Any zooms with pixie dust magic?

**StiffLegged** · 11-23-2019, 03:34 AM

Much too subjective to say — but I don't like dust of any kind in my lenses, or fluff, twigs or fingerprints. Perhaps shake the camera bag out once in a while? ;-)

**Rondec** · 11-23-2019, 04:41 AM - **5 Likes**

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

Here are a few with the DFA *70-200

I get "good" results with the DA *16-50, DFA 15-30 and DFA 24-70, but they just feel like competent lenses, not great ones. There is a difference but as I said before, I am not sure what pixie dust is and even if a lens like the FA 77 has it and the DA 40 doesn't or if we are just saying that all Pentax primes have pixie dust,

**Madaboutpix** · 11-23-2019, 05:07 AM

"Pixie Dust" - that metaphorical term carries strong connotations of unicorns, fairies, magic wands, and Disney productions for me, to the point where I can't take it seriously anymore.

I guess it's supposed to mean something akin to outstanding image pop/fidelity, microcontrast, "3-D" rendering, tonality, colour definition, bokeh, or rather an exceptionally satisfying combination of these - all qualities that can get me excited about lenses - but why do we need an arguably childish term like that?

Of the zooms I own and shoot - DA10-17 Fish-Eye and DA55-300 (smc) - perhaps the DA10-17 comes closest to exhibiting at least some of those qualities, albeit to a noticeably lesser degree than my DA15 and DA35 Limiteds (and indeed even the DA50). That said, I like the output of both zooms, particularly considering what punch you get for the money.

Sandy Hancock · 11-23-2019, 05:29 AM - **2 Likes**

Of the zooms I've owned, the 20-40 and 50-135 are the closest I've seen to having pixie dust. I have seen images from the A35-105 which puts it in the same league.

I have several zooms which are technically better. But maybe that's the problem - pixie dust is the result of a perfect combination of imperfections.

**ffking** · 11-23-2019, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Here are a few with the DFA *70-200

I agree that it has a special Pentax rendering, not just a highly corrected and very sharp modern lens, but one with a certain character also - in fatI as going to nominate it myself

normhead · 11-23-2019, 05:47 AM

I've never figured out what pixie dust is, so maybe none of my zooms qualify.

But the DA*60-250 is as close as anything to a more modern "stack of primes" lens.

**StiffLegged** · 11-23-2019, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

I wish I could see some photos that demonstrate what people think is "pixie dust" they are seeing with their lenses.Here are a few with the DFA *70-200

A pair of fine pixies in these images, but is the lens really dusty? On the forum sized viewing, it doesn't show. ;-@

**clickclick** · 11-23-2019, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

I truly believe that my DA* 50-135 f/2.8 and HD Pentax-DA 20-40 f/2.8-4 Limited went for a hike together.

As they were strolling along a fragrant country meadow, the skies suddenly opened, beams of light shone down, and mystical voices began to chant. Then, without warning, clouds of tiny particles rained down, shimmering in the golden sunrays and forming magical multi-dimensional reflections.

Being the heavier lens, the 50-135 was not able to move into shelter quickly enough, and was doused fully. The smaller Limited also tried to dodge the shower, but caught some of the mist.

The 50-135 shook itself vigorously to shed the unknown powder, but to no avail. The Limited was spared getting drenched completely, but emerged feeling not quite the same.

From what I can see, my DA* 50-135 still carries that thick pixie dust to this day, while my 20-40 shows hints of that fateful stroll.

- Craig

Reading this, I think the pixie dust landed on the photographer too!

**c.a.m** · 11-23-2019, 02:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clickclick

Reading this, I think the pixie dust landed on the photographer too!

LOL. Well, I need some fantasy to counteract my lust for my son's brand new Fuji X-T3, which I am testing for him this week before the return period expires. (He shoots video mainly, so he chose the X-T3.) So far, I'm impressed for the most part, but my feet are still firmly planted in Pentax Pixieland.

- Craig

northcoastgreg · 11-23-2019, 05:40 PM - **4 Likes**

I see so-called "pixie dust" more in the way a lens renders detail than, say, in transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. Part of this has to do with something mentioned in the "FA Limited Development Story" thread, where it was stated that the design of limiteds should give "a soft but precise rendering. For example, hair should look like it is soft, not like hard strands." This kind of renderingd, it could be argued, is more "natural." It captures detail in a way that is closer to how the human eye perceives detail. Objects rendered this way in the two dimensional space of a print can give a sense of depth—hence the talk of the "3D look" even in images where everything is in focus.

Of all my zooms, the one that I have found renders in this way the best is the F 17-28, the original fisheye zoom. The A 70-210 f4 also, IMO, renders in a "soft but precise" way, as does the M 75-150 f4, the F 7-210 f4-5.6, and the FA 24-90. Some zoom lenses I've regularly used in recent years that strick me as largely destitute of this kind of rendering (they're precise but not all that soft or smooth) would be the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, the DFA 15-30, the DA 55-300 PLM, the FA 20-35, and the DFA 28-105.

Here's an image from the F 17-28:

y0chang · 11-23-2019, 10:41 PM

Most zooms don't have good depth of rendering, everything looks like is a flat image. This can be caused by many things some of which are: bad bokeh, bad bokeh transitions, bad aberrations, bad contrast, bad colors. An extreme example of this is a bad consumer zoom. But like everything. it all depends on the skill of the photographer and the light of the scene. Its why the myth of the nifty fifty is born, its actually not that good of a lens (well at least the plastic 1.8s made by most manufacturers) but compared to a kit lens, it looks amazing in its rendering, depth, and bokeh.

normhead · 11-24-2019, 09:25 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by y0chang

Most zooms don't have good depth of rendering, everything looks like is a flat image. This can be caused by many things some of which are: bad bokeh, bad bokeh transitions, bad aberrations, bad contrast, bad colors. An extreme example of this is a bad consumer zoom. But like everything. it all depends on the skill of the photographer and the light of the scene. Its why the myth of the nifty fifty is born, its actually not that good of a lens (well at least the plastic 1.8s made by most manufacturers) but compared to a kit lens, it looks amazing in its rendering, depth, and bokeh.

I've taken and compared many images from my DA* 60-250 to various primes to try and prove this point. I didn't succeed. Maybe you can point to something to support this statement.

IMHO:
Good zooms are better than cheap primes.
Good primes are better than cheap zooms.
Good primes and good zooms are functionally indistinguishable based on comparison of the images.

This based on actual testing.

dcpropilot · 11-24-2019, 10:23 AM

The 20-40 and the 50-135

mconwxdr · 11-24-2019, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Good primes and good zooms are functionally indistinguishable based on comparison of the images.

I haven’t used many zooms but the 16-50 definitely proves this to me. To me it’s good enough to at least dampen the desire to get the 15, 21, and 40 again. I know the results will be practically insignificant most of the time. Of course if I want to carry light or go < 2.8, that’s another story. This is where primes come in for me at this point (wanting to add and trying to decide between HD 35/2, FA43, and DA70).

normhead · 11-24-2019, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by mconwxdr

I haven’t used many zooms but the 16-50 definitely proves this to me. To me it’s good enough to at least dampen the desire to get the 15, 21, and 40 again. I know the results will be practically insignificant most of the time. Of course if I want to carry light or go < 2.8, that’s another story. This is where primes come in for me at this point (wanting to add and trying to decide between HD 35/2, FA43, and DA70).

I didn't buy the DA* 16-50 because of it's poor performance score on photozone, so that's probably not the example I was looking for. I never considered it to be a "good" zoom since I mainly use wide angle for landscape, it's probably fine portrait lens however and if you're looking for centre sharpness , if memory serves me well, it's really good. At 24mm, my DA 18-135 out performs it on the edges. But thanks for the answer.

11-24-2019, 09:25 AM - 1 Like	#42
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by y0chang Most zooms don't have good depth of rendering, everything looks like is a flat image. This can be caused by many things some of which are: bad bokeh, bad bokeh transitions, bad aberrations, bad contrast, bad colors. An extreme example of this is a bad consumer zoom. But like everything. it all depends on the skill of the photographer and the light of the scene. Its why the myth of the nifty fifty is born, its actually not that good of a lens (well at least the plastic 1.8s made by most manufacturers) but compared to a kit lens, it looks amazing in its rendering, depth, and bokeh. I've taken and compared many images from my DA* 60-250 to various primes to try and prove this point. I didn't succeed. Maybe you can point to something to support this statement. IMHO: Good zooms are better than cheap primes. Good primes are better than cheap zooms. Good primes and good zooms are functionally indistinguishable based on comparison of the images. This based on actual testing. Last edited by normhead; 11-24-2019 at 09:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Pixie dust	mahanpots	Post Your Photos!	2	11-20-2019 05:01 PM
Pixie dust	TerryL	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-24-2018 09:37 PM
The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List	Winnie	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	10-24-2016 03:52 AM
The Pixie Dust Lens Club	selar	Lens Clubs	45	11-30-2014 01:26 PM
No pixie dust but it works	wildman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-25-2011 09:26 PM

11-23-2019, 03:34 AM	#31
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,635	Much too subjective to say — but I don't like dust of any kind in my lenses, or fluff, twigs or fingerprints. Perhaps shake the camera bag out once in a while? ;-)

11-23-2019, 04:41 AM - 5 Likes	#32
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	I wish I could see some photos that demonstrate what people think is "pixie dust" they are seeing with their lenses. Here are a few with the DFA 70-200 I get "good" results with the DA 16-50, DFA 15-30 and DFA 24-70, but they just feel like competent lenses, not great ones. There is a difference but as I said before, I am not sure what pixie dust is and even if a lens like the FA 77 has it and the DA 40 doesn't or if we are just saying that all Pentax primes have pixie dust,

11-23-2019, 05:07 AM	#33
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,445	"Pixie Dust" - that metaphorical term carries strong connotations of unicorns, fairies, magic wands, and Disney productions for me, to the point where I can't take it seriously anymore. I guess it's supposed to mean something akin to outstanding image pop/fidelity, microcontrast, "3-D" rendering, tonality, colour definition, bokeh, or rather an exceptionally satisfying combination of these - all qualities that can get me excited about lenses - but why do we need an arguably childish term like that? Of the zooms I own and shoot - DA10-17 Fish-Eye and DA55-300 (smc) - perhaps the DA10-17 comes closest to exhibiting at least some of those qualities, albeit to a noticeably lesser degree than my DA15 and DA35 Limiteds (and indeed even the DA50). That said, I like the output of both zooms, particularly considering what punch you get for the money.

11-23-2019, 05:29 AM - 2 Likes	#34
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Of the zooms I've owned, the 20-40 and 50-135 are the closest I've seen to having pixie dust. I have seen images from the A35-105 which puts it in the same league. I have several zooms which are technically better. But maybe that's the problem - pixie dust is the result of a perfect combination of imperfections.

11-23-2019, 05:34 AM	#35
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,039	Originally posted by Rondec Here are a few with the DFA *70-200 I agree that it has a special Pentax rendering, not just a highly corrected and very sharp modern lens, but one with a certain character also - in fatI as going to nominate it myself

11-23-2019, 05:47 AM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I've never figured out what pixie dust is, so maybe none of my zooms qualify. But the DA*60-250 is as close as anything to a more modern "stack of primes" lens.

11-23-2019, 12:29 PM	#37
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,635	Originally posted by Rondec I wish I could see some photos that demonstrate what people think is "pixie dust" they are seeing with their lenses.Here are a few with the DFA *70-200 A pair of fine pixies in these images, but is the lens really dusty? On the forum sized viewing, it doesn't show. ;-@

11-23-2019, 01:57 PM	#38
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,904	Originally posted by c.a.m I truly believe that my *DA 50-135 f/2.8 and HD Pentax-DA 20-40 f/2.8-4 Limited** went for a hike together. As they were strolling along a fragrant country meadow, the skies suddenly opened, beams of light shone down, and mystical voices began to chant. Then, without warning, clouds of tiny particles rained down, shimmering in the golden sunrays and forming magical multi-dimensional reflections. Being the heavier lens, the 50-135 was not able to move into shelter quickly enough, and was doused fully. The smaller Limited also tried to dodge the shower, but caught some of the mist. The 50-135 shook itself vigorously to shed the unknown powder, but to no avail. The Limited was spared getting drenched completely, but emerged feeling not quite the same. From what I can see, my DA* 50-135 still carries that thick pixie dust to this day, while my 20-40 shows hints of that fateful stroll. - Craig Reading this, I think the pixie dust landed on the photographer too!

11-23-2019, 02:48 PM - 1 Like	#39
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,193	Originally posted by clickclick Reading this, I think the pixie dust landed on the photographer too! LOL. Well, I need some fantasy to counteract my lust for my son's brand new Fuji X-T3, which I am testing for him this week before the return period expires. (He shoots video mainly, so he chose the X-T3.) So far, I'm impressed for the most part, but my feet are still firmly planted in Pentax Pixieland. - Craig

11-23-2019, 05:40 PM - 4 Likes	#40
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,175	I see so-called "pixie dust" more in the way a lens renders detail than, say, in transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. Part of this has to do with something mentioned in the "FA Limited Development Story" thread, where it was stated that the design of limiteds should give "a soft but precise rendering. For example, hair should look like it is soft, not like hard strands." This kind of renderingd, it could be argued, is more "natural." It captures detail in a way that is closer to how the human eye perceives detail. Objects rendered this way in the two dimensional space of a print can give a sense of depth—hence the talk of the "3D look" even in images where everything is in focus. Of all my zooms, the one that I have found renders in this way the best is the F 17-28, the original fisheye zoom. The A 70-210 f4 also, IMO, renders in a "soft but precise" way, as does the M 75-150 f4, the F 7-210 f4-5.6, and the FA 24-90. Some zoom lenses I've regularly used in recent years that strick me as largely destitute of this kind of rendering (they're precise but not all that soft or smooth) would be the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, the DFA 15-30, the DA 55-300 PLM, the FA 20-35, and the DFA 28-105. Here's an image from the F 17-28:

11-23-2019, 10:41 PM	#41
y0chang Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: United States Posts: 793	Most zooms don't have good depth of rendering, everything looks like is a flat image. This can be caused by many things some of which are: bad bokeh, bad bokeh transitions, bad aberrations, bad contrast, bad colors. An extreme example of this is a bad consumer zoom. But like everything. it all depends on the skill of the photographer and the light of the scene. Its why the myth of the nifty fifty is born, its actually not that good of a lens (well at least the plastic 1.8s made by most manufacturers) but compared to a kit lens, it looks amazing in its rendering, depth, and bokeh.

11-24-2019, 10:23 AM	#43
dcpropilot Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Vermont Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 941	The 20-40 and the 50-135

11-24-2019, 11:00 AM	#44
mconwxdr Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Oklahoma Photos: Gallery Posts: 344	Originally posted by normhead Good primes and good zooms are functionally indistinguishable based on comparison of the images. I haven’t used many zooms but the 16-50 definitely proves this to me. To me it’s good enough to at least dampen the desire to get the 15, 21, and 40 again. I know the results will be practically insignificant most of the time. Of course if I want to carry light or go < 2.8, that’s another story. This is where primes come in for me at this point (wanting to add and trying to decide between HD 35/2, FA43, and DA70).

11-24-2019, 11:11 AM	#45
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by mconwxdr I haven’t used many zooms but the 16-50 definitely proves this to me. To me it’s good enough to at least dampen the desire to get the 15, 21, and 40 again. I know the results will be practically insignificant most of the time. Of course if I want to carry light or go < 2.8, that’s another story. This is where primes come in for me at this point (wanting to add and trying to decide between HD 35/2, FA43, and DA70). I didn't buy the DA* 16-50 because of it's poor performance score on photozone, so that's probably not the example I was looking for. I never considered it to be a "good" zoom since I mainly use wide angle for landscape, it's probably fine portrait lens however and if you're looking for centre sharpness , if memory serves me well, it's really good. At 24mm, my DA 18-135 out performs it on the edges. But thanks for the answer.