Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-30-2018, 01:29 PM   #31
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
In fact, you should be happy to have it for about half the price and not complaining that it still too much.
"Shut up and be grateful that this lens you don't want is half the price of its competitors!" LOL.

01-30-2018, 01:30 PM   #32
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 78
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
You're difficult to follow... Have you noticed that the Canon and Nikon lenses you gave as references in your first post cost $1800 and $2400 ? But you find that the equivalent $1100 Pentax lens is too costly and isn't even worth renting for 100$ ? And that you hope to find the same level of performance in a 40$ lens ? Are we to understand that your complain isn't that Pentax doesn't make 2.8 lenses but rather is that Pentax doesn't sell you for $200 what Canon and Nikon sell you for $2000 ?
Not hard to follow at all if you listen instead of trying to assign positions and box me into something easier to attack and write off than listen to.

Here's a start to finish walk through of my thoughts if it's too difficult to follow the thread or OP:

I know exactly what the Canikon glass costs. Where's the Pentax equivalent? It doesn't exist. Pentax has a $1100 option whose specs read the same, but rendering isn't even in the same universe, let alone ballpark. That's not an acceptable alternative, especially for $1100. I don't know who would pay $1100 for flat, kit lens rendering just to get f2.8. If they wanted to sell it as a fast kit lens upgrade for $500, whose images would be indistinguishable from a cheap Sigma of the same price, I'd think about it. But for $1100 I wouldn't buy it with someone else's money. BUT, if they wanted to actually offer a revamped FA* 28-70 or redesigned 24-70 that renders as well as it's Canikon competition, I'd absolutely pay $1900 for it, because this focal range at f2.8 is worth investing in IF the lens produces nice images.

I've already found a superior level of rendering performance to the DFA 24-70 from not a $40 lens, but a $25 lens. On a crop sensor, just about any image taken with the F 35-70 looks better than the DFA 24-70, and anyone can go see this for themselves after about ten minutes on Flickr. But what the F lacks is a constant 2.8 (sometimes I shoot indoors without flash, every little bit helps) and more range on the wide end (35mm isn't much to work with on APS)... which brings us to the FA* 28-70 f2.8 which checks all those boxes and, most importantly, maintains great rendering - hence this thread.

This lens is obviously out of production and clean examples are difficult to find. So here I am trying to discover why Pentax hasn't made an updated version of this lens (with nice rendering, not flat, lifeless rendering) or made a dedicated APS lens with the same qualities. Maybe the DA* 16-50 is that lens, but as zjacreman pointed out, the vast majority of the pictures taken with it aren't doing it justice if that's the case.

What's funny to me about this thread and a lot of the reactions to it is that a brand known for its outstanding rendering with the Limited, *, and A/M glass has a bunch of users basically saying "yea who cares if it's lifeless, it's really sharp, you're just too picky". Who here actually bought a Pentax to use lifeless, "but it's sharp" glass?

---------- Post added 01-30-18 at 01:32 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by zjacreman Quote
"Shut up and be grateful that this lens you don't want is half the price of its competitors!" LOL.
Hahhaha didn't even see this before basically saying the exact same thing above.

Last edited by AyeYo; 01-30-2018 at 02:08 PM.
01-30-2018, 01:34 PM - 1 Like   #33
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,440
With all due respect to the OP, I hope and suspect he'll be very happy with his $40 SMC F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5.

When I spend a very small amount on a lens and it turns out to be better than expected, I'm overjoyed. I have many such lenses, and I enjoy them immensely.

For the very few lenses I own where I spent twenty, thirty or even forty times that amount, I expected earth-shattering performance... nothing short of perfection. When they turned out to be merely excellent or very good, I initially wondered where all the money went. Which isn't to say I'm unhappy with those lenses... on the contrary, I like them very much. But expectations are set awfully high (sometimes unrealistically so) with that level of investment.

It's much easier to be delighted by a low cost lens that's quite decent, than an expensive lens that's very good indeed - yet not completely perfect
01-30-2018, 01:56 PM - 1 Like   #34
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,440
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
Not hard to follow at all if you listen
To be fair, I found it hard to follow initially too I'm normally pretty good at listening, but maybe I slipped up on this occasion

QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
I don't know who would pay $1100 for flat, kit lens rendering just to get f2.8. If they wanted to sell it as a fast kit lens upgrade for $500, whose images would be indistinguishable from a cheap Sigma of the same price, I'd think about it. But for $1100 I wouldn't buy it with someone else's money
...
What's funny to me about this thread and a lot of the reactions to it is that a brand known for it's outstanding rendering with the Limited, *, and A/M glass has a bunch of users basically saying "yea who cares if it's lifeless, it's really sharp, you're just too picky". Who here actually bought a Pentax to use lifeless, "but it's sharp" glass?
What you're missing, I believe, is that many owners of the D FA 24-70 f/2.8 don't feel the same as you do based on your assessments of other people's images.

The reason you've had quite harsh push-back from some of our members (and believe me, I can read it very clearly given my time on these forums), is that you've shown quite a lot of negativity towards a lens you've had no personal experience of, while many of our members actually shoot with that lens and get what they believe to be excellent results. I'm not saying you're wrong and they're right, nor am I saying the opposite. I'm saying that appreciation of a lens is often personal and highly subjective, and many of our experienced members (me included, I'm afraid) will find it difficult to appreciate how someone can be so conclusive and negative about a lens they've never actually used.

All of that said, I really do wish you well with the SMC F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5. I'm quite keen on picking one up myself now, based on what @jatrax said about it

Folks (OP and respondents) - let's keep this friendly, eh? Thanks

01-30-2018, 03:06 PM   #35
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 863
QuoteOriginally posted by zjacreman Quote
"Shut up and be grateful that this lens you don't want is half the price of its competitors!" LOL.
Not at all! The point is rather that if the gear you need is available from a manufacturer and you're willing to pay for it, just buy it, no matter if it's Pentax, Canon, Nikon or whatever.

---------- Post added 01-30-18 at 05:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
What's funny to me about this thread and a lot of the reactions to it is that a brand known for its outstanding rendering with the Limited, *, and A/M glass has a bunch of users basically saying "yea who cares if it's lifeless, it's really sharp, you're just too picky". Who here actually bought a Pentax to use lifeless, "but it's sharp" glass?
Well, only you said that... Nobody else said they got lifeless and dull shots with all and every Pentax zooms.
01-30-2018, 03:21 PM - 1 Like   #36
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,097
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
Pentax has a $1100 option whose specs read the same, but rendering isn't even in the same universe, let alone ballpark. That's not an acceptable alternative, especially for $1100.
Says a guy who never actually used the lens, touch the lens, or anything close.

QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
I've already found a superior level of rendering performance to the DFA 24-70 from not a $40 lens, but a $25 lens.
Hope this 25$ lens will provide great joy, happiness and all.

Regards.
01-30-2018, 03:22 PM - 2 Likes   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,611
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
but rendering isn't even in the same universe, let alone ballpark.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. But my images go to clients that pay for them not get stuck on Flickr so perhaps that is different. But if that is your opinion and taste and you are going to be happy with a 40 year old kit lens that cost $40 then I am truly very happy for you. You just saved about $1,060 .

If you like the F series rendering, which I also do, you might take a look at the F 24-50, the F 35-70 and the F 70-210. All will I am sure satisfy your taste in rendering.

01-30-2018, 03:35 PM - 1 Like   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,028
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
What's funny to me about this thread and a lot of the reactions to it is that a brand known for its outstanding rendering with the Limited, *, and A/M glass has a bunch of users basically saying "yea who cares if it's lifeless, it's really sharp, you're just too picky"
I have not seen anyone on here say that at all. What those of us that own the DFA 24-70 are saying is that is is a great lens on many counts, including sharpness and rendering.

You have never tried the lens , let alone owned it , so your repeated complaints about it are pretty much baseless. You sound like a gear freak from DPR

I see you have still failed to show us an image that you have taken that shows what your specific needs are for a lens.


Last edited by pschlute; 01-30-2018 at 03:43 PM.
01-30-2018, 03:39 PM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,155
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
The issue with renting is that I'm not going to pay $100 to have the thing for ONE day, to shoot ONE event or shoot under a single day's lighting conditions at a single or half-handful of places. Maybe I spend $200 to have it a couple days and double those numbers. $200 isn't a throw away amount of money. If I had browsed through Flickr and said to myself "I like this lens, I think I want it", I'd probably drop $100-200 to confirm that before spending $1300 on the lens itself. But after looking through a plethora of pictures that were taken under more conditions and in more places than I'll ever cover in a two day rental, this lens isn't even on my radar. There's no way I'm going to spend $200 to most likely reinforce that belief.
Perhaps go into the HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 Club - PentaxForums.com and ask if folks would be willing to upload RAW files to Dropbox or similar so you can have a go at processing them?
01-30-2018, 03:42 PM - 4 Likes   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,028
Lifeless images with the D-FA 24-70



01-30-2018, 04:13 PM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,487
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Perhaps go into the HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 Club - PentaxForums.com and ask if folks would be willing to upload RAW files to Dropbox or similar so you can have a go at processing them?
You might as well just PM Rondec. I bet heíll explain his process and why he uses the lens so extensively.

Iím out.
01-30-2018, 04:15 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,988
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote

I've already found a superior level of rendering performance to the DFA 24-70 from not a $40 lens, but a $25 lens. On a crop sensor, just about any image taken with the F 35-70 looks better than the DFA 24-70, and anyone can go see this for themselves after about ten minutes on Flickr.
I'm always amused by an opinionated judgment from someone who doesn't even own the thing.

Is Flickr really your evidence?

I have a 35-70, tried it on crop and FF, and have never liked it.

Why not go to the 44 pages of images here, I'm sure that as a better photographer than all these contributors you'd get even more out of the DFA:

HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 Club - PentaxForums.com

Last edited by clackers; 01-30-2018 at 10:54 PM.
01-30-2018, 08:55 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,020
QuoteOriginally posted by AyeYo Quote
After a bunch of shooting with a Canon L series 24-70 f2.8 on a 7DII, I realized how incredibly useful this focal range and speed is for just about any "I'm actually getting paid for this" event type shooting, even on APS-C. I've shot for two different people that have given me this combo to use (other was a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on a D7200) and loved it both times.

So, naturally, I went looking for something equivalent for my own collection... and it doesn't exist. Why does this universally recognized workhorse combo not exist for Pentax? What does Pentax have against f2.8 lenses?

From what I can tell, my options are...

1. The discontinued, heavy, difficult to find in good condition used, but great image rendering FA* 28-70 f2.8, still lacks a little on the wide end, but I'd take it if I could buy it new.

2. The DA* 16-50 f2.8, which, while it's supposed to be the "crop factor 24-70", doesn't nearly hit the mark on reach for using an actual 24-70 on APS-C and has many bad reviews, backed up by a large selection of photos that make it look like a kit lens.

3. The DA* 50-135 f2.8, looks to produce great images and has reach, but has no wide end.

4. So maybe, in fairness, it does exist (since the Canikon lenses are both FF also): The huge FA 24-70 f2.8, but it doesn't render photos nearly on par with its price, certainly not on par with the Canon L series, and not even on par with the old FA*. It basically looks like the flat Sigma/Tamron rendering. Zero pixie dust there. So it's not really an acceptable option.


Everything else in this focal range is a kit lens or an expensive and slow lens (HD 16-85). Why is Pentax so f2.8 averse? Are people really getting by with incredibly slow variable aperture lenses? Are there other options I'm missing?

I've been mostly getting by with the comically under-priced, plastic fantastic SMC-F 35-70 f3.5-4.5, which renders worlds above its price range (when fitted with a deep hood), but is really limiting on the wide end and is a bit on the slow side for indoor shooting. I'd be willing to continue to tolerate the slowness to get more range. Does the F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 maintain the same rendering or does the additional range ruin it? There aren't enough example shots I've seen floating around to really make that judgement. Then the other issue is actually finding one.
Now, what I am getting from your statement in a nutshell is- you are looking for an APS-C quality lens that is equivalent to 24-70mm f/2.8 on a FF body, or close to it, for use on your K-3 II, but you have issues with the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 and want an alternative.

I have been recently having the same considerations. I too have been less than impressed for a number of reasons with the DA* 16-50mm. So I finally decided I would like a fast f/2.8 in this zoom range for use mainly on my KP and on my K-5 IIs, so I have been doing some looking. There are two 3rd party candidates which have received some favorable reviews: the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM.

The Tamron lens received some good figures in sharpness testing, even wide open pretty descent at the edges and VG in the center area. However, I have read numerous user reports of slight under-exposure , and not so good at its longer end. So it rather pans out to be an actual f/3.2 or so. It also has very high field curvature, especially at the wide end. I've done some visual comparing of test shots, and the Sigma fares better overall. The Tamron's build quality and AF are rather so-so, and it uses the old screw driven system.

The Sigma lens is very different. While its corner performance did not quite test as well as the Tamron at the shorter FLs wide open, if stopped down to f/3.2 which the Tamron really is, the two would be about equal, because the Sigma's performance jumps like crazy at f/4, to be exceptionally good indeed. And both are at least approximating the DA* lens at the wide-angle setting and mid points at wider apertures, but the Sigma is far better than the DA* lens at the longer FL! The Sigma has a quiet AF motor, which is reported to be faster than the DA* lens, has a good build quality, and is remarkable in having virtually no field curvature, which is unusual for a WA zoom lens. It is larger than the Tamron but worth it for its better build, yet still relatively compact for such a lens.

I have very recently ordered one from B&H, and expect it to arrive in a couple of days. They are running a very good price special now on this item.

Last edited by mikesbike; 01-30-2018 at 09:14 PM.
01-30-2018, 09:16 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,988
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
There are two 3rd party candidates which have received some favorable reviews: the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM..
I've ended up with both those lenses and they're great.

The Sigma's probably sharper, is bigger, and has silent AF.
01-31-2018, 07:28 AM - 2 Likes   #45
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 683
If youíre trying film-era Pentax zooms on APS-C, I always liked the FA 24-90 3.5-4.5. At 70mm it was noticeably sharper than F35-70, smc F28-80, FA28-70/4, and FA28-105/3.2-4.5. I think I found it also slightly sharper than DA17-70/4 at 70mm. It did not match DA70/2.4 limited, but was the best of the numerous zooms I tried at this length.

I did not test other lengths as rigorously, it was an experiment because I had so many 70mm-capable lenses on hand.
Closed Thread

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!
body, canon, da*, dfa, f/2.8, f2.8, fa*, glass, images, k-mount, kit, lens, lenses, nikon, par, pentax, pentax lens, photo, price, quality, range, series, sigma, slr lens, tamron, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax FA* 28-70 F2.8 vs Tokina ATX Pro 28-70 F2.6-2.8 The showdown discharged Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-30-2017 07:02 PM
For Sale - Sold: Three Pentax 28s : smc 28 mm F3.5, F 28 mm f2.8 & FA 28 F2.8 Vantage-Point Sold Items 2 07-06-2016 02:06 PM
FA* 28-70/2.8 vs FA 28-70/4 vs FA 28-80 eastman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 11-14-2012 08:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 100-300, FA 70-200, M 28mm; Sigma EX 28-70, Apo 70-300; Tamron Di LD 70-300 stillnk Sold Items 17 04-08-2012 11:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 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