From K20d to K5 and very happy!

Fluegel · 11-23-2019, 01:11 PM

I do not need the tele range from the 16-85. Up to 50 mm is just fine.

After reading the experiences of others with the Sigma 17-50 I decided to choose that lens.
I gave in to my wish to get a full 24 mm equivalent, the 17 mm equals 25,5 mm in 35 mm.
That leaves room for a 10-20 lens in the future!

Got the lens today at 319 euro, that is a great price for a new Sigma 17-50/2,8

The Pentax 16-50 is not my cup of tea. Too soft at 2.8 besides that some lenses suffer from poor quality control.

Fluegel · 11-23-2019, 11:26 PM

I am not insisting on F4 or constant aperture for studio use.
In the studio two powerful strobes give me F16 lighting conditions, everything under control.

Sigma offers the 17-50 lens at a friendly price.
The IQ and the price convinced me to go for that lens.
My wish for more WA will be filled with the 10-20 lens.
Together they are marginally more expensive than the 16-50 lens from Pentax.

For me the first time to go for third party lenses.
It feels like betrayal. Long time ago Pentax lenses made me decide to choose Pentax.
I was convinced by posters to look at Sigma.
The 10-20 looks exciting. That will be the next.

**Apet-Sure** · 11-24-2019, 03:43 PM

I bought the Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro to upgrade from the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens. I've been very happy with the Sigma. I've read that Sigma had QC problems at times, but have had no problem with my copy. I probably would have bought the Pentax 16-85mm if I could have afforded it, but at least the Sigma has a K-mount, so not a complete brand betrayal.

Fluegel · 11-24-2019, 11:43 PM

Good for you.
For me a faster lens was more important than the extra Tele range your 17-70 lens gives.
Glad that Sigma gives us the choice.

Fluegel · 11-29-2019, 04:09 PM

Disaster!

I followed my routine, powered the Elinchrom 600 Ws mono blocks, prepared the items I wanted to photograph and could not believe my eyes.
All images unsharp. Checked the setting of the viewfinder. Viewfinder was OK.
Then did some test shots without the flash. Now the metering was completely off.
Battery was low but that could not be the source of the trouble.
Took my faithful K20d and got good results.

It turned out the soft filter was activated. Now I know that Pentax means business when you ask for soft that is what you will get.
Still the metering problem to correct. It turned out the +/- correction was set for +5.
My K5 is on a tripod in a room accessible for all members of our household.
One of them must be the guilty one but which one?

I do not use metering in the studio, simply use the settings I am used to.
There is no warning the soft filter is activated, that is certainly a surprise.

Was about to send the K5 to a service department

That would have been a nice surprise.

**photogem** · 11-29-2019, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Fluegel

Again many useful tips about lenses.
I understand the users that decided to choose the 18-135 mm lens.
It is a good lens but it is not wider only faster than the 18-55 kit lens.
The lens I am looking for would be 16 to 40 mm with F4.
The 16-50 is not my choice. Too soft at 2.8.
The Sigma lens that starts at 17 mm with 2.8 could be my choice.
Most of my work is done in a small studio using mono blocks and manual Pentax a series macro lenses, the 50 mm and the 100 mm. They give excellent results certainly not less than more recent.AF macro lenses.
The zoom I am looking for is a waik around lens.

Paul

The old DA16-45 is a really great lens! It was designed actually by the same person who designed the new DA-F50*/1,4:
Masakazu Saori!

It can be an amazing lens and has nice close-up ability.

The design is quite similar to the "floated lens designs" such as the DA31ltd. and in good condition it is a bargain.
But you need to find a good sample! Bad worn samples wooble a lot and can be decentered.

A good place to look for good samples is Amazon.de, because there you have return possibility if not good, the seller cannot backout of this.

**aslyfox** · 11-29-2019, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Fluegel

Disaster! . . . I do not use metering in the studio, simply use the settings I am used to.
There is no warning the soft filter is activated, that is certainly a surprise.

Was about to send the K5 to a service department

That would have been a nice surprise.

sounds like you experienced Murphy's law: anything can go wrong will go wrong

and Finnegan's corollary to it

Murphy was an optimist

Fluegel · 12-01-2019, 01:33 AM

I considered the 16-45 lens but the F4 does not do it for me.
Heavily used lenses are not what I like.
Age is not important, condition is. My studio work is done with 35 y. o. MF A series macro lenses.
They give excellent results that can not be improved by using recent lenses.

I got a good slice of Murphy that is for sure.
No warning what so ever about soft focus being engaged is something to think about.
The display of the K5 is only used to check lay out and lighting.
Camera settings should be checked as well.

xmeda · 12-02-2019, 01:58 AM

Sig 17-50/2.8 certainly is a good lens. And sometimes the image on camera display looks a little bit unsharp, but then in raw source you see huge amount of detail. So maybe the camera has some pixel recalculation issues with 3rd party lenses.

And only the recently acquired Sigma 35/1.4 ART is able to be significantly better optically.. FA*24/2, FA35/2, DA40/2.8 or FA50/1.4 are not as good in F2.8-F3.5 range as my Sig17-50/2.8 can be

Fluegel · 12-02-2019, 04:46 PM

The unwanted soft focus setting was experienced under studio conditions with a 50 mm macro lens that I often use.
To me it proves the display as used on the K5 does not give me the information I need to check images.
Luckily it concerned a series of only 8 items.

ChucK20D · 12-06-2019, 03:52 PM

I made the same switch. Still have the K20D, but i don't use it much. The K5, with O-GPS on has gotten me some very nice Milky Way.

Fluegel · 12-06-2019, 06:28 PM

Good for you, more recent bodies do give extra options.

Right now I am bidding for a K5 II. Despite this excellent forum I missed the upgrade that the K5 II has with AF.
No problem the K5 will always have function as an extra body.
To say good bye to the K20d is difficult. That camera gave me so many great images. It feels like treason to let the K20d go.

11-23-2019, 11:26 PM	#17
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	I am not insisting on F4 or constant aperture for studio use. In the studio two powerful strobes give me F16 lighting conditions, everything under control. Sigma offers the 17-50 lens at a friendly price. The IQ and the price convinced me to go for that lens. My wish for more WA will be filled with the 10-20 lens. Together they are marginally more expensive than the 16-50 lens from Pentax. For me the first time to go for third party lenses. It feels like betrayal. Long time ago Pentax lenses made me decide to choose Pentax. I was convinced by posters to look at Sigma. The 10-20 looks exciting. That will be the next. Last edited by Fluegel; 11-24-2019 at 05:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Very Pretty, Very Yellow, Very Big Flower.	Tonytee	Post Your Photos!	14	06-12-2016 03:45 AM
News Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year!	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	75	12-26-2014 12:27 AM
Newbie to Pentax - K20D - Very, very serioius problem....	Javaslinger	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	03-04-2009 01:50 PM
A very very Happy Hello from Bavaria	Rudi	Welcomes and Introductions	6	11-18-2008 12:31 AM
Very, Very, Very Large Format Camera Available	shutterdrone	General Talk	22	03-22-2008 10:43 AM

11-23-2019, 01:11 PM	#16
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	I do not need the tele range from the 16-85. Up to 50 mm is just fine. After reading the experiences of others with the Sigma 17-50 I decided to choose that lens. I gave in to my wish to get a full 24 mm equivalent, the 17 mm equals 25,5 mm in 35 mm. That leaves room for a 10-20 lens in the future! Got the lens today at 319 euro, that is a great price for a new Sigma 17-50/2,8 The Pentax 16-50 is not my cup of tea. Too soft at 2.8 besides that some lenses suffer from poor quality control.

11-24-2019, 03:43 PM	#18
Apet-Sure Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Goldsboro North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,861	I bought the Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro to upgrade from the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens. I've been very happy with the Sigma. I've read that Sigma had QC problems at times, but have had no problem with my copy. I probably would have bought the Pentax 16-85mm if I could have afforded it, but at least the Sigma has a K-mount, so not a complete brand betrayal.

11-24-2019, 11:43 PM	#19
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Good for you. For me a faster lens was more important than the extra Tele range your 17-70 lens gives. Glad that Sigma gives us the choice.

11-29-2019, 04:09 PM	#20
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Disaster! I followed my routine, powered the Elinchrom 600 Ws mono blocks, prepared the items I wanted to photograph and could not believe my eyes. All images unsharp. Checked the setting of the viewfinder. Viewfinder was OK. Then did some test shots without the flash. Now the metering was completely off. Battery was low but that could not be the source of the trouble. Took my faithful K20d and got good results. It turned out the soft filter was activated. Now I know that Pentax means business when you ask for soft that is what you will get. Still the metering problem to correct. It turned out the +/- correction was set for +5. My K5 is on a tripod in a room accessible for all members of our household. One of them must be the guilty one but which one? I do not use metering in the studio, simply use the settings I am used to. There is no warning the soft filter is activated, that is certainly a surprise. Was about to send the K5 to a service department That would have been a nice surprise.

11-29-2019, 05:11 PM	#21
photogem Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 3,520	Originally posted by Fluegel Again many useful tips about lenses. I understand the users that decided to choose the 18-135 mm lens. It is a good lens but it is not wider only faster than the 18-55 kit lens. The lens I am looking for would be 16 to 40 mm with F4. The 16-50 is not my choice. Too soft at 2.8. The Sigma lens that starts at 17 mm with 2.8 could be my choice. Most of my work is done in a small studio using mono blocks and manual Pentax a series macro lenses, the 50 mm and the 100 mm. They give excellent results certainly not less than more recent.AF macro lenses. The zoom I am looking for is a waik around lens. Paul The old DA16-45 is a really great lens! It was designed actually by the same person who designed the new DA-F50*/1,4: Masakazu Saori! It can be an amazing lens and has nice close-up ability. The design is quite similar to the "floated lens designs" such as the DA31ltd. and in good condition it is a bargain. But you need to find a good sample! Bad worn samples wooble a lot and can be decentered. A good place to look for good samples is Amazon.de, because there you have return possibility if not good, the seller cannot backout of this.

11-29-2019, 06:02 PM	#22
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581	Originally posted by Fluegel Disaster! . . . I do not use metering in the studio, simply use the settings I am used to. There is no warning the soft filter is activated, that is certainly a surprise. Was about to send the K5 to a service department That would have been a nice surprise. sounds like you experienced Murphy's law: anything can go wrong will go wrong and Finnegan's corollary to it Murphy was an optimist

12-01-2019, 01:33 AM	#23
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	I considered the 16-45 lens but the F4 does not do it for me. Heavily used lenses are not what I like. Age is not important, condition is. My studio work is done with 35 y. o. MF A series macro lenses. They give excellent results that can not be improved by using recent lenses. I got a good slice of Murphy that is for sure. No warning what so ever about soft focus being engaged is something to think about. The display of the K5 is only used to check lay out and lighting. Camera settings should be checked as well.

12-02-2019, 01:58 AM	#24
xmeda Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Brno Posts: 295	Sig 17-50/2.8 certainly is a good lens. And sometimes the image on camera display looks a little bit unsharp, but then in raw source you see huge amount of detail. So maybe the camera has some pixel recalculation issues with 3rd party lenses. And only the recently acquired Sigma 35/1.4 ART is able to be significantly better optically.. FA*24/2, FA35/2, DA40/2.8 or FA50/1.4 are not as good in F2.8-F3.5 range as my Sig17-50/2.8 can be

12-02-2019, 04:46 PM	#25
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	The unwanted soft focus setting was experienced under studio conditions with a 50 mm macro lens that I often use. To me it proves the display as used on the K5 does not give me the information I need to check images. Luckily it concerned a series of only 8 items.

12-06-2019, 03:52 PM	#26
ChucK20D Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 71	I made the same switch. Still have the K20D, but i don't use it much. The K5, with O-GPS on has gotten me some very nice Milky Way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2019, 06:28 PM	#27
Fluegel Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 469 Original Poster	Good for you, more recent bodies do give extra options. Right now I am bidding for a K5 II. Despite this excellent forum I missed the upgrade that the K5 II has with AF. No problem the K5 will always have function as an extra body. To say good bye to the K20d is difficult. That camera gave me so many great images. It feels like treason to let the K20d go.