Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-03-2009, 08:33 AM   #31
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Well then, perhaps you can enlighten the ignorant such as myself as to what the two lenses are designed for (if they are for different purposes) apart from the obvious one extra stop, SDM and weather sealing?

Getting that extra stop on a zoom in this FL range is a significant thing.

And if you've ever handled both, there's no comparison - the DA* feels like a pro
lens, and the 16-45 feels like a kit lens. That, in theory, should translate into the
DA* being usable in tough situations for many years. At least that was the
intent, QC issues have cast doubt on this advantage for the 16-50.

So if you want to do a lot of shooting outside, backpacking, etc, the tough build
and weather sealing alone make the DA* the lens you need. SDM is extra nice,
and some people really value the silent focus. It does make a difference when
you want truly candid shots.

Another thing that's been talked about again & again re those photozone (or any
MTF) tests is that they don't really attempt to measure contrast/microcontrast,
which contributes to perceived sharpness - and of course, color rendition.

Those things added to standard sharpness and resolution (slightly different
than sharpness) make up the sum of a len's IQ - it's pop.

The FA* 24 is a good example of this - not the greatest MTF scores, and border
performance isn't top 'o the heap, but most people who have shot it for any
length of time rave about it's pop and the brilliant 3D-ish images they get with it -
and that's due in part to the contrast/color performance.

Now, standard MTF tests are going to show you what everyone knows already,
that the 16-45 is an exceptional zoom, and not just for the money, but I don't
know if it has the pop/contrast of the 16-50 or 12-24, even if it does have better
edge sharpness.

And as Gooshin said, it can't compete at all from f/2.8 to f/3.9999

But it's a great zoom, and bang-for-buck-wise it's probably better than the 16-50,
but in sheer IQ, IMO, probably not.





.

02-03-2009, 08:43 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CT / NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I'd bring the 35mm 2.0.
Good boy!! Way to go!!

And though I did love the DA* experience as explained before, I do feel like the DA 16-45 + Prime combo works fine: on my trip to Ireland/Spain last month, all I brought with me was the DA 16-45 and FA 35: one for the day, one for the night.

It worked out actually better than expected (i had just bought the DA 16-45, so I wasnt sure of it ability) and the combo was pretty compact.
02-03-2009, 08:48 AM   #33
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
If the worst lenses had distortion of 100%, then I would agree with you. The 18-250 has the highest distortion figures in Pentax mount, at 4.32%. Obviously its distortion level is extreme, just look at this photo.
...
That distortion is actually the fabric of space-time being warped by that accumulation of mass . I wouldn't put much more stuff in that garage for fear of forming a singularity .
02-03-2009, 08:48 AM   #34
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by BBear Quote
Good boy!! Way to go!!

And though I did love the DA* experience as explained before, I do feel like the DA 16-45 + Prime combo works fine: on my trip to Ireland/Spain last month, all I brought with me was the DA 16-45 and FA 35: one for the day, one for the night.

It worked out actually better than expected (i had just bought the DA 16-45, so I wasnt sure of it ability) and the combo was pretty compact.
That's a very smart combo for travel.

02-03-2009, 09:47 AM   #35
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,720
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
i'm not understanding what you are trying to prove here,

you are telling me, that if i was to show the two ORIGINAL images that the OP posted, to a random person, you're telling me that they would say that image B is FORTY FOUR PERCENT MORE distorted than image A?
OK, we're both numerically correct but functionally wrong. If we were to state a limit of acceptability, then the numbers would correlate better with reality. Let's say for example that 5% distortion is the practical limit. In which case we'd have:
16-45 = 2.52/5 = 50.4% of the acceptable limit.
16-50 = 73%
18-250 = 86.4%

Those numbers are more representative of real life.

Anyway, the numbers don't matter so much as the subjective interpretation. The 16-50mm has too much distortion at the wide end for it to be my only wide angle lens, and it isn't fast enough to be my only fast normal. I'd like a 16-50 for its other qualities, but so far it doesn't do enough for me to dump the 16-45 (which does have an acceptable wide end).
02-03-2009, 09:50 AM   #36
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,720
QuoteOriginally posted by heliphoto Quote
That distortion is actually the fabric of space-time being warped by that accumulation of mass . I wouldn't put much more stuff in that garage for fear of forming a singularity .
LOL! Which explains why we just bought a bigger house.
Here are a few architectural photos taken at 16mm with the 16-45. Notice the low barrel distortion, which undoubtably helped us sell our home.
Picasa Web Albums - Dan - Picasa
02-03-2009, 09:53 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
really, though, you can just photoshop it out... hahahahahaha
02-03-2009, 09:53 AM   #38
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,720
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Getting that extra stop on a zoom in this FL range is a significant thing. And if you've ever handled both, there's no comparison - the DA* feels like a pro lens, and the 16-45 feels like a kit lens. That, in theory, should translate into the DA* being usable in tough situations for many years. At least that was the intent, QC issues have cast doubt on this advantage for the 16-50.

So if you want to do a lot of shooting outside, backpacking, etc, the tough build and weather sealing alone make the DA* the lens you need. SDM is extra nice, and some people really value the silent focus. It does make a difference when you want truly candid shots.

Another thing that's been talked about again & again re those photozone (or any MTF) tests is that they don't really attempt to measure contrast/microcontrast, which contributes to perceived sharpness - and of course, color rendition. Those things added to standard sharpness and resolution (slightly different than sharpness) make up the sum of a len's IQ - it's pop.

The FA* 24 is a good example of this - not the greatest MTF scores, and border
performance isn't top 'o the heap, but most people who have shot it for any
length of time rave about it's pop and the brilliant 3D-ish images they get with it -
and that's due in part to the contrast/color performance.

Now, standard MTF tests are going to show you what everyone knows already,
that the 16-45 is an exceptional zoom, and not just for the money, but I don't
know if it has the pop/contrast of the 16-50 or 12-24, even if it does have better
edge sharpness.

And as Gooshin said, it can't compete at all from f/2.8 to f/3.9999

But it's a great zoom, and bang-for-buck-wise it's probably better than the 16-50,
but in sheer IQ, IMO, probably not.
.
Good post.

02-03-2009, 12:59 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CT / NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 822
Nothing for nothing, but I was reviwing my first shots with the DA* and somehow i feel the colors are simply SUPERB!

I can't afirm if the DA 16-45 can deliver the same... but at the same time, it is winter and I havent had the chance to try the same shots with the DA...


Distortion/MTF numbers aside, IF i had the funds, i think i'd buy the DA* for the colors / SDM and speed.


But for $250, you can't beat the DA 16-45, and you have the stats behind it and possibly the very similar colors.


In any case, both are winners!
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!
16mm, 24mm, border, centre, da, da*, ev, f/2.8, f/4, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 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