Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-19-2009, 03:57 PM   #16
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by schmik Quote
Maybe they don't sell may due to their backwards compatibility.... Instead of shelling out the coins for a shiny new one lots and lots of pentaxians come here or to fleabay and buy the lovely old primes. This leaves less money in Pentaxs' pocket.

mike
they buy lovely old primes because they don't have lovely new ones to buy
f.e.: 35 was very popular general use lens on film, yet there is nothing from pentax to replace it, same goes for 50s, same goes for 28.... I could just rewrite my OP...

Old primes are lovely, but not to everybody's liking. For me, I can't MF anything shorter than 100 (Ok I may get it right on short distances [<2m] with lenses as short as 50) if shooting wide open. For the hell of it I can't... Therefore anything else then F, FA, DFA, DA series aro not very usable in my hands unles I don't shoot them at f8/11 and hyperfocal distance, which is fine outdoors, but pretty much unusable indoors without flash... And I did practice, I did try , but my eyes aren't simply good enough (blind photographer, ironic isn't it ). Plus MF will never/very rarely beat AF in speed, and sometimes that's what matters.
I understand that Pentax needs to make money (Otherwise Hoya may sell them ) but still why do we have to have DA18-55, 18-55II 18-55L, 16-45, 16-50 and not a signle one DA24 or DA30/35???

BR

04-19-2009, 04:00 PM   #17
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
I am in agreement. Younger shooters (the majority I have to say) just take time to understand manual focus, manual metering and prime lens shooting.
My response to those doubter is always to tell them to look at the images of both camps. That tells a lot

Daniel
I understand whay you're saying here, and agree that zooms are easier to use for beginners, but...
still, I enjoy primes, and I enjoy AF primes, as for metering, it's mix of spot, manual and CW. But I guess I'll have to accept that like BenEdict I'm simply in underwhelmed minority (though in other group )

BR
04-19-2009, 04:38 PM   #18
Veteran Member
schmik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney Aus
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 527
It's a bit of a 'chicken and the egg' situation. If there were new alternatives for a good price people would buy them..... and while there is so much available in the old stuff people won't give the money to pentax.

As far as AF goes for the fast lenses, I think that there are two camps.
1. AF is great when you need to shoot quickly and will be happy with what AF gives. Speed being the most important.
2. When DOF is everything and you have lots of time then MF can be better.

From the countless hours i spent doing AF tests at the wide open end (not that big, 2.4 and 2.8) i have found that AF is not that consistent.... and that is when focusing on a test chart where you try to make it as easy as possible for the AF system.

Low light, people shots fall into the camp 1. And close up 'bokeh' shots of static objects fall into camp 2. Anyway...... i digress from the OP.

mike
04-19-2009, 05:17 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
I generally agree that Pentax lenses have covered the range <100mm quite well. But the scene is entirely different >100mm

There is zero around 135mm except maybe the DA*50-135mm

At 135mm the FA version AF speed is more than matching that of the SDM AF speed of the DA*zoom.

If only Pentax can reissue FA135mm (same optics) like DA*200mm (same optics of FA*200mm plus sdm + weatherseal), I would go for it. It certianly would not take too much effect. I would not care fringing in extreme contrast situation (DA*200mm & FA135mm) which is more like a nuisance than a defect


Daniel
As I've said in other threads in the forum, I think that the next limited should be a 135mm.

Also, there was a DA* 30mm on the road map, but it was removed. Who knows, now that Nikon released their 35mm f/1.8, we may see it re-appear, maybe in a cheaper DA version?

04-19-2009, 11:52 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
There was an absence of evidence until like two months ago. Now, there is the Nikon 35/1.8. $219.95.
Right - which is around twice the cost of the corresponding "normal" for FF. Nikon also has the advantage of a much greater market share than Pentax and can thus hope to sell enough of these to make it profitable despite the relatively small margin.

Again, I'm not saying it would be impossible for Pentax to produce a relatively inexpensive fast 35 for APS-C. I'm just saying it's hardly the same situation as existed with the 50 on FF in terms of price or demand, and given that they can continue to sell the excellent FA35/2, there really seems little point in sinking a whole bunch or R&D resources into a project to produce a very marginally faster lens and hope to be able to sell it very marginally cheaper by making it APS-C only.
04-20-2009, 02:49 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
In addition to Marc's comments, which I basically support, I'd like to add:

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
DA14/2.8 = FA20/2.8
DA15/4 = wants to be 24mm replacement (I understand why they didn't make it 16mm [DA*16-50, DA16-45] but they could/should have made it 2.8 IMHO)
Why make a 15/2.8 when there is already a 14/2.8. The line up now is good. You can choose a fast but bulky 14/2.8 lens or a compact slower 15/4 lens. This is like when they in the past had 24/28/35 lenses both as f2.8 and f3.5.


QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
DA70 = 105mm another oddball length but another nice lens
What is odd with that? 105mm is probably the second most classic portrait length after 85mm. Pentax had a K 105/2.8 with good reputation, though they in the M and A generations redesigned it to a more compact M/A 100/2.8. And even a Pentaxian like me have heard of the Nikon 105mm portrait lens (and used it actually during my military service 20 years ago).

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
fast 50??? one of the basics of photography? The only options available are 31/1.8 (expensive) 35/2 (slower) Sigma 30/1.4 (3rd party)
Well, there were that 30mm lens on the road map that dissapeared in the last version. Hopefully it can appear again. But given that normal zooms in terms of sold units have replaced many of the 50mm's from the past, you will just never again have the situation that you can simultaneously choose from 50/2.0, 50/1.7, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 going from dirt cheap to very expensive. If the 30mm reappear on the road map I think the 35/2, 31/1.8 and 30/1.4 will offer enough choises.
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
35/2 popular moderate wide/fast wide angle, there is absolutely nothing to take it's place else then FA*24 (expensive and discontinued) and Sigma 24/1.8
28/2.8 standard wide angle! It's been like that for generations of lenses (I'd be even happy with f3.5 equivalent) but there's nothing to replace it (unles you don't count SMC 18/3.5 and yes that's K generation!!!)
Well, I think the 28 and 35 mm FF lenses has suffered from the same effect as the 50mm options, but to even a higher degree so that they are today only offered as zooms and the 21mm ltd which falls right between the old FF 28 and 35mm's.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
135/2.8 or 3.5 there was a huge number of these and yet in digital era there's no replacement other then Tamron's 90/2.8 macro
Yes, on this I agree with you. A 90 or 100 mm ltd would nicely complete the DA ltd line up. Think M135/3.5.

QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
...There is zero around 135mm except maybe the DA*50-135mm

If only Pentax can reissue FA135mm (same optics) like DA*200mm (same optics of FA*200mm plus sdm + weatherseal), I would go for it. It certianly would not take too much effect. I would not care fringing in extreme contrast situation (DA*200mm & FA135mm) which is more like a nuisance than a defect...
Yes, a DFA135/2.8 version of the old FA135/2.8 would be a good idea and replacing for APS-C the function of the 200mm lens. They don't need to add SDM to this since it is reputed to be one of the fastest screw drive Pentax AF lenses.

The DA*50-135 is actually not at its best at the upper 135mm length.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
by "they are not digital" I basicaly mean they are not meant to replace FF 50 & 100 in terms of FOV. If they would be they would've been 35 ish (we have that one) and 70ish (there is Sigma version...)
But why did every brand have a 50mm and a 90/100/105mm macro lens? Probably just to get a normal macro (flowers and technical work) and a macro with a bit more range (bugs). But often you would like more for bugs, butterflies etc., like 150-250mm something. So when Pentax went to APS-C, it made sence to replace the 50mm macro with the DA35mm ltd macro, and to keep the DFA 100mm macro at 100mm to let it have a new role as a longer 150mm macro equivalent. The lens I don't understand is the DFA50mm macro. Why bother to make that lens?

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Maybe not designed for APS-C but I'm sure you could argue that they were sufficiently modified (check the element map and descriptions) to be "re-designed" for digital...
The 50mm was subject to sensor flare and now it isn't (D-FA) ect.
DFA100 and FA100 is different as well.....
DFA100mm is supposed to have a new patent.

In the golden age of SLR's, when the people who today have P&S cameras had a simple SLR, they usually had three lenses: 28mm, 50mm and 135mm. That's why so many of these focal lengths are available used. But why these focal lengths? Well, I have heard the same thing that the 50mm was a compromise because it was easier to build than a "true" normal (43 mm). Originally many brands didn't even produce a 50mm, but a 55mm because it was simpler. The other common 28 and 135mm lenses (and also 24 and 90 mm I belive) probably goes back to rather arbitrary choises made at Leica when they built the lens ranges for the Leica range finders, the first cameras that used 24x36mm negatives, doubling the size of the cinama pictures for which the 35mm film was originally developed. No reason Pentax has to follow them completely. Not a natural law. And evidently, Pentax is less conservative on focal lengths than most of the other brands.
04-20-2009, 03:01 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
In the golden age of SLR's, when the people who today have P&S cameras had a simple SLR, they usually had three lenses: 28mm, 50mm and 135mm. That's why so many of these focal lengths are available used.
Douglas I completely agree with all your comments. Just one side note: TODAY is the golden age of (D)SLR. Nevere before SLRs were bought in as large numbers as we witness today. It is big business, even better, than it used to be twenty or thirty years ago. The trick is to sell additional lenses on top of the initially supplied one or two kit lenses.

Ben
04-20-2009, 09:26 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,859
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
Douglas I completely agree with all your comments. Just one side note: TODAY is the golden age of (D)SLR. Nevere before SLRs were bought in as large numbers as we witness today. It is big business, even better, than it used to be twenty or thirty years ago. The trick is to sell additional lenses on top of the initially supplied one or two kit lenses.

Ben
Today is also pretty good for lens choice for Pentax cameras. Yes, a few holes exist in the lineup, a few thin spots, and a couple of weird lenses. The situation is far better than it was a couple of years ago. With Pentax's corporate situation and the economy, they have done well to improve our lens choice.

I don't know why it takes as long to design a new lens as it does to design a car. I hope some of the ideas proposed here are already in the works at Pentax.

04-20-2009, 10:54 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
I don't know why it takes as long to design a new lens as it does to design a car. I hope some of the ideas proposed here are already in the works at Pentax.
Fortunately, even Pentax does not need as much time as the car industry... A completely new car design took up to 10 years development from idea to roll-out products in the past. Now, as mainstream manufacturers base their portfolio on component systems around a single platform, it does take much less time. Just read, that one manufacturer (I think it was VW) introduced a system, which reduces total time from idea to final car to just two years. Pentax took about three years for the 60-250, so that is not too bad...

I wish, they would simply use some of the existing FA designs and reintroduce some of the old lenses, like the 135mm, that was talked about in this thread, or the 28-75/2.8, which is a superb lens or the 400/5.6. They can paint it black and name it "DA" -*I wouldn't care...

Ben
04-20-2009, 11:34 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Why make a 15/2.8 when there is already a 14/2.8. The line up now is good. You can choose a fast but bulky 14/2.8 lens or a compact slower 15/4 lens. This is like when they in the past had 24/28/35 lenses both as f2.8 and f3.5.
Even more so, because the size difference between a typical 28/2.8 and 28/3.5 is miniscule compared to the huge size difference between the 14/2.8 and 15/4! The 14/2.8 holds no interest whatsoever for me, but the 15/4 interests me greatly, mainly because of size (well, also, I suspect 15mm would provide a more useful FOV for me, although I'm not convinced 16mm wouldn't be better still). There is definitely room for both the 14 & 15 here, spec'ed pretty much exactly as they are!
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!
angle, commitment, fov, gaps, k-mount, length, lenses, line, macro, pentax lens, replacement, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Km and old manual lenses: SMC Takumars & Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses Kendrick Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 04-14-2010 03:23 AM
For Sale - Sold: Yard sale: M lenses, K 300mm, DA 14mm, ME film body, Nikkor lenses and more Nachodog Sold Items 24 12-26-2009 12:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: Lenses, lenses, lenses... and a flash! pbo Sold Items 18 05-28-2009 04:35 PM
For Sale - Sold: M42 / K / KA / FA Lenses Grab bag of Vintage to Current lenses. 50mm FA f/1.4 MikeDubU Sold Items 10 02-09-2009 12:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 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