[clickclick]

What have I done. Sigh.

No worries - it's a good thing, really!

[mconwxdr]

I wish I could see some photos that demonstrate what people think is "pixie dust" they are seeing with their lenses.

So this thread has been on my mind the last few weeks as I decide what lens to get next, and I thought I'd share an example of a 16-50 image I took a few days ago to illustrate what I meant by limited-like (my loose definition of pixie dust I guess). Nothing special about this image aesthetically but this is 16mm@2.8 on the K-70 (ISO1000). I don't know if I have a good copy, if my expectations aren't very high, etc., but if I saw this image and you told me it was made with the 15 or 21 I wouldn't question it. The snowman is as sharp as anything I ever got out of my limiteds wide open (zoom shown below), the OOF areas are attractive, its warm and contrasty, etc., all things I got from my limiteds (I only did minor PP here).

[clickclick]

I don't know if I have a good copy, if my expectations aren't very high, etc., but if I saw this image and you told me it was made with the 15 or 21 I wouldn't question it. The snowman is as sharp as anything I ever got out of my limiteds wide open

When I got my 15 Limited, I went off to a favorite spot with it and my 16-50, expecting the 16-50 to be blown out of the park. It wasn't, not even close. In fact, I'd say wide open, the 15 couldn't keep up really. So yep, a good copy of the 16-50 is a nice lens. It has a star for a reason.

[UncleVanya]

When I got my 15 Limited, I went off to a favorite spot with it and my 16-50, expecting the 16-50 to be blown out of the park. It wasn't, not even close. In fact, I'd say wide open, the 15 couldn't keep up really. So yep, a good copy of the 16-50 is a nice lens. It has a star for a reason.

I'm not finding this to be true, but my issue with the 16-50 vs 15 isn't overall rendering and sharpness. My issue is flare. The shots that the 15 knocks out of the park often involve high contrast and high potential for flare. Flare that the 15 handles easily causes the 16-50 to struggle as many zooms do.

[mconwxdr]

Absolutely. If pixie dust in a given scene requires knocking out flare, then the 15 would win every time. You could probably say that about distortion, too. Don't get me wrong I really liked the 15, and I get why it's special, I just find the 15 and 16-50 images to be much closer in rendering and sharpness than I expected.

[clickclick]

I'm not finding this to be true, but my issue with the 16-50 vs 15 isn't overall rendering and sharpness. My issue is flare. The shots that the 15 knocks out of the park often involve high contrast and high potential for flare. Flare that the 15 handles easily causes the 16-50 to struggle as many zooms do.

Agree with you on that completely! The 15 is much better in that regard (flare), and stopped down it comes to life regarding sharpness. I was more thinking of edge and corner sharpness on the 15 at f4 versus the 16-50 at f4, and I acknowledge it's not completely fair to compare the one wide open with the other being able to get stopped down a bit first. The reason I do tote the 15 around with my 20-40 is because when in their sweet spots, they do hit the spot.

[clickclick]

The 16-50 can also crank out the CA if you're not careful.

[-JW-]

From the zooms I own I would say the 20-40 and the 50-135.
I'm mostly a prime shooter, but I've been using the 20-40 more and more.

Though no pixie-dust, the new 55-300 PLM is a really nice lens, considering it's price.

[clickclick]

From the zooms I own I would say the 20-40 and the 50-135.
I'm mostly a prime shooter, but I've been using the 20-40 more and more.

Though no pixie-dust, the new 55-300 PLM is a really nice lens, considering it's price.

Agree. The 50-135 is a very nice lens that for some reason I find easy to overlook. The 55-300 and 20-40 is a combination I often walk about with on my K-3 II.

[Shedking]

I'm trying to decipher if we are talking about something real, or an optimistic social construct.

How much of the assertion of the existence of pixie dust is a response to the fact that better photographers, tend to buy the more expensive lenses?

Purely on the basis that an exception proves the rule, I would make a case for the SMC F 24-50/4 on APS-C

The F and the optically identical A series have exceptionally high ratings in this Forum's lens reviews. Take a look at the Sample Photo archive and look at the sunsets shot on the KP.

For such a cheap lens, with such an old optical formula to perform like that.....magic.

[les3547]

I see "pixie dust" as when the rendering of a lens perfectly fits one's personal tastes. For me the Leica 35-70 f4 is the pixie dustiest zoom lens that's to my liking.

In the realm of Pentax zooms I thought the DA 60-250 was an amazing lens with great color, contrast, and high-resolution rendering without harsh edges. Now that I have a FF adapted model for my K-1 (D FA 60-250?), I like it even more. For me it's one of the very best Pentax lenses, zoom or otherwise.

[clickclick]

The other lens is the DA 60-250—an amazing lens with the "color, contrast, and high-resolution rendering without harsh edges" formula. Now that I have a FF adapted model for my K-1 (D FA 60-250?), I like it even more. For me it's one of the very best Pentax lenses, zoom or otherwise.

This is zoom that I have felt the pixies played with too. I find the bokeh something you'd expect from primes.

[dbs]

I guess I'll have to buy more lenses then, none of my zooms are within cooee of a ' pixie dust ' zoom.........the 31 .I think I saw it once or twice...


Dave

[UncleVanya]

The 60-250 is a stunner. But so too is the 50-135.

[-JW-]

I guess I'll have to buy more lenses then, none of my zooms are within cooee of a ' pixie dust ' zoom.........the 31 .I think I saw it once or twice...


Dave

All the lenses named here are very nice, but for sure many amazing images are made with far less superior glass.
Just have look around the forums! So no worries if you can't get your hands on better glass, just keep on shooting