Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2009, 05:48 AM   #31
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
Has everyone in that photo been drinking rum and coffee?

Where can I sign up?

Jason

03-03-2009, 06:54 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Gooshin, to be fair--Wildman has a good point. After all, your pic shows a technically bad image i.e., an example of why some images are "not worth the price." You are yet to produce an image that shows why some images ARE WORTH the price. It appears Wildman had more aptly entitled your thread than you have.



Your turn.........................................
clearly you have not been following my posts on these forums.
03-03-2009, 06:55 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Has everyone in that photo been drinking rum and coffee?

Where can I sign up?

Jason
www.redtag.ca

and actually, everyone in that photo HAS been drinking rum, since that was the only thing on the boat (well, water and beer too, but it was a cold day and the beer was ice cold)
03-03-2009, 06:58 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
I once bought a Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 lens with M42 mount (for only 15 euros). It looks great mechanically, everything works flawless. Only... On a crop camera the pictures are too soft and show a lot of abberations. So I put the lens away.

Now, a few days ago I bought an used Canon 5D to finally see how a FF camera works with my lenses. Imagine my disbelief when I got this out of the Canon:



Granted, a 100% crop is still soft, but this at least proves that you MUST use FF lenses on a FF camera to get the most out of it, and I also learned that FF is much more forgiving to "bad" lenses!

So that's why I'm so desperately waiting for a FF camera from Pentax (yes, still, because I don't like the controls of the 5D at all and the screen on the back is a joke).

03-03-2009, 10:07 AM   #35
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
I agree, that you don't need the best glass to make compelling photographs. At last it is the photographer, who makes the image. Nevertheless any good image is compromised, if the technical quality is poor. And if you earn money with photography (or at least if you try to), then technical perfection is the basis on which to build your business. I am not refering to those highly valued family snapshots etc. This is a different story, which does not bother me personally, as here anything goes, as long as the viewers are happy. This would be more about sentiments, than about photography.

Ben
It also depends on the final format in which the shots will be viewed. For example, I just bought the PDML Photo Annual from Blurb. (great book for a good cause, BTW) There are lots of great shots in there, and many were no doubt taken with prime equipment. However, I'm also sure that many were taken with the kit lens or equivalent (same holds true for the Pentax Photogallery). Due to the format (relatively small size) either lens would be fine. However, for fine art prints at gallery sizes, quality gear is high on the required list.
03-03-2009, 10:11 AM   #36
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
It also depends on the final format in which the shots will be viewed. For example, I just bought the PDML Photo Annual from Blurb. (great book for a good cause, BTW) There are lots of great shots in there, and many were no doubt taken with prime equipment. However, I'm also sure that many were taken with the kit lens or equivalent (same holds true for the Pentax Photogallery). Due to the format (relatively small size) either lens would be fine. However, for fine art prints at gallery sizes, quality gear is high on the required list.
Russ, that is ofcourse true. And many complaints about a lens lacking the last bit of sharpness are simply surreal, when the photo is finally printed in 6x4 at the next discount drugstore...

Ben

Last edited by Ben_Edict; 03-04-2009 at 03:01 AM.
03-03-2009, 09:57 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Gooshin: clearly you have not been following my posts on these forums.
You are right, I do not spend time on this forum to follow you. However, I have, on occasion, bumped into your thoughts as I peruse the forum.

Each thread has its own separate identity--that is why it gets a title. It has a subject matter which can be contributed to by any forum member. When everyone has spoken, the matter is done--the thread moves into oblivion.

If you feel there is material from other threads which better support your ideas here, then you need to bring them to this thread--for all to see. Until then, the thread is only what we have here in it--nothing more and nothing less.

The facts are simple: you started a thread which you yourself named "Why some lenses are worth the price." You then open with a shot which shows Why some lenses are not worth their price. That is fine, but when you respond to a fellow forum member like you do in this exchange

QuoteQuote:
Wildman:"Why some lenses are worth the price."

I think it's a much more interesting and difficult question to ask why some lenses are not worth the price
.

QuoteQuote:
Gooshin: okay then start your own thread, durr.

thanks for crapping in mine with an open ended question leaving behind a trail of confusion and anxiety.

Also, i wasnt asking, i was telling, my observations
...
you discredit yourself and your thread. It doesn't matter what you have written in past posts/threads. What matters is that Wildman more aptly entitled your thread than you did, an action for which you jump on him.

Moreover, I do not see any "confusion or anxiety" provoked from the words of Wildman's post, however, I, unfortunately, can not say the same about yours.
03-04-2009, 07:50 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
i think you misunderstood

i posted a picture from a low cost lens that produced adequate but not stellar results

a 18mm f2.8 lens that covers a full frame image for a mere 140 dollars, id say that pretty good! This lens is worth its price.

i went on to say that something like the Zeiss 18mm F3.5, that retails for 1200 euro's, i would expect to not show such significant quality fallout in the corners, and why it would be worth the price.

Wildmans comments, i feel, were not necessary.

I have many times posted my feelings for other lenses in my library, along with pictures, and whether or not i felt they were worth the price. I do not wish to entertain an individual that is not aware of my forum presence, you may find it shocking that i do quite enough photography and testing amidst all the banter, alot of which is somewhere in the forum archives.

but you already have a preconceived notion of me, so whats the point?


Last edited by Gooshin; 03-04-2009 at 08:12 AM.
03-05-2009, 10:22 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Gooshin: but you already have a preconceived notion of me, so whats the point?
No, I do not think I have a preconceived notion of you. I have been bumping into your thoughts on the forum for almost a year now. You are a valuable, contributing member of the forum and a great shooter.

That is why I was surprised to see your response to Wildman: I thought it was rough and rude but, more importantly, unnecessary. I could not understand why you responded so harshly to someone who was only contributing to your thread. I find Wildman's contribution valid and, as I have said already in earlier posts, accurate. He even prefaced his remarks by saying "I think."
03-06-2009, 01:54 AM   #40
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
Pentax has a 15mm f/3.5 which is basically a Zeiss lens, I checked the design of a Zeiss 15mm f/4 for the Contax system and the designs were so close that it couldn't be a fluke. curiously the Pentax lens had an aspherical lens in it, but they only made a handful of these and then they changed the optical formula, to one that didn't use the aspheric element... the zeiss lens didn't use aspherics to start with. The quality of the corners on these older superwide angle lenses isn't something to write home about...modern designs are managing to correct that, just look at the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 that is one sublime piece of glass...shame about it's flare tolerance...
03-06-2009, 02:08 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
Gooshin and Jeweltrail,

I have already moved on to other topics.

As I have no interest in acquainting myself with Gooshin's 3320 previous
posts and as this apparently disqualifies me from participating in "his"
thread I'm happy to move on.

There have been many other threads where my opinion has been well
received and valued and that's all anyone can hope for.

This is a big forum with room for many opinions, including mine, in
other threads and that is the forum's strength.

My best to you both,
Wildman

Last edited by wildman; 03-06-2009 at 02:24 AM.
03-06-2009, 02:14 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Pentax has a 15mm f/3.5 which is basically a Zeiss lens, I checked the design of a Zeiss 15mm f/4 for the Contax system and the designs were so close that it couldn't be a fluke. curiously the Pentax lens had an aspherical lens in it, but they only made a handful of these and then they changed the optical formula, to one that didn't use the aspheric element... the zeiss lens didn't use aspherics to start with. The quality of the corners on these older superwide angle lenses isn't something to write home about...modern designs are managing to correct that, just look at the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 that is one sublime piece of glass...shame about it's flare tolerance...
The old Pentax 15/3.5 is a dream lens . I have been using one for years and it is very sharp and contrasty on the DSLR, too, with very beautiful colour rendering. The lens was originally developt by Zeiss and Pentax as a joint venture, but as you wrote, Pentax used an aspherical element in the first series. At that time, when aspherical lenses had to be cut and ground and polished and have not been moulded, that was simply too expensive. Even the later all-spherical lenses were not sold at discount prices...
The only drawback I observe with the 15/3.5 is, that it is very prone to flare, with all sorts of colours and shapes, due to the rays comming in through the iris at weird angles.

Ben
03-06-2009, 02:20 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
The old Pentax 15/3.5 is a dream lens . I have been using one for years and it is very sharp and contrasty on the DSLR, too, with very beautiful colour rendering. The lens was originally developt by Zeiss and Pentax as a joint venture, but as you wrote, Pentax used an aspherical element in the first series. At that time, when aspherical lenses had to be cut and ground and polished and have not been moulded, that was simply too expensive. Even the later all-spherical lenses were not sold at discount prices...
The only drawback I observe with the 15/3.5 is, that it is very prone to flare, with all sorts of colours and shapes, due to the rays comming in through the iris at weird angles.

Ben
well that explains why they changed the design,cost. and I agree with you on the flare, the hood on that thing was basically useless...I remember using gaffer tape on the hood to fix flare issues. With Pentax coming out with their new DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited I had high hopes it could be used on full frame...but they have most likely changed the design to suit APS-C reduced frame format cameras, considering the new lenses physical dimensions....damn
03-06-2009, 03:00 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
well that explains why they changed the design,cost. and I agree with you on the flare, the hood on that thing was basically useless...I remember using gaffer tape on the hood to fix flare issues. With Pentax coming out with their new DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited I had high hopes it could be used on full frame...but they have most likely changed the design to suit APS-C reduced frame format cameras, considering the new lenses physical dimensions....damn
Pentax seems to concentrate on producing physically small lenses. That has always been a prime target for Pentax, even in film days and they often sacrificed speed and quality to make lenses smaller. That explained the M-series, which often replaced better K-series lenses. At least the current small limited lenses seem to not scrifice optical quality, only speed.

It might be, that the small physical size is important on the Japanese market, which always was their first target market.

Ben
03-06-2009, 03:08 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
the Japanese seem to be mimicking the French who also go for small things the goal is " the ultimate in cute"

that aside, most of the M lenses were superb performers the SMC 50mm f/1.7M was a stellar lens and let's not forget the 28mm f/2 which at the time was one of the best 28's out there..I agree, the K generation was *alot* faster, they seemed to snap out of the "smaller is better" frame of mind with the FA lenses. though the FA77 f/1.8 limited is suprisingly small and compact for what it is, the cannon 85 f/1.8 is almost twice the size and the f/1.2 version is twice as large as that..... however, the FA77 is a killer combination with the pentax ME super.

weird focal length though.
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!
18mm, cost, edge, frame, image, k-mount, pentax lens, price, sigma, slr lens, softness, ziess
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SDM lenses, how much they are really worth or are they worth it? Pentaxor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 01-17-2015 11:32 PM
Is the FA 77 worth the price? SteveM Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 02-12-2009 04:26 PM
Are cheap Made In China batteries worth the price? WheresWaldo Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 19 01-03-2009 05:09 AM
cosina 24mm f2.8 worth price ? netuser Photographic Technique 4 01-01-2009 06:26 PM
Is this worth the price? jfg69 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-18-2007 10:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 AM. | 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