Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-25-2019, 10:46 AM - 3 Likes   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
I struggle with this assessment because many of the things that are true of the DA *16-50 are also true of the FA limiteds -- some edge softness wide open and purple fringing, in particular. At the same time, it is sealed, and pretty sharp stopped down. My main reason for not using it as much is that I shoot a lot more with full frame.





11-25-2019, 11:57 AM - 1 Like   #47
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I struggle with this assessment because many of the things that are true of the DA *16-50 are also true of the FA limiteds -
We can't dispute that of course, except for the part where the 31 ltd, the lens I'm most like to use for landscape has amazing portrait characteristics wide open and excellent landscape characteristics at ƒ8. Once again, my point is, you have to know the characteristics of each lens. Trying to clarify them by zoom/prime, ƒ2.8 sub ƒ2 ƒ4,or variable aperture is a waste of time.

Whether or not those difference matter to any one individual is not really at issue.
DA 18-135 taken at 24mm


Yet you won't have any problem getting any number of people telling you how much they dislike the 18-135.

I'm happy using the 18-135 which is like the DA*16-50 on steroids for a variety of shooting outcomes. Strong centre, very week edges in the long end. Yet used to it's strength I can get very good images from it.

Last edited by normhead; 11-26-2019 at 06:42 AM.
11-25-2019, 01:12 PM - 2 Likes   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
We can't dispute that of course, except for the part where the 31 ltd, the lens I'm most like to use for landscape has amazing portrahttps://www.flickr.com/photos/149541448@N08/48885227583/in/datetaken-public/it characteristics wide open and excellent landscape characteristics at ƒ. Once once again, my point is, you have to know the characteristics of each lens. Trying to clarify them by zoom/prime, ƒ2.8 sub ƒ2 ƒ4,or variable aperture is a waste of time.

Whether or not those difference matter to any one individual is not really at issue.
DA 18-135 taken at 24mm


Yet you won't have any problem getting any number of people telling you how much they dislike the 18-135.

I'm happy using the 18-135 which is like the DA*16-50 on steroids for a variety of shooting outcomes. Strong centre, very week edges in the long end. Yet used to it's strength I can get very good images from it.
The 18-135 and the 16-50 are very different lenses. I've used both, but I guess leave that.

Back to the "theme" of this thread, I think the DA 15 limited probably has pixie dust and the DA *16-50 doesn't, but honestly, at similar apertures, the DA *16-50 is sharper. And while the 16-50 flares worse, it isn't as terrible as some make it out to be. The biggest negative is that the 16-50 has a fair amount of distortion (more than the DA 15) at 16mm. But my DA 15 is terrible in terms of corner sharpness at f4, while the DA *16-50 is already decent. At f8 they are equal, but then most lenses are...

One more DA *16-50 shot...

11-25-2019, 01:58 PM   #49
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The 18-135 and the 16-50 are very different lenses. I've used both, but I guess leave that.

Back to the "theme" of this thread, I think the DA 15 limited probably has pixie dust and the DA *16-50 doesn't, but honestly, at similar apertures, the DA *16-50 is sharper. And while the 16-50 flares worse, it isn't as terrible as some make it out to be. The biggest negative is that the 16-50 has a fair amount of distortion (more than the DA 15) at 16mm. But my DA 15 is terrible in terms of corner sharpness at f4, while the DA *16-50 is already decent. At f8 they are equal, but then most lenses are...

One more DA *16-50 shot...

We don't know what the 18-135 image taken at the same time would look like. Given that Tess' K-5 produced an identical image to one produced by my K-1 both using the DFA 28-105, I'm really hesitant to even view comparison images if not taken at the same time. You can determine form solo images if you might like the lens, but to say it's better or worse you have to have direct comparisons.

As this poll clearly demonstrates, with a proper comparison, results are probably not going to be what you anticipate.
Full frame or APS-c, you be the judge. - PentaxForums.com


Last edited by normhead; 11-26-2019 at 06:43 AM.
11-25-2019, 02:29 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
We don't know what the 18-135 image taken at the same time would look like. Given that Tess' K-5 produced an identical image to one produced by my K-1 both using the DFA 28-105, I'm really hesitant to even view comparison images if not taken at the same time. You can determine form solo images if you might like the lens, but to say it's better or worse you have to have direct comparisons.

As this poll clearly demonstrates, with a proper comparison, results are probably not going to be what you anticipate.
Full frame or APS-c, you be the judge. - PentaxForums.com
I'm not sure what you are saying, Norm. I am telling you that I have used the 18-135, the 15 limited, the 16-50 and on full frame, the DFA 15-30, DFA 24-70 and the FA 31. I wasn't particularly pleased with the 18-135 (maybe a bad copy, but it never seemed to sharpen up as much as my 16-50). Most lenses should look good at f8. I am just not sure what pixie dust is.

Maybe your 18-135 has pixie dust. Maybe my 16-50 has it (I don't really think it does). Or maybe people make their own pixie dust when they find the right subject and light and figure out how to compose a beautiful image.
11-25-2019, 02:41 PM - 2 Likes   #51
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
We don't know what the 18-135 image taken at the same time would look like. Given that Tess' K-5 produced an identical image to one produced by my K-1 both using the DFA 28-105, I'm really hesitant to even view comparison images if not taken at the same time. You can determine form solo images if you might like the lens, but to say it's better or worse you have to have direct comparisons.
I get where you're coming from, Norm... and yet...

You generally tend to want proof of opinions rather than just the opinions themselves. And proof is good, for sure. But opinions on their own still have value, especially if the source has proven themselves to be generally level-headed, knowledgeable and experienced. They have even more value if a number of other folks have similar opinions, and more still if those sources are also good.

I've known you for long enough on these forums that if you say - for example - lens A is sharper than lens B in the borders until f/8, I can be pretty confident that's the case, with the only obvious variable being copy variation for each lens. If you show me evidence in the form of your photos, that's great - but if you don't, I can still take your opinion as a valuable ingredient in reaching a conclusion. And I can place that same confidence in a number of our other members, @Rondec amongst them.

Then, there are folks I've had less involvement with whose opinions I still value, but I might want to research a few additional opinions for confirmation.

Next, there are opinions from those I've had little or no experience of in the past... and those are still potentially valuable to me, but I look for far more confirmation from other sources.

Finally, there are opinions from some folks that I'll take with a huge pinch of salt, or might bypass altogether for a variety of reasons. That's fairly rare, but not at all unheard of.

I guess what I'm saying is, an opinion needn't be indelibly tied to proof or supporting evidence to be valuable. There's an element of trust required that opinions have potential value, IMHO, beyond which it's on each of us to validate them as required through our own research. The burden of proof, if we want it, is actually on us - not the guy or gal with the opinion (at least, that's how I see it). The final validation, of course - our conclusion, the opinion that matters most - is formed from our own testing and / or real-world shooting. And that, in itself, can differ hugely due to subjectivity... Hence why lots of members love and post great photos taken with the DA20-40, yet I remain luke warm about it; also, why I tried two copies of the 18-135 at different times, returning both because it just didn't suit me

Final comment... I have a whole bunch of lenses. I never once took the exact same photos at the same time with each and every one of those lenses to compare and rank them. Yet, from varied experience in shooting them, I can say what I like and dislike about most of them, and have formed opinions as to why some are (based on my subjective views and preferences) "better" than the others. Ask me to prove those opinions? In most cases, I'm screwed. I could show you photos taken with each lens, but they're nothing like side-by-side comparisons. Still, I have a good idea how each of the lenses performs in different situations...

Last edited by BigMackCam; 11-26-2019 at 03:01 AM.
11-25-2019, 02:46 PM   #52
Veteran Member
Mike.P®'s Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,154
IMO the 50-135mm even has pixie dust when on my Canon M5


Finlay
by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr


Last edited by Mike.P®; 12-31-2019 at 04:43 AM.
11-25-2019, 02:50 PM - 5 Likes   #53
Pentaxian
timb64's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,506
DA16-85WR

11-25-2019, 03:38 PM   #54
Veteran Member
dcpropilot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vermont
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 941
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike.P® Quote
IMO the 50-135mm even has pixie dust when on my Canon M5


Finlay
by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
On your canon!? Now that's interesting.
11-26-2019, 07:20 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Old South Wales
Posts: 6,029
I must admit I'm horrendously unscientific about the whole process of lens testing - I tend to figure out which images I like, but not hy I like them, and slowly get a feel for the best lens for the job, hich might or might not have been correct, but hey! that's the picture I got, and if I like it I like it!

That's probably why I don't have many lenses, or much overlap -the only primes I've got are 31, 43, 77, 100 macro and 400 (and the old A 50/1:8 I got as a kit with the MEsuper) - the only zooms I regularly use are the D-FA 24-70 and 70-200. I have and old 28-105 which I use occasionall for a change and the kit zoom pair for the K-10D which I no longer use. So, each has a place and a function that is a bit different to others and choices are almost automatic. Keeps things simple for me - even though the pixies don't always show
11-26-2019, 07:31 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
The one caveat is that zooms are more likely to flare poorly in my experience. This isn't universally but it is frequently the case.
11-26-2019, 07:34 AM   #57
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The one caveat is that zooms are more likely to flare poorly in my experience. This isn't universally but it is frequently the case.
Even that defies generalization. Some primes are prone to flare, some zooms are prone to flair. It may well be that for a specific purpose a specific lens is better than the other for reducing flare. But do you really want to gamble it's the prime without further investigation?

These kinds of arguments tend to be sold as shortcuts to save you time in your evaluation. My advice would be don't take shortcuts... do your research on the lenses involved .DOn't let labels like "prime or zoom" lead you into a poor decision. Most of us do that anyway. The first thing I do considering a lens is look at images taken with the lens and doing my own evaluation of things like CA and flare. There simply are no reliable short cuts.

Somewhere I used to have comparison images of my DA*60-250 and my Tamron 90, both great lenses. The results were not as you have suggested they should have been. I'm not talking theory off the top of my head here. IN fact they were indistinguishable without pixel peeping and squinting. There was avery slight advantage in micro-contrast to the Tamron 90, that was invisible to normal viewing. Advice based on what should be based on incomplete criteria like zoom or prime, for the most part should be ignored.

Last edited by normhead; 11-26-2019 at 07:44 AM.
11-26-2019, 07:38 AM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
Also on the main subject, the DA* 50-135 and HD DA 20-40 are in my list as superb lenses, but pixie dust is a term that is hard for me to attribute to any lens including my FA 77 AND FA 31. Honestly my SMC DA 40 might be closest since I find it has a certain indefinably quality when used at short distances for portrait style shots. This could be just a function of the lack of size putting subjects at ease or some color rendering or just my own bias.
11-26-2019, 07:49 AM   #59
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Also on the main subject, the DA* 50-135 and HD DA 20-40 are in my list as superb lenses, but pixie dust is a term that is hard for me to attribute to any lens including my FA 77 AND FA 31. Honestly my SMC DA 40 might be closest since I find it has a certain indefinably quality when used at short distances for portrait style shots. This could be just a function of the lack of size putting subjects at ease or some color rendering or just my own bias.
Pixie dust has never had a technical definition. I think it's just an image that turns out really well. Maybe it's an image sharp enough to produce sharpening artifacts when reduced in size? Is pixel dust really sharpening artifacts? Who knows?

Every now and then I do get an image so sharp, all sharpening, even standard import settings, have to be turned off to look normal at web size. The concept has never been adequately defined.
11-26-2019, 08:41 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Pixie dust has never had a technical definition. I think it's just an image that turns out really well. Maybe it's an image sharp enough to produce sharpening artifacts when reduced in size? Is pixel dust really sharpening artifacts? Who knows?

Every now and then I do get an image so sharp, all sharpening, even standard import settings, have to be turned off to look normal at web size. The concept has never been adequately defined.
I always think of it as something magical beyond simple sharpening contrast etc. I sometimes think it is just serendipity and skill of the photographer and opportunity to take the images. Many of us improve our equipment and skills and use our favored (expensive) gear more giving more opportunities to hit that magic.

Of course it could just be that the skill to evoke the pixie dust comes with greater frequency as we get better at finding the shots that give the magical results.

I'm not disparaging pixie dust, just saying I have trouble putting my finger on those qualities in a cross lens comparison.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, pixie dust, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 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