Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-19-2009, 10:00 AM   #16
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
I know that Tamron has a 14/2.8 in the Pentax mount. I don't think it's produced anymore, but B&H has a couple of used ones for sale for $799 each:
Used Tamron | 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens | AF69P700

...and Adorama has it new:
AF69P700 Tamron SP AF 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical (IF) Rectilinear Super Wide Angle Auto Focus Lens with Hood & Case for Pentax AF - USA 6-Year Warranty

Some sample pics...
Tamron SP AF 14mm f/2.8 Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

A review...
Tamron AF 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical [IF] SP (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report

HTH,
Heather

01-19-2009, 10:41 AM   #17
Veteran Member
troyz's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 389
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Thanks for the advice and the photo. You wouldn't have a shot with the lens further open to demonstrate how soft it goes? Does it have the A contacts?
Do you know if the Tamron 17mm is better? I've heard people claiming both. At least I already have two adaptall 2 KA mounts so I would have covered that part of the cost already, and I could use any of those two lenses on my film cameras as well.
No A contacts and no half-stops on the aperture ring on the Tokina 17mm (just f/3.5 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16).

I've read that the Tamron Adaptall 17mm also performs poorly wide open:

Tamron Adaptall SP 17mm f/3.5 Reviews

beyond that I have no information.

I'll look for some images at f/3.5 and f/5.6 -- I know I have negs and noritsu scans somewhere.

Last edited by troyz; 01-19-2009 at 10:47 AM.
01-19-2009, 11:18 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
So it will be slower than the DA14/2.8, but probabl more compact. The DA14 is a bit bulky.
Not just probably - definitely *much* more compact. It's basically the size of the DA70.
01-19-2009, 11:20 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Thanks Marc, I will take a look. Do they ship to Europe?
KEH? No idea, but I don't see why not. The Zenitar is available new - not necessarily from KEH - and usually ships *from* Europe, since I think it is a Russian lens.

01-19-2009, 11:21 AM   #20
Site Supporter
maxwell1295's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Long Island, New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,704
The DA14 is probably what you're looking for......it's a fine lens. I had one for a short while and really liked it a lot. Since I'm more of a zoom shooter, I sold it and got the DA12-24 instead.
01-19-2009, 02:30 PM   #21
Veteran Member
clawhammer's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Logan, Utah
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 976
Another vote for the DA14 here. The quality of its construction is on par with the limiteds; it's just the size that isn't. I've really liked mine. There is some wavy distortion that will show up if you're shooting architecture, but other than that it does a pretty good job.

As for the tamron 14, realize that it is a 'full-frame' lens, so like other full-frame 14's it has a HUGE front element that prevents filter use and makes it rather heavy. The DA14 is compact, for a 14mm, and the f/2.8 can come in handy sometimes.

All that being said, if I were to buy it over again I'd probably go with the sigma 10-20 for the extra 4mm. The difference between 14 and 10 is pretty significant.
01-19-2009, 07:01 PM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
I have the 12-24, and I find that quite often, I wished it would focus closer (trying to create dramatic perspective). I believe the DA14 focuses quite close compared to most of the other options.
01-19-2009, 10:39 PM   #23
Veteran Member
troyz's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 389
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
You wouldn't have a shot with the [Tokina RMC 17mm/3.5] further open to demonstrate how soft it goes?
We had beautiful weather in Seattle today, so instead of searching for old negatives I decided to take pictures instead

The difference between f/3.5 and f/5.6 is pretty dramatic:

Tokina 17/3.5 at f/3.5 1/500s:


Tokina 17/3.5 at f/5.6 1/160s:


(Both images K20D, ISO 100, tripod, sun just out of frame blocked with hand, processed in lightroom, levels adjustments but no sharpening)

In any case, not as good as the Pentax 12-24 (data not shown) and probably not as good as the DA14 either.

IMHO zoom is very very convenient in the ultrawide range, and the DA12-24 performs very very well. The only reason I keep the Tokina 17 is because it works on film and it's built like a tank.


Last edited by troyz; 01-19-2009 at 11:33 PM.
01-26-2009, 05:23 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
Original Poster
Sorry that I had to abandone my own thread for a while. Was tied up with a works shop for a couple of days. Many thanks for all the usefull replies, comments and suggestions, and most of all pictures.

How good is the DA*16-50 at 16mm? It is on my list to buy some time for the weather sealing if nothing else, and if it is good enough at 16 perhaps I should prioritice this lense. At least it is a bit wider than the kit zoom and corresponding to ~24mm.
Anyone familiar with the (K) 17mm f4? There is one for sale her locally...
01-26-2009, 06:53 AM   #25
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
How good is the DA*16-50 at 16mm?
Lots of barrel distortion. That's why I've stayed with the 16-45mm.
01-26-2009, 07:34 AM   #26
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Lots of barrel distortion. That's why I've stayed with the 16-45mm.
So the 16-46 is better in this way? Pitty it is not weather sealed!
01-26-2009, 09:15 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 691
Douglas the K17f4 fish eye is a fun lens. It is very compact. Excellent sharpness with the typical great color and contrast. It has very close focus too. If you occasionally like to shoot film it really shines.

If the condition and price is right I don't think you would regret the purchase.
01-26-2009, 10:43 AM   #28
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
So the 16-46 is better in this way? Pitty it is not weather sealed!
2.52% vs 3.6% (about a 40% difference). I find the 16-45's level of distortion acceptable. These were all taken at 16mm. Picasa Web Albums - Dan - Picasa
I can tell that other people found the distortion acceptable, because we sold our house last night.
01-26-2009, 02:22 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
2.52% vs 3.6% (about a 40% difference). I find the 16-45's level of distortion acceptable. These were all taken at 16mm. Picasa Web Albums - Dan - Picasa
I can tell that other people found the distortion acceptable, because we sold our house last night.
Congrats (hope you got a good price considering the current economical troubles...) and thanks for the numbers.
I will eventually go for the DA*16-50 unless they come out with a less expensive normal zoom, because weather sealing is a real need for me. Professionally (experimental "climate" researcher) I use cameras a lot in wet, rainy, misty, cold, snowy environments at coasts and on boats where sea spray is even a worse problem than rain and snow. But knowing that it is not at its best at 16mm strengthen my interrest in a prima in this region, preferably a little bit wider, with less distorsion than the DA10-17. So looks like DA14/2.8 is a good option. Question is which to buy first.
01-26-2009, 02:51 PM   #30
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
A 16-50 and a wide prime would be highly capable, but given your use, possibly not a necessity? I rarely notice or care about barrel distortion for landscapes or nature. It's only for architecture that I hate the bowed lines. Since it sounds like you're going to buy one anyway, you should give the 16-50 a try. Maybe it's all you'll need.
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!
choises, k-mount, pentax lens, range, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 10-16 mm wide angle ? lesmore49 Pentax News and Rumors 35 04-10-2010 06:34 AM
Is it possible to have an electronic range finder feature in future Pentax DSLR? fearview Pentax News and Rumors 13 04-01-2009 05:15 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 12-24 Wide Angle TakeshiKovacs Sold Items 2 02-03-2009 02:54 PM
Best pentax wide angle? simp Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-28-2007 10:37 PM
Does Pentax has old wide angle lenses? mulder Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-07-2007 04:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 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