Lenses now considered retired by K-5

ozlizard · 11-20-2010, 09:40 PM

Well I'm not sure if there is any truth in this or not, but I have heard it mentioned before. In my own experience the 18-125 (kit?) lens I had with my K100 was ablolute rubbish on my K20 and was sold with the K100. IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor. This was most evident went I went to process the image. The IQ just wasn't there

**Digitalis** · 11-20-2010, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Marc Langille

better glass and sensors will normally demand better skills of the photographer. You cannot hide... mediocre skills/understanding are revealed very quickly when using top shelf equipment.

succinctly put.

It brings to mind my experience with the SMCP-DA16-45mm f/4 ED AL. A good lens to start with don't get me wrong, but the high level of aberrations at 16mm, not to mention the corner softness this lens exhibited at focal lengths under 24mm. Produced mediocre images on the K10D when printed to 16X20, I replaced the 16-45 f/4 with the FA31mm f/1.8 limited which can produce superb images at 16X20. Back when I was starting off in photography my grandfather was teaching me to use my Hasselblad 501, I had a lot of problems getting decent images in situations I could easily manage with 35mm cameras. My darkroom work was up to snuff, but the larger format forced me to be more methodical and precise. These days I can easily handle 8X10 format with dexterity and precision that even my older instructors find impressive, and still deliver 16X20 inch platinum prints that are of exhibition quality.

SpecialK · 11-20-2010, 11:41 PM

Quote:

In my own experience the 18-125 (kit?) lens I had with my K100 was ablolute rubbish on my K20 and was sold with the K100. IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor.

I had the same feeling with those cameras and the 50-200 (though I would not quite say rubbish-quality).

Laurentiu Cristofor · 11-21-2010, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by ozlizard

IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor.

So far, I haven't found a lens that looked great on my K10D but was bad on my K-7 due to those extra 4+MP. I have lenses that don't deliver in the resolution department, but they don't do that on either camera - they didn't get "outresolved" as a result of a camera upgrade.

Higher resolution sensors, however, require better camera handling. A shaky hand may not get noticed on 6MP, but it will on 15MP. But this scenario is about the camera outresolving the user, not the lens.

ogl · 11-21-2010, 02:10 AM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123405-fa24mm-2-really-weak-k-5-a.html

I don't know why - bad focus, bad lens, but photo is rather weak for F/8.

ozlizard · 11-21-2010, 05:57 AM

The 18-125 was quite good on the K100, never noticed any problems but was totally unusable on the K20. Tripod shots, anything, nothing to do with how the lens was used.

Rickster · 11-21-2010, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Manel Brand

The same that are not up to your K200. Any lens that is good with your actual camera will be even better with the K-5. Those older lens (K to FA) were made to work with 35mm cameras; if you do the math, it takes about 25 mega-pixels to simulate 35mm film, which is still far more than any digital camera available this days. However, some may argue that a lens made for film doesn't perform very well with digital sensors, but I did not find evidence of this to be true in my experience.

+1

My calculations say that the sensor resolution for the K-5 is ~104 lp/mm. (K10D=82, K20D & K-7 = 99) Highest resolution film I used to use was Kodak Tech Pan rated at ~320 lp/mm ... That's roughly equivalent to a 50 megapixel DSLR with an APS-C sensor. We have a ways to go.

osv · 11-21-2010, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

I upgraded to a K-5 from a K10D and the increase in resolution was the least of my interests. I'm sure if you polled this the high ISO improvements are far more important to the most upgraders.

not for me... even coming from the lousy iso on the k10d, i still want more resolution.

SteveM · 11-21-2010, 12:51 PM

There are quite a few generalizations in this thread. The only reference I can find on the web where someone has taken some measurements shows the K28/2.0 being sharper than the 43mm Ltd at some F stops. Are we saying that the FA Ltds are obsolete?

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/ph...superwide.html

------- ... f2.0 ... f2.8 ... f5.6 . f16.... f22
28/2.0 ... 69 ..... 69 .... 78 .... 98 .... 78
43/1.9 ... 55 ..... 69 .... 98 .... 87 .... 87

.

Manel Brand · 11-21-2010, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by smc

The only reference I can find on the web...

Thanks for that.

Wow! Look at those values. Yep, my best lens so far...

SteveM · 11-21-2010, 01:59 PM

I would love to see some serious tests done across the Tak/K/M/FA and DA lines. While the DA lenses have been optimized for cropped sensor, I have owned quite a few and didn't find the difference to be what people were stating. I understand that there are coatings on the rear element to help with problems sensor have with light reflection vs film, and the lenses control the angle on which the light enters the sensor, but I think many of the changes have to do with controlling production costs.

People want cheap lenses that perform well and certainly wouldn't pay what people paid back in the 70s and 80s (after converting those dollars into today's). Are people saying that a $200 DA lens will be sharper than every Tak/K/M/FA ever produced? I would be surprised, but I would expect it would perform much better than some of them. I would like to know which ones are impacted and by how much.

Jimfear · 11-21-2010, 03:05 PM

Just a thought...

Shouldn't the sensor logically outresolve the lenses? Not speaking specifically of the K-5 but in general, that should be the ideal right? Otherwise you aren't getting the most out of your lenses.

16Mp in an APS-C sensor is quite a lot for a lens made for 35mm film (equivalent to a 38Mp FF), but is it enough to outresolve them? I don't know... Would it make the lenses obsolete? Most definitely NOT.

Anyway, I am interested in seeing how the old lenses fare if I decide to get a K-5.

hegedus · 11-21-2010, 03:29 PM

Anyone tried the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with K-5? I have it with my K10D and it performs superbly.

Manel Brand · 11-21-2010, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by smc

I would love to see some serious tests done across the Tak/K/M/FA and DA lines.

Definitely...but in the meantime, it seems reasonably to think that a good lens today is still a good lens in the years to come. That doesn't mean that D lenses can't be better than the older 35mm film lens; they surely can and are readily available if one is willing to pay the price; then comes the equation price vs practical value and it has been proved that "cheap" 35mm glass still delivers enough quality, if one is wanting to print a 8 x 10" photo; in the end, the ultimate question as to resolution debates is to ask yourself how big you will ever need to print an image? (watching unprocessed photographs on a computer can hardly be elucidative about that).

Abstract · 11-21-2010, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Manel Brand

Definitely...but in the meantime, it seems reasonably to think that a good lens today is still a good lens in the years to come. That doesn't mean that D lenses can't be better than the older 35mm film lens; they surely can and are readily available if one is willing to pay the price; then comes the equation price vs practical value and it has been proved that "cheap" 35mm glass still delivers enough quality, if one is wanting to print a 8 x 10" photo; in the end, the ultimate question as to resolution debates is to ask yourself how big you will ever need to print an image? (watching unprocessed photographs on a computer can hardly be elucidative about that).

I plan on printing bigger with photos from older lenses...

meh...

11-20-2010, 10:12 PM	#47
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Marc Langille better glass and sensors will normally demand better skills of the photographer. You cannot hide... mediocre skills/understanding are revealed very quickly when using top shelf equipment. succinctly put. It brings to mind my experience with the SMCP-DA16-45mm f/4 ED AL. A good lens to start with don't get me wrong, but the high level of aberrations at 16mm, not to mention the corner softness this lens exhibited at focal lengths under 24mm. Produced mediocre images on the K10D when printed to 16X20, I replaced the 16-45 f/4 with the FA31mm f/1.8 limited which can produce superb images at 16X20. Back when I was starting off in photography my grandfather was teaching me to use my Hasselblad 501, I had a lot of problems getting decent images in situations I could easily manage with 35mm cameras. My darkroom work was up to snuff, but the larger format forced me to be more methodical and precise. These days I can easily handle 8X10 format with dexterity and precision that even my older instructors find impressive, and still deliver 16X20 inch platinum prints that are of exhibition quality. Last edited by Digitalis; 11-20-2010 at 10:24 PM.

11-21-2010, 01:29 PM	#55
Manel Brand Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Porto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 853	Originally posted by smc The only reference I can find on the web... Thanks for that. Wow! Look at those values. Yep, my best lens so far... Last edited by Manel Brand; 01-18-2011 at 02:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
retired packard	trev99	Monthly Photo Contests	0	03-03-2010 05:12 PM
A Retired USMC Captain (First portrait on the street)	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	16	08-28-2009 06:59 PM
Retired Rail Switcher	areidjr	Post Your Photos!	13	09-23-2007 05:59 AM
Retired Warriors.	NLAlston	Post Your Photos!	4	05-27-2007 10:00 PM
*istDS is now retired - last images	flash1100	Post Your Photos!	3	01-25-2007 03:01 PM

11-20-2010, 09:40 PM	#46
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	Well I'm not sure if there is any truth in this or not, but I have heard it mentioned before. In my own experience the 18-125 (kit?) lens I had with my K100 was ablolute rubbish on my K20 and was sold with the K100. IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor. This was most evident went I went to process the image. The IQ just wasn't there

11-20-2010, 11:41 PM	#48
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: In my own experience the 18-125 (kit?) lens I had with my K100 was ablolute rubbish on my K20 and was sold with the K100. IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor. I had the same feeling with those cameras and the 50-200 (though I would not quite say rubbish-quality).

11-21-2010, 01:08 AM	#49
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by ozlizard IMHO the lens couldnt match the resolution of the sensor. So far, I haven't found a lens that looked great on my K10D but was bad on my K-7 due to those extra 4+MP. I have lenses that don't deliver in the resolution department, but they don't do that on either camera - they didn't get "outresolved" as a result of a camera upgrade. Higher resolution sensors, however, require better camera handling. A shaky hand may not get noticed on 6MP, but it will on 15MP. But this scenario is about the camera outresolving the user, not the lens.

11-21-2010, 02:10 AM	#50
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123405-fa24mm-2-really-weak-k-5-a.html I don't know why - bad focus, bad lens, but photo is rather weak for F/8.

11-21-2010, 05:57 AM	#51
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	The 18-125 was quite good on the K100, never noticed any problems but was totally unusable on the K20. Tripod shots, anything, nothing to do with how the lens was used.

11-21-2010, 11:45 AM	#52
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Originally posted by Manel Brand The same that are not up to your K200. Any lens that is good with your actual camera will be even better with the K-5. Those older lens (K to FA) were made to work with 35mm cameras; if you do the math, it takes about 25 mega-pixels to simulate 35mm film, which is still far more than any digital camera available this days. However, some may argue that a lens made for film doesn't perform very well with digital sensors, but I did not find evidence of this to be true in my experience. +1 My calculations say that the sensor resolution for the K-5 is ~104 lp/mm. (K10D=82, K20D & K-7 = 99) Highest resolution film I used to use was Kodak Tech Pan rated at ~320 lp/mm ... That's roughly equivalent to a 50 megapixel DSLR with an APS-C sensor. We have a ways to go.

11-21-2010, 12:16 PM	#53
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers I upgraded to a K-5 from a K10D and the increase in resolution was the least of my interests. I'm sure if you polled this the high ISO improvements are far more important to the most upgraders. not for me... even coming from the lousy iso on the k10d, i still want more resolution.

11-21-2010, 12:51 PM	#54
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	There are quite a few generalizations in this thread. The only reference I can find on the web where someone has taken some measurements shows the K28/2.0 being sharper than the 43mm Ltd at some F stops. Are we saying that the FA Ltds are obsolete? http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/ph...superwide.html ------- ... f2.0 ... f2.8 ... f5.6 . f16.... f22 28/2.0 ... 69 ..... 69 .... 78 .... 98 .... 78 43/1.9 ... 55 ..... 69 .... 98 .... 87 .... 87 .

11-21-2010, 01:59 PM	#56
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	I would love to see some serious tests done across the Tak/K/M/FA and DA lines. While the DA lenses have been optimized for cropped sensor, I have owned quite a few and didn't find the difference to be what people were stating. I understand that there are coatings on the rear element to help with problems sensor have with light reflection vs film, and the lenses control the angle on which the light enters the sensor, but I think many of the changes have to do with controlling production costs. People want cheap lenses that perform well and certainly wouldn't pay what people paid back in the 70s and 80s (after converting those dollars into today's). Are people saying that a $200 DA lens will be sharper than every Tak/K/M/FA ever produced? I would be surprised, but I would expect it would perform much better than some of them. I would like to know which ones are impacted and by how much.

11-21-2010, 03:05 PM	#57
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	Just a thought... Shouldn't the sensor logically outresolve the lenses? Not speaking specifically of the K-5 but in general, that should be the ideal right? Otherwise you aren't getting the most out of your lenses. 16Mp in an APS-C sensor is quite a lot for a lens made for 35mm film (equivalent to a 38Mp FF), but is it enough to outresolve them? I don't know... Would it make the lenses obsolete? Most definitely NOT. Anyway, I am interested in seeing how the old lenses fare if I decide to get a K-5.

11-21-2010, 03:29 PM	#58
hegedus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Croatia Posts: 180	Anyone tried the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with K-5? I have it with my K10D and it performs superbly.

11-21-2010, 04:12 PM	#59
Manel Brand Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Porto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 853	Originally posted by smc I would love to see some serious tests done across the Tak/K/M/FA and DA lines. Definitely...but in the meantime, it seems reasonably to think that a good lens today is still a good lens in the years to come. That doesn't mean that D lenses can't be better than the older 35mm film lens; they surely can and are readily available if one is willing to pay the price; then comes the equation price vs practical value and it has been proved that "cheap" 35mm glass still delivers enough quality, if one is wanting to print a 8 x 10" photo; in the end, the ultimate question as to resolution debates is to ask yourself how big you will ever need to print an image? (watching unprocessed photographs on a computer can hardly be elucidative about that).

11-21-2010, 05:39 PM	#60
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Originally posted by Manel Brand Definitely...but in the meantime, it seems reasonably to think that a good lens today is still a good lens in the years to come. That doesn't mean that D lenses can't be better than the older 35mm film lens; they surely can and are readily available if one is willing to pay the price; then comes the equation price vs practical value and it has been proved that "cheap" 35mm glass still delivers enough quality, if one is wanting to print a 8 x 10" photo; in the end, the ultimate question as to resolution debates is to ask yourself how big you will ever need to print an image? (watching unprocessed photographs on a computer can hardly be elucidative about that). I plan on printing bigger with photos from older lenses... meh...