[IchabodCrane]

I think by "new" he means an up-to-date, optimized for the format lens. The FA* 24 was intended for FF film and is a big prime, especially by Pentax standards, the Limiteds likely his biggest reason for choosing the Pentax in the first place (was for me).

Lugging around an outdated hunk of glass that your camera can only use a part of is far from optimal, and completely unnecessary in 2012 with all the excellent new options out there.

Looks like the 24 mm liens is no longer listed on Pentax's website so maybe that factored into his viewpoint. Still, he's ignoring the Sigma 24 mm lens.

[sjwaldron]

Looks like the 24 mm liens is no longer listed on Pentax's website so maybe that factored into his viewpoint. Still, he's ignoring the Sigma 24 mm lens.

The FA* is long out of production. If anyone wants one, I have mine up for sale on here...

I'd ignore the Sigma too. Sigma's in-production trifecta of wide large aperture primes in that range are far from ideal from reviews I've seen. Sigma is getting comparable or better than the camera manufacturers, but on more expensive recent lenses like their 50mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4 primes. I still have bad memories of their "crackle" textured paint finish.

[IchabodCrane]

The FA* is long out of production. If anyone wants one, I have my up for sale on here...

I'd ignore the Sigma too. Sigma's in-production trifecta of wide large aperture primes in that range are far from ideal from reviews I've seen. Sigma is getting comparable or better than the camera manufacturers, but on more expensive recent lenses like their 50mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4 primes. I still have bad memories of their "crackle" textured paint finish.

These reviews from readers here seem rather positive:

Sigma 24mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[Miguel]

I'm sure plenty of folks like it. But at 1.8 lbs, the fit is intended for FF or chunkier camera bodies. That's not in the spirit of the Limited lenses lineup that Johnston (and others) would sing high praises of. He was hoping for something around f2 which would entail a more compact design. I like some of their lenses, but does Sigma make any small form-factor lenses?

M

[Class A]

Lugging around an outdated hunk of glass that your camera can only use a part of is far from optimal, and completely unnecessary in 2012 with all the excellent new options out there.

1. A good 24/2 lens will always be on the large side. Reducing the image circle does not help that much.
2. Your argument about the size/weight makes sense theoretically, but note that Mr. Johnston now has a Nikon D800. Hardly a lightweight and compact solution. EDIT: The 35/1.4 lens he uses weighs in at 601g that's ~150% of the Pentax FA* 24/2 (405g). The Nikkor is also bigger than the Pentax.

N.B., he now calls the D800 and the Nikkor AF-S 35mm ƒ/1.4G the "best overall photographic device of any description I have used thus far in my life". Makes me wonder of how much worth should be given to his old Luminous Landscapes column in which he praised the Pentax Ltds so much.

[IchabodCrane]

I'm sure plenty of folks like it. But at 1.8 lbs, the fit is intended for FF or chunkier camera bodies. That's not in the spirit of the Limited lenses lineup that Johnston (and others) would sing high praises of. He was hoping for something around f2 which would entail a more compact design. I like some of their lenses, but does Sigma make any small form-factor lenses?

M

Granted, it's a big lens with a 77 mm filter ring but it's nowhere close to 1.8 lbs. According to Sigma's website, it's 485 g or 1.07 lbs. (which is about 115 g less than the 35/1.4 Nikkor lens he's using).

[illdefined]

1. A good 24/2 lens will always be on the large side. Reducing the image circle does not help that much.
2. Your argument about the size/weight makes sense theoretically, but note that Mr. Johnston now has a Nikon D800. Hardly a lightweight and compact solution. EDIT: The 35/1.4 lens he uses weighs in at 601g that's ~150% of the Pentax FA* 24/2 (405g). The Nikkor is also bigger than the Pentax.

N.B., he now calls the D800 and the Nikkor AF-S 35mm ƒ/1.4G the "best overall photographic device of any description I have used thus far in my life". Makes me wonder of how much worth should be given to his old Luminous Landscapes column in which he praised the Pentax Ltds so much.

Unlike with the Pentax route, both the Nikon body and lens are taking full advantage of their full-frame mount and format, delivering IQ on a whole other level. Think of it this way, the D800 is more akin to a 645D in an SLR, and obviously he thinks the size and weight are worth it in those terms. He could've opted for the smaller D600 afterall.

If size was the priority, there are plenty of more compact and lighterweight 16mp crop-sensor cameras out now, with excellent Sony (or Fuji) sensors and smaller and faster lenses (and in focal lengths he prefers). If you're lucky enough to afford more than one camera like he is, there are better options out there at both ends of the spectrum.

As for Luminous Landscape, that was a looong time ago and time and technology have moved on even if Pentax hasn't. An FF Pentax similar in size to the K-5 with some FA Limiteds would go a long way right about now.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 11-23-2012 at 11:16 PM.

[rawr]

delivering IQ on a whole other level

Except measurable levels of IQ, according to DxO. If you are talking about boring IQ measurements like dynamic range and colour depth, the fact is that the D800/D600 are pretty much equivalent to the K-5 II. The D800/D600 only really shine in terms of low-light performance.



Sensor resolution, lens performance, and the other pieces of the IQ puzzle are of course something to be considered too in the big picture of IQ comparisons, as we all know. Maybe these externalities are the areas Mike is talking about.

[Class A]

Unlike with the Pentax route, both the Nikon body and lens are taking full advantage of their full-frame mount and format, delivering IQ on a whole other level.... obviously he thinks the size and weight are worth it in those terms. He could've opted for the smaller D600 afterall.

So we agree that size and weight weren't what detracted him from the FA* 24/2. He is prepared to lug around a lot more, if the IQ is right. Hence, he left Pentax because he thought he'd need more IQ and could get it elsewhere, i.e., not because he cannot buy a 24mm new or the FA* 24/2 is too big/heavy to carry around.

As for technology moving on, I don't think that lens design changed dramatically (for primes). He just seems to be someone who goes for the "best ever" maybe a bit quicker than others (needless to say that there is no such thing as one "best" for different people and needs).

I agree that Pentax should get that FF camera going a.s.a.p., and in fact is already late to the game again, unfortunately.

[illdefined]

Sensor resolution, lens performance, and the other pieces of the IQ puzzle are of course something to be considered too in the big picture of IQ comparisons, as we all know. Maybe these externalities are the areas Mike is talking about.

like you said, "of course" it is and shouldn't be discounted. The DxO characteristics look similar because it's the same Sony sensor technology, only there's 150% more of it.

You can't make a big deal over the 1-2 point lead in DxO the K-5 holds over all the other APS-C cameras that use the same sensor, but then casually dismiss the Nikon FF's 10+ point advantage.

[illdefined]

So we agree that size and weight weren't what detracted him from the FA* 24/2. He is prepared to lug around a lot more, if the IQ is right. Hence, he left Pentax because he thought he'd need more IQ and could get it elsewhere, i.e., not because he cannot buy a 24mm new or the FA* 24/2 is too big/heavy to carry around.

I think he figured the FA*24 was too old, heavy and unoptimized for the APS-C format (ie. not good enough IQ) to be worth carrying. and the added weight of Nikon's D800 and top-level, digital era 35mm lens was. But you should ask him.

Meanwhile an Olympus OM-D and the new 17mm 1.8 likely delivers near the same IQ as the Pentax combo, but at less than half the size and weight.

[normhead]

You can't make a big deal over the 1-2 point lead in DxO the K-5 holds over all the other APS-C cameras that use the same sensor, but then casually dismiss the Nikon FF's 10+ point advantage.

From PentaxForums.com: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/205762-mike-johnston-online-ph...#ixzz2D9wDMDx0

Nobodies making a big deal of it. We're just saying the K-5 images looks better. ANd the DxO rating backs us up. As for the D600s and it's megapoint lead. I've yet to see comparative images where it's better than the K-5. I always look for, the rating, and the images to back them up. The D800 on the other hand, is clearly superior, and I've never heard any body say different. SO for me, the Nikon's 10 point advantage only applies to the D800, and you have to go to 35 MP to take advantage of it.

[illdefined]

Nobodies making a big deal of it. We're just saying the K-5 images looks better. ANd the DxO rating backs us up. As for the D600s and it's megapoint lead. I've yet to see comparative images where it's better than the K-5. I always look for, the rating, and the images to back them up. The D800 on the other hand, is clearly superior, and I've never heard any body say different. SO for me, the Nikon's 10 point advantage only applies to the D800, and you have to go to 35 MP to take advantage of it.

here are some comparative images.

on the contrary - 24mp FF may just be the sweet spot for many of us who use High-ISO for low-light and high shutter speeds, I think the benefits of the larger pixel pitch (AND higher resolution) are pretty clear. I'm awaiting the Sony RX-1 review to see another implementation of that sensor without a mirror fixed in front of it. this 24mp sensor being the sensor Pentax would most likely use when and if it ever gets to FF....you might become a bigger fan of it then...

[normhead]

this 24mp sensor being the sensor Pentax would most likely use when and if it ever gets to FF....you might become a bigger fan of it then...

From PentaxForums.com: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/205762-mike-johnston-online-ph...#ixzz2DBGw4FD0

The trouble is, I'm not seeing why I'd want the 24 Mp sensor. I'be blown the K-5 image up to 24 MP, and then compared it to images from bothe the D600 and the D3200, and I don't see the advantage of one over the other. I regularly blow my images up to 33 inches @300 dpi or 9900 MP. If I can't see a difference at that size, there isn't a difference. As I said, D800, clear advantage, D600 no discernible advantage. I assume there would be an advantage shooting for narrower depth of field and low light performance although, the K-5 does really well in low light. I'm not buying a 24 MP camera just for the sake of it. I want something definitive I can see in the image that makes it worth it.

I'm not seeing why Pentax would want either the 24 Mp APS-c sensor or the 24MP FF sensor. Why wouldn't they go with something that got them to equal to or surpassing the best out there? Where's the logic in producing something less than that? They have the best APS-c. They should go for the best FF. I'd go so far as to say if it isn't best IQ in class, it doesn't deserve to be a Pentax.

[illdefined]

The trouble is, I'm not seeing why I'd want the 24 Mp sensor. I'be blown the K-5 image up to 24 MP, and then compared it to images from bothe the D600 and the D3200, and I don't see the advantage of one over the other. I regularly blow my images up to 33 inches @300 dpi or 9900 MP. If I can't see a difference at that size, there isn't a difference. As I said, D800, clear advantage, D600 no discernible advantage. I assume there would be an advantage shooting for narrower depth of field and low light performance although, the K-5 does really well in low light. I'm not buying a 24 MP camera just for the sake of it. I want something definitive I can see in the image that makes it worth it.

I'm not seeing why Pentax would want either the 24 Mp APS-c sensor or the 24MP FF sensor. Why wouldn't they go with something that got them to equal to or surpassing the best out there? Where's the logic in producing something less than that? They have the best APS-c. They should go for the best FF. I'd go so far as to say if it isn't best IQ in class, it doesn't deserve to be a Pentax.

well, there's both subjective proof (these comparisons I'm posting) and empirical proof (DxOMark scores) that the larger pixel-pitch of the 24mp sensor produces lower read noise in the shadows than the K-5 and D800 sensor produce (both have same pixel pitch). Low sensor read noise being what allows the great DR (and enhanced DR mode) of the K-5 and the other non-SLT Sony sensored cameras.

While the D800 can be downscaled to 24mp and get a similar SNR result as the D600 - it's the same sensor technology and surface area after all - I highly doubt the older, smaller Sony pixels of the K-5 are somehow better than Sony's newer, bigger ones, much less better enough to overcome 150% less overall sensor surface area, physics being what they are. I certainly don't see it, neither did DxO, so I don't know what exactly you're looking at if you can't acknowledge the obvious chroma noise in the shadows of these comparisons...the D600 is much cleaner.

I can appreciate your brand enthusiasm, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that Pentax has always demanded the very best IQ in their DSLRs, like most manufacturers, there have been very distinct low-points (the K-7) and high points (the K-5).