Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2018, 08:09 AM   #91
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,894
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Offense is not defined by the giver, but by the recipient. I'm not that kind of guy.
People only say "no offence" when they are about to say or just said something offensive.

---------- Post added 07-19-18 at 11:10 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
And just a final comment... The 18-135 is loved by many here. I bought one, though, and simply didn't get on with it... primarily at the long end. For my purposes, it wasn't a great fit
You need a 60-250 to go to with the 18-135. If you need centre sharp past 50mm, the 18-135 does it. if you want edge to edge, you have to switch tot he 60-250.

07-19-2018, 08:16 AM   #92
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East England
Posts: 11,878
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You need a 60-250 to go to with the 18-135. If you need centre sharp past 50mm, the 18-135 does it. if you want edge to edge, you have to switch tot he 60-250.
Yeah, it was the sharpness away from centre at the longer end that I was disappointed with.

The main reason for me trying the lens was to have something weather-resistant as a walk-around one lens solution when required. It definitely fills that role, but I didn't gel with it unfortunately. Having said that, I know you and many others get some great shots with it. I certainly wouldn't call it a bad lens... I just didn't take to it
07-19-2018, 08:23 AM   #93
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,894
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Yeah, it was the sharpness away from centre at the longer end that I was disappointed with.

The main reason for me trying the lens was to have something weather-resistant as a walk-around one lens solution when required. It definitely fills that role, but I didn't gel with it unfortunately. Having said that, I know you and many others get some great shots with it. I certainly wouldn't call it a bad lens... I just didn't take to it
You have to go with what suits you. Tess wouldn't use my 18-135 if it was our last working lens. She prefers her tamron 17-50 over it. (A lens I wouldn't use if it was our last working lens.) I don't think there are a lot of really bad lenses, but there may be lenses that aren't good for what you do.

If you buy something newish as in not designed as a cheaper film option, you select the focal length you want and the aperture you want, and it's pretty hard to go really wrong. But the 28-105 on a K-1 is your only premium option for what it does. There is no comparable competition. Your only decision is "do I want that type of lens." Suggesting the 28-105 might not be good enough based on what it is, that's crazy. It's only real negative would be it might not be the type of lens you're looking for.

But setting folks up asking why they would use it and criticizing their responses, that's just rude.

Liking the 18-135 is a little more complicated. You have to be conscious of what you are trying to do with it and change lenses when necessary. The 28-105 is much less complicated. It does extremely well at what it was designed to do.

The proper title of the thread should have been "The DFA 28-105, it's not what I want." The OP has made the thread about himself, the lens used was just a ploy, to let everyone using the lens why it's not good enough for him.

Until he shows us some images that exceed the IQ of an 28-105, I'm not even buying that much. He's just some guy trashing a great lens (that he's never even used) because he makes issues of the fact it doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do. Everything in the design spec is accomplished superbly. I'd be interested in seeing images from the OP that convince me he can actually take images that exceed the abilities of this lens. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for them.

I've always thought this type of post should result in time away from the forum.

"You're favourite lens, it's not good enough for me."

Every lens is someone's favourite lens. It's just not appropriate behaviour in my mind. I wouldn't even trash an 18-55. It was my go to lens for more than 3 years. It was great lens for the price and use I made of it. And I'm certainly not going to start a thread so i can trash it, now that I've moved on. But I can show you some of my favourite images taken with it.

Last edited by normhead; 07-19-2018 at 09:09 AM.
07-19-2018, 08:51 AM - 2 Likes   #94
Pentaxian
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,586
The OP seems to be perpetuating his automatic assumptions that every Limited Prime lens is 'better' then the D FA28-105. Well, I don't understand that assumption ..... those are rather old lenses, and to stack them against the latest Pentax optical and design technologies is bound to disturb the "expected". In a direct exact shoot-out with the same settings then I think there would be a range of outcomes, with different eyes picking out different lenses as the better one. I would expect the D FA 28-105 images to come out strongly.


Of course, as Normhead and others have been saying, if you have a technical / creative need for wider apertures, lighter, smaller etc, then the primes win out. Also if their creative rendering is a personal preference and you know how to employ it in practice. But that is specific to the situation and I believe, the skills of the photographer. A straight technical shootout is going to bring mixed results, considering the differing ages of the optical technologies.


Have you considered the DC autofocus aspect as well? For me it is one of the main advantages of using the D FA zoom, particularly for my portraits at the long end. So instant and quiet, plus the quickshift is superb (the ring is near the camera mount, very easy to use). The FA Limiteds fall short in these aspects.

07-19-2018, 11:00 AM - 1 Like   #95
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,199
It's the title of the post that ticks me off to be honest. As comments show, plenty of people would or did buy the lens in question. And are doing just fine with it. If small apertures are you thing then get primes, or the Sigma 18-35

---------- Post added 07-19-18 at 11:01 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
The OP seems to be perpetuating his automatic assumptions that every Limited Prime lens is 'better' then the D FA28-105. Well, I don't understand that assumption ..... those are rather old lenses, and to stack them against the latest Pentax optical and design technologies is bound to disturb the "expected". In a direct exact shoot-out with the same settings then I think there would be a range of outcomes, with different eyes picking out different lenses as the better one. I would expect the D FA 28-105 images to come out strongly.


Of course, as Normhead and others have been saying, if you have a technical / creative need for wider apertures, lighter, smaller etc, then the primes win out. Also if their creative rendering is a personal preference and you know how to employ it in practice. But that is specific to the situation and I believe, the skills of the photographer. A straight technical shootout is going to bring mixed results, considering the differing ages of the optical technologies.


Have you considered the DC autofocus aspect as well? For me it is one of the main advantages of using the D FA zoom, particularly for my portraits at the long end. So instant and quiet, plus the quickshift is superb (the ring is near the camera mount, very easy to use). The FA Limiteds fall short in these aspects.
And the quickshift focus, which is very useful too
07-19-2018, 12:58 PM - 1 Like   #96
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 486
Original Poster
From your posts I realized, I only want eighter maximum image qulity or compactness, but I don't want "really good image quality with a little more bulk", For my style the limiteds and the DA*55 are has the right properties, I need the large aperture. In general I don't shoot landscapes or widelife so my needs are biased. The WRness is a big plus for the lens. The fast, silent AF is another point which I didn't calculated with. The quick shift doesn't mean a lot for me, I am used to pushing the lens release button with my pinky. I like the "lock", I can't turn the focus ring accidentally.
I was supprised how many of you use this lens on APS-C. (Is there anybody who bought the lens alone for APS-C?)

I think I now understand a little more the purpose of this lens. Thanks!

It would be still interesting to post some comparisation images with the limiteds!
07-19-2018, 01:20 PM - 1 Like   #97
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East England
Posts: 11,878
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
From your posts I realized, I only want eighter maximum image qulity or compactness, but I don't want "really good image quality with a little more bulk", For my style the limiteds and the DA*55 are has the right properties, I need the large aperture. In general I don't shoot landscapes or widelife so my needs are biased. The WRness is a big plus for the lens. The fast, silent AF is another point which I didn't calculated with. The quick shift doesn't mean a lot for me, I am used to pushing the lens release button with my pinky. I like the "lock", I can't turn the focus ring accidentally.
I was supprised how many of you use this lens on APS-C. (Is there anybody who bought the lens alone for APS-C?)

I think I now understand a little more the purpose of this lens. Thanks!
I'm glad you got some useful information out of the thread

The reason you got such "robust" responses from some of our members is that, with respect, you appeared to suggest that your choices made more sense, or resulted in better IQ, than a K-1 + D FA28-105. I'm sure that wasn't actually your intention, but subtleties can get lost in forum posts Hopefully, you now see there's a wide range of reasons why people shoot what they shoot - whatever the camera(s) and lens(es) may be - and their choices can make perfect sense for them, even though they may not work for you. "Better" and "worse" are almost always individual to the photographer, and highly subjective

I don't shoot the D FA28-105 on APS-C, but I do use other full-frame zooms including its old predecessor, the SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 AL [IF]. I don't shoot wider than 28mm on APS-C very often unless I go out specifically with that intention, in which case I might use the DA21 or very occasionally the DA15. I typically prefer the 28-80mm range, or thereabouts. My favourite walk-around lens on APS-C is actually the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8... that range is absolutely ideal for me, and f/2.8 is enough for most of my shots. Plus, I like the rendering (though perhaps it's not one for pixel peeping at 100% on a 4K monitor when shot at f/2.8 ). I have faster primes for some focal lengths, and frequently use those when I'm happy to work with fixed focal lengths

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-19-2018 at 01:26 PM.
07-20-2018, 01:37 AM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,540
QuoteOriginally posted by awscreo Quote
Two Sigma zooms are 1.8 and both highly regarded as far as I know
Yes, I did not count them due to their size, weight, and being only for APS-C. They certainly are justifiably highly regarded, sharp lenses, but still lag behind a top quality prime within their range in certain respects. I really would not share so much enthusiasm for the 18-35mm, as per the test images I've seen being quite soft at f/1.8 even in the center, so I'd just as soon go with my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC and get more range at less cost. Distortion, vignetting, bokeh and even resolution wide open are indeed better with a Pentax FA 31mm Limited. But it cannot zoom, so my Sigma lens is better for that purpose.

07-20-2018, 04:42 AM   #99
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,928
Preemptive Deviewing has been invoked.

Last edited by monochrome; 07-20-2018 at 04:57 AM.
07-20-2018, 11:18 AM   #100
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,540
[quote=normhead

You need a 60-250 to go to with the 18-135. If you need centre sharp past 50mm, the 18-135 does it. if you want edge to edge, you have to switch tot he 60-250.[/quote]

Yes, this would be a near ideal for IQ, but lack of compactness is a mismatch. A better matchup and nearly as good within the range would be the 18-135mm with the DA HD 55-300mm WR, which can keep to f/4.5 out to 200mm. Or the PLM version.
07-20-2018, 11:56 AM - 2 Likes   #101
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,041
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
The shared images taken with the DFA28-105 are impressive, I like them, but I would like to compare them to the FA limiteds.
The narrow aperture is still very limiting for my style, most of my images taken in the F2.0-F4.0 range.
I've owned multiple copies of all of the FA Limited lenses. I sold them all after moving on to Zeiss and Leica R glass.

I just sold a DFA 28-105 lens. I wrote a review on it here.

At f/5.6 to f/8, I found my copy of this lens to create overall IQ that was excellent! I thought that at these apertures, the 28-105 rivals the FA Limiteds.

However, because I'm a comfirmed bokeholic who only shoots around f/2, like you, I found the "slowish" DFA 28-105 to be too limiting for my style - so I sold it.

For a high-quality, lightweight, walk-around lens (especially for traveling), if you fancy images shot between f/5.6 and f/8, I'd probably take the 28-105 over the Limiteds.

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 07-20-2018 at 12:08 PM.
07-20-2018, 12:15 PM   #102
F/8 & Somewhere
Loyal Site Supporter
TedH42's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,133
I'd say this thread is about wrapped up. A few good points in it. But done for me. Bye.
07-20-2018, 12:36 PM   #103
Journeyman Cat Wrangler
Loyal Site Supporter
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Maine, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,657
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
And just a final comment... The 18-135 is loved by many here. I bought one, though, and simply didn't get on with it... primarily at the long end. For my purposes, it wasn't a great fit
I have been back and forth on this one but since acquiring my DA*50-135, it is a moot point since I love that one. That may keep me from ever buying the DF-A 28-105 unless I win a K-1!

---------- Post added 07-20-18 at 12:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
I was supprised how many of you use this lens on APS-C. (Is there anybody who bought the lens alone for APS-C?)
I tried but it was already sold but had not been marked as such in the for sale thread. And I would have been happy with it, while probably never buying my 50-135.
07-20-2018, 02:02 PM - 1 Like   #104
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,894
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
Yes, this would be a near ideal for IQ, but lack of compactness is a mismatch. A better matchup and nearly as good within the range would be the 18-135mm with the DA HD 55-300mm WR, which can keep to f/4.5 out to 200mm. Or the PLM version.
But when I take out the 55-300 PLM I really slack off and just carry the 21 ltd and 40 XS. Now that is a lightweight do everything carry kit.

A great deal of my 135 images are macro type images or images that are out of focus on the edges.

Correctly photographed those soft edges after 50mm are a bonus in that you get smoother bokeh. A lens for the way people shoot images, not for the test charts. Here you have a 5.6 lens that gives you 2.8 bokeh on the edges because it's not sharp edge to edge. People pay for 1.4 lenses, and they pay a lot more for an effect built into the 18-135. At 135 the out of focus areas are way smoother than they would be with a sharper lens.. Meanwhile at 24mm for landscrpe, it's sharper centre and edge than any available Pentax primes. A true two for the price of one lens, for those wiling to exercise a bit of discipline while shooting.


At 60mm, you shouldn't have any complaints. Centre or edge.


It's probably not as sharp as the 16-50 18-135 combo, although it's better than the 16-50 at 24mm, but it's one lens instead of two and a fraction the weight. It's not a throw it on your camera and forget about it lens. And therein lies the problem. Used to it's strength it's excellent. Used for everything, you're going to have some issues. You have to remember when to take it off the camera.

Last edited by normhead; 07-20-2018 at 02:28 PM.
07-20-2018, 02:56 PM   #105
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East England
Posts: 11,878
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
A great deal of my 135 images are macro type images or images that are out of focus on the edges.

Correctly photographed those soft edges after 50mm are a bonus in that you get smoother bokeh. A lens for the way people shoot images, not for the test charts.
This has parallels for me with my experience of the HD DA20-40 Limited...

This is a lens I've owned for a few years now, and never really connected with. It's the only DA Limited that disappointed me (I've even stated this quite recently). My own experience suggests that it has really strong field curvature at the longer end, even when you stop down, such that it's very noticeable on distant flat-ish field subjects at, say, f/8. One of our members called it "runway style" field curvature, and that's a pretty good description, IMHO. Borders are in focus at much closer distances than the centre (at the longer end).

It has been more-or-less a "shelf queen" in my kit for the last couple of years. Recently, though, I've been forcing myself to use the lens more often, and I'm starting to find more value in it. Rather than expecting it to do what I want, I'm working with what I believe I understand about its optical properties and performance. And I'm getting some nice shots. That's not to say I'm much less frustrated by what I see as its limitations... It's just that I'm beginning to understand how I might use those "quirks" to my advantage.

The funny thing is, I've been taking that approach when shooting with my vintage Soviet lenses for quite a long time. Right from the outset, I accepted expected they'd have idiosyncrasies I'd need to work with. I guess I just never thought I'd have to take that approach with a modern lens. But now that I am, I'm feeling better about owning the 20-40. I'm not totally convinced yet, but far less critical than I originally was...
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!
apertures, aps-c, corner, dfa 28-105, edge, equality, fa, frame, full frame, image quality, k-mount, kp, lens, lenses, pentax lens, post, primes, quickshift, shots, slr lens, technologies
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Got a DFA28-105 ! biz-engineer Pentax K-1 24 02-03-2017 12:02 PM
Somebody Buy This, Put Me Out Of My Misery, PLEASE... magkelly Pentax Price Watch 19 12-01-2013 05:47 PM
Somebody Needs To Buy This.... magkelly Pentax Film SLR Discussion 5 07-15-2011 10:31 PM
Did somebody buy from Atlantiv.com ? huqedato Photographic Technique 7 04-19-2009 05:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM. | 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