resource of the Di VC USD SP version, which is the counterpart of the Pentax DFA lens. There are more tests of the Tamron than the Pentax. When you get this test up, scroll down to the still life test shot. On the way down, you will notice several alternative lenses which have been tested in the same shot. We will come back later to compare the VR version of the Nikon, which was done using the same camera as used with the Tamron. Now go on down to the test shot for the Tamron and click on it. Up will come two tests of that shot with this lens, one APS-C, which be sure to disregard and use the FF one with the Nikon D800e camera- click on 24mm f/2.8. You will now get a high-res image. Forget corners, let's look at edges. To your right will be a cup with 2 bruhes and a numbers chart. Put your pointer between the far right brush and the numbers chart and click. Now you will have a super blowup very near an edge. You can judge for yourself how much sharpness or lack in this extreme blowup. Click again to go back- now put you pointer on the lettering at the bottom of the Samuel Smith label, also near an edge. Look at this, then go down to the charts lying below. You will see some added softness creep in but only right at the very, very edge!

Click aging to go back then close the page. Then close the page showing the 2 images with the APS-C shot. Now you are back to the main teat page, and go up to the Nikon VR lens, click on it and to scroll down to do the same examination, being sure it is the FF one. While you are there, also check out the 70mm shot. Unfortunately, the two lenses are tested differently at middle FLs- 35mm for Nikon and 50mm for Tamron. When you are finished and are back to the Nikon lens main test page, use your back button to get back to the Tamron main test page and check out the FF 70mm test in the same spots of the image. I think you will find the Nikon to be better at the longer FLs. but not so at 28mm and probably not so at 35mm. So in the mainly shorter FL range of your concern, what is your impression in this actual scene? Even the Nikon's better results at 70mm were just at the very edge area. Going inward just a little, and the two are quite similar. Remember-this is a very extreme blowup and I think even this difference will be unnoticeable in normal size viewing. And not to forget- the DA 12-24mm is wide open at f/4 so with any of these 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, there will be some improvement at f/4.
With that out of the way, now to the image comparisons you suggested: I looked at the images you suggested, and the tamron/pentax does indeed look good (about the Nikon comparison; I wonder if they didn't accidently switch the f2.8 and 8 test chaarts at 24mm, I take it the softer is at 2.8), and they also had the sigma HSM showing a vignetted blotch in the corner so that is out of the game (unless as a tempirary solution if at a great price).

But in short, yes, this is something I can live with and not think about too much. What remains now against it is the thing about dfa 28-105 being edge-to-edge sharper at f4 while this cost 67% of the dfa*70-200 while not being quite there (evidently it's possible to improve)....I guess im nitpicking borderline being unreasonable =), but say for the same price as the tamron goes for other brands it would be a deal for me.

So in short, I guess now I'll be looking for that kind of comparisons with she sigma 20-40 and F/FA 20-35 or 24-50, and then either get the 24-70 and silently think that I paid a little bit too much or get one of the others cheaper and silently think that I should have gone with the 24-70...

Either way, the holidays are next and I won't have much time to think about this or research and I'll get to try the K1 some more indoors with what I have (and a da 35 f2.4 that I found at a good price in the mail now) and probably decide next year what to do. Thanks for the pointer to imaging resource...too bad they didn't have more penax lenses lab tests there (I saw some but somewhat weird selection I think)...

Thanks a lot for now everyone!

Last edited by Igor123; 12-20-2017 at 07:56 AM.
12-20-2017, 09:03 AM   #27
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,977
Looks like you want to do a one and done purchase. If that is the case get the DFA 24-70 since it ticks all your boxes and is arguably the best one for the K1, plus unlike anything else in its range is WR.
12-20-2017, 09:54 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
Looks like you want to do a one and done purchase. If that is the case get the DFA 24-70 since it ticks all your boxes and is arguably the best one for the K1, plus unlike anything else in its range is WR.
If I can get that for a reasonable price yes (say $1300), but I'm not sure I feel the 24-70 is the one and done just quite...and it seems pentax agrees, it's not a *...but I'll probably be happy enough a long time, maybe 10 years until the * is released =). Well, guess I need to start preparing to sell a bunch of lenses to fund it...(not a bad thing really, feels liberating to be down to just a handful great lenses, and also saving time when deciding what to bring as well). In 10 years when the kids are grown (enough) I can maybe start looking at primes again!
12-20-2017, 03:00 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,689
Yes, I know of the shortcomings of AF with the K-5, although it is otherwise a fine camera. When I also acquired a K-5 IIs in a great closeout deal after the K-3 came out, I found AF had improved noticeably with it when using some of my lenses. Now, I've found the KP's AF to be yet better indeed, as well as other advancements, resolution included. It is a great camera. But the K-5 IIs is still "no slouch" as you've said.

As to edge softness, as you've seen, I don't think it is a meaningful issue with the DFA 24-70mm lens. And I recall seeing, during a thread on the DA 18-135mm, someone posted good success with software for post-processing by DxO which could correct edge softness! Cheaper than replacing a lens!
12-22-2017, 10:33 PM   #30
Veteran Member
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bologna, Amsterdam, Chiang Mai
Posts: 1,092
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
K-1 + 20-40 lim perfect combination for street photography? - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

Sigma 20-40 f2.8 is mentioned in that thread along with others mentioned above.
I own the Sigma EX DG HSM 2.8/24-70mm. Should be the penultimate version, if I remember correctly.
I have been impressed by its performance.
Much better than expected, especially if stopped down a notch or two.
Got mine second hand, and found it pretty decent on APS-C.
When I purchased my K-1 I sent it to the official Sigma repair center for bayonet replacement, together with a 120-400mm.
I found that the bayonet has to be replaced only on the very latest model, but they found that the lens was out of whack.
After the replacement of two main parts, and the firmware upgrade, I got back a wonderful objective, the only zoom I'm actively using.
Maybe the new Pentax/Tamron would be a tad better, but I don't think the difference would be enough to justify the expense.
If I need fast lenses, very good corner to corner performance with little vignetting and/or distortion, or I just need a small, light objective, I go for a prime.
I don't mind using MF lenses, in particular wide angles, so if size/weight is not a problem I use a Samyang.
With the 24mm I just bought, and with the 14mm and 35mm I already have, the most used wides are covered.
Found the two more expensive ones second hand, and bought the 14mm new for a good price.
All together they were far less expensive than a Pentax/Tamron 15-30mm, perform more or less at the same level, and are way faster.
The trade-off is no WR, no AF, some more weight, and a lot more bulk.
If/when I need to travel light, 2 or 3 petite vintage primes are not bulkier than a modern zoom and work more than decently if used at their sweet spot.
There are many fully manual ones (I love the 28mm and 35mm options of the first SMC Pentax line), but there are good AF options too. The Pentax-FA 2/35mm, the Pentax-FA 2.8/28mm and the Sigma Ultra-Wide II AF 2.8/24mm are three good examples. The 28mm can be expensive, the Sigma Mini-Wide (AF or MF) is a cheaper alternative.
Wider than 24mm there are very few cheap and small vintage options. The Pentax-M 20mm is one, but prices have gone up a lot.
Unlike vintage "normal" FF/35mm lenses, and fast short teles, that I often find preferable to modern zooms, strong wides made 30 or 40 years ago don't have such a special rendition, are not faster, and need to be stopped down to medium diaphragms to play in the same league.
For these reasons I'm using a first-version Tokina 20-35mm, which is light, relatively small, and works well enough on the K-1 stopped down a little. Maybe my example is particularly good, maybe I'm not after extreme sharpness, but I'm satisfied. What annoys me the most is the bulky original hood, that can't be fitted reversed.

Three examples of the Sigma 2.8/24-70mm HSM, none at its sweet spot.
Third is at f/3.5 48mm.
First and second at 70mm and 24mm in full diffraction zone (f/32).
The leaves in the third pictures are good even at 100%. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 the quality is as good as i need, even at the extremes of the range.
The photos aren't great, are just the latest i took with the zoom, but definitely this lens isn't a sloppy one







For pixel peepers.
Click on the photo to get to Flickr, and download it in original size.
100% jpg conversion with NO PP.
Shot at f/3.5



I don't have with me anything shot with the Tokina AT-X 20-35mm (first version) wide open.
Most are f/32 shots to blur the water... forgot my ND filters and also forgot the intervalometer option of the K-1, oopps

Cheers

Paolo

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 12-23-2017 at 06:03 AM.
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!
24mm, apsc, bit, f3.5-4.5, fa20-35mm, ff, gear, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, pics, price, primes, quality, sample, sigma, slr lens, solution, suggestions, swap, tamron, time, tokina
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Lather, rinse, repeat. gifthorse Post Your Photos! 5 08-30-2018 10:01 AM
Menu>Custom>Change AF Point Button>Type1 or Type2 BruceBanner Pentax K-1 6 10-02-2017 06:48 PM
People My New Baby >>> NOTE: I paid a photographer Blacknight659 Post Your Photos! 7 10-06-2016 02:25 PM
Ricoh GR WR >>> Anybody? Blacknight659 Pentax Compact Cameras 5 07-15-2016 05:30 PM
Greeting every one >>>picture from THAILAND ballbkk Post Your Photos! 15 02-05-2009 01:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 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