Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-12-2012, 04:18 PM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Q 02 Standard Zoom vs 06 Telephoto

The Q is my first camera with interchangeable lenses and so far I love it. But as of now I only have the 01 Prime and I want a lens with zoom. So my choices are the Telephoto and the Zoom. I know that the Telephoto's minimum zoom range and maximum range are farther than the Standard Zoom but how far are they really? The problem is I don't have a reference point to compare the Zoom's 27.5-83.0mm equivalent focal length and the Telephoto's 83mm-249mm equivalent focal length to know if that is what I want. So my question is how far does the Standard Zoom and Telephoto really zoom? I know that the Telephoto does not come out until mid-October so comparisons could be difficult but also how does everyone like the Standard Zoom? Thanks everyone I have spent a lot of time reading in the Q forum and it helped me make the decision to finally buy the Q.

09-12-2012, 04:29 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,837
The telephoto picks up where the standard zoom leaves off, basically. The standard zoom gives you wide-angle to short tele, while the telephoto zoom gives you short tele to extreme tele.

In terms of degrees, the standard zoom gives you a FOV of 76-29 degrees, while the telephoto gives you 29 to 9 degrees. This means that the standard zoom is going to be the better choice for everyday shooting.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

09-12-2012, 04:55 PM   #3
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
Thanks. I think I am going to go for the Standard Zoom because I can only buy one at the moment and I will be doing mostly everyday shooting. I guess the only reason I am hesitating is because there are only two reviews on Amazon and they are pretty negative. Have you had a positive experience with Standard Zoom?
09-12-2012, 06:19 PM - 2 Likes   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Hi Taylor,

Consider a 42- 50mm "normal" about what you see with bare eyes -- not the width that's covered by your peripheral vision, but the degree of magnification and area where you actually can see the most detail. Shorter Focal Lengths (FLs) allow the camera to capture wider Fields of View (FOV), and longer FLs capture narrower FOVs. A good illustrator is the Tamron FL Comparison Tool:

Use the 35mm Camera setting and the FL Equivalents to get an idea of the respective ranges. The 02 Zoom would be 28-83mm and the 06 Zoom would be 83-250mm.

Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

The way I generally see it, photographers seem to be divided into two primary groups in the way they see things and like to capture them. The first sees vistas -- takes in the whole scene and wants to capture it all. The second picks out a detail and wants to capture it. It's a forest as opposed to a tree thing. Personally, I fall into the second category, and primarily shoot telephoto and macro. Give me a zoom and most of my shots will be at the longest FLs. Probably most of the members on photo forums tend to be the opposite, and like to shoot wide. Some of the greatest photographers of all time shot the majority of their stuff at close to normal FLs. It's possible to change your tendencies and go from a detail to vista shooter or vice versa, but my feeling is that I go with my view of the world and let that be reflected in my photography. YMMV. . .There is no right and wrong

I currently have the Q, 01 Prime, 02 Zoom, and 03 FE. My most used lens is the 01 Prime with an optical viewfinder. The FE is next, and is incredible fun, especially for the price, and I use the 02 zoom mostly for regular wide angle shots. When I get the 06 zoom, it's likely to be attached to the camera the great bulk of the time (when I'm not using adapted lenses. . . )

Scott


Last edited by snostorm; 09-12-2012 at 06:33 PM.
09-12-2012, 07:40 PM   #5
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
Thank you so much. That comparison tool is exactly what I was looking for. Now I just have to decide which category I fit into.
09-12-2012, 09:02 PM   #6
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,307
Welcome to the Q forum Taylor14. The Q is a lot of fun to use. Enjoy it. A fine first interchageable lens camera.

Many have given great advice. I will try to add to it. It should be fairly easy to decide which zoom to buy next. When shooting do you find that you usually wish your 01 had a wider field of view or do you wish that you could bring distant things closer? The wide zoom (5-15) is great for wide views like landscapes, groups of people, and indoor shots. The tele zoom 06 will bring the subject closer to you. At the 45 setting it will bring the subject about 5X closer. Most people will want both lens ranges eventually.

The 5-15 zoom is a fine lens. Don't let a few sour opinions ruin it for you. It is capable of very good results.

Agree that most photographers fall into being a wide or tele person. There is at least one other kind. I call it extremes. On big dslr system I tend to shoot with ultrawide 8, 10(fisheye), 12mm, or do extreme tele with 300, 400, 500mm. The Q with adapter takes this much farther. Also do 100& 200 macro. Snostorm may find he is also leaning in this direction since he uses the Q fisheye and adapted teles a lot.
thanks
barondla
09-13-2012, 09:59 PM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 930
Whereas I am somewhat in the middle with the 02 lens as I tend to shoot using wide, mid and tele, but more often on the middle part of the 02 lens.
09-14-2012, 01:37 PM   #8
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
Alright I am still on the fence. Does the 02 Zoom really perform as bad as this guy makes it seem? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/193726-quick-comparison-q-vs-rx100-few-others.html
Do you think the Zoom or the Telephoto will have better image quality?

09-14-2012, 04:54 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Taylor14 Quote
Alright I am still on the fence. Does the 02 Zoom really perform as bad as this guy makes it seem? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/193726-quick-comparison-q-vs-rx100-few-others.html
Do you think the Zoom or the Telephoto will have better image quality?
Hi Taylor,

This is a complicated article to sort out, especially for people who do not have a good background in digital camera technology. The two main cameras are very different. The Sony RX100 uses a 1" Exmor CMOS sensor and the Q uses a 1/2.3" BSI CMOS sensor that is at least 1 generation more advanced in technological development. A 1" sensor is roughly 4 times larger than a 1/2.3", and the max aperture of the Sony is f1.8 vs f2.8 for the Q 02 at 28mm EQ. In a match between the two, my guess is that the much larger sensor with the faster lens wins every time, given roughly equivalent lens quality. The author has a specific purpose in mind in this comparison, and the conclusions are made in that context. I feel that the Q acquits itself pretty well, even though the specs say it should be a heavy underdog.

That being said, the 02 zoom is certainly not a bad lens. Photozone did tests on the 01 prime, the 02 zoom and the 03 FE. Klaus rates the lens as 3.5 stars out of 5 for optical quality, from very good to excellent for the sensor size in his resolution tests for apertures up to f5.6 (past this, diffraction starts to degrade the resolution for this lens). You can see a variety of sample images and judge for yourself if the lens is capable of delivering the quality that you want. While this lens might not blow your eyes out, it's very competent at the very least IMO, and my K mount lens collection includes many "best in class" lenses, so I'm pretty used to excellent optical performance.

Pentax Q Lens Tests

As far as the choice between the 02 zoom and the 06 zoom, I'm thinking that the 06 zoom will be an overall better lens, but 1) I'm a telephoto guy so I'm biased, and 2) it's a fixed aperture lens, which traditionally designers have held to a higher standard of optical quality, at least in the larger formats. It's also a 3x zoom, which has traditionally been the optimum zoom range for retaining optical quality, so it's likely a relatively conservative optical formula. There is really no way to tell how this lens will perform, but I've already instructed my dealer to order one when they are officially released, and will probably be one of the first to get my hands on one. I'll let you know what I think when I do. . .

Scott
09-14-2012, 06:16 PM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Original Poster
In the article by photo zone, what does "you will basically have to live with an infinite depth-of-field even at max. aperture" mean? Does that mean that because the aperture of the 02 zoom is really equivalent to f/15.4-24.7 that you will not be able to focus on a subject and blur the background. I understand how to use aperture but I don't really understand what the "infinite" depth of field is. If so then the telephoto with the fixed aperture of F2.8 sounds more attractive. Also the telephoto includes a "large aperture that provides the photographer with a number of benefits including a bokeh (out of focus) effect" that is sounding pretty attractive.
09-14-2012, 09:22 PM   #11
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,307
A few thoughts. The 06 will probably be a little better lens for the reasons snostorm said and because it is easier to design a lens that starts as slight telephoto and zooms to greater telephoto. The other zoom starts as a wide angle, moves thru normal lens range, and ends up a slight telephoto. This doesn't matter! If you need a wider lens to get a shot the "better" 06 lens won't be of any use and vice versa.

The 06 will throw the background out of focus more than the wide zoom. This is what telephotos do. Some times it is great, other times you wish there was more depth of field. Your prime 01 already does a decent job of this, so is it that important in the wide zooms range?

The wide zoom is a great lens. It might lag behind the 01 slightly but it is possible the 06 will also. It is hard to beat a prime lens. A friend shoots a FF camera and a Q. Once he got the wide zoom I have never seen him use the prime. The zoom is pretty darn good. Ultimately you will want both zooms. That is why many companies pack two similar lenses together in their "bonus" kits.
thanks
barondla
09-14-2012, 11:51 PM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Taylor14 Quote
In the article by photo zone, what does "you will basically have to live with an infinite depth-of-field even at max. aperture" mean? Does that mean that because the aperture of the 02 zoom is really equivalent to f/15.4-24.7 that you will not be able to focus on a subject and blur the background. I understand how to use aperture but I don't really understand what the "infinite" depth of field is. If so then the telephoto with the fixed aperture of F2.8 sounds more attractive. Also the telephoto includes a "large aperture that provides the photographer with a number of benefits including a bokeh (out of focus) effect" that is sounding pretty attractive.
Hi Taylor,

DOF is a confusing subject. The statement about the aperture of the 02 zoom being "equivalent to f15.4-24.7 is looking at things from perspective of Image Equivalence that has been promoted by some digital photographers. I feel that though there is validity to this view when comparing some gear in different sensor formats, it would be a lot more useful to mention the deep DOF and then suggest that there might be a way to work around it. For me, one of the more satisfying things about photography is to figure out how to get the images that I want with the gear that I have available to work with, and if I want narrower DOF with a small sensor, I know how I can get it.

For a given image (let's say a person's head filling the frame), you could use a wide FOV lens and get real close, a normal FOV lens from a bit farther away, or an even longer lens from quite a distance. Let's use the Q as an example to give us some numbers to consider.

With a 5mm lens (28mm EQ in 135mm format) I need to be @ 10 inches away from my subject. Using a DOF calculator ( Online Depth of Field Calculator ) I set the camera to "Pentax Q", FL to 5mm, f stop to f2.8, and distance to 10 inches, and I get a DOF of 2.87 inches. That's a lot thinner than infinite, but that's what happens when you are using any lens closer to it's Minimum Focusing Distance. That's right up in someone's face, and would create distorted features (exaggerating features that are closer to the camera), so let's back up.

When I go to 15mm (83mm EQ), I have to move farther away, let's say about 24 inches, and at the same f2.8, the calculated DOF becomes 1.8 inches. That's pretty thin, Most of the facial features will be in focus, but it's still pretty close. You'll be able to get away with background objects that are a bit closer to the subject.

We;re going in the right direction, so if I want even narrower DOF, I go with a 45mm lens, use the same f2.8, and back up to about 5 ft. Now the calculated DOF is a pretty thin 1.24 inches. At this DOF, you can pretty easily keep the tip of the nose as well as the eyes in sharp focus, plus everything in between. Certainly, this is not paper thin, but you can certainly get good subject isolation. If this is not enough control, or the change in perspective is not desirable, or if the working distance is too great, then you need a different combination of lens and camera to get what you want, or you'll have to compromise something if this is all you have at the time.

The distances here are approximations to get about the same framing, I just used my Q with the 02 zoom at both ends and a 50mm lens with a K to Q adapter and roughly framed my mannequin head that i use for testing lighting, then approximated the working distance. Please don't nitpick the test, the principle works.

The bottom line is, with a smaller sensor, if you want thinner DOF, then get a faster lens or shoot with a sufficiently fast longer lens and step back. This, of course, means that you will be shooting at longer distances, which changes perspective, but that's a different discussion. . In any case,.I usually find that most people prefer their protruding features flattened as opposed to exaggerated, and they are a lot more comfortable being shot from a distance as opposed to having a camera shoved in their face. If the DOF in a shot that I cannot reshoot is too great, I can blur the background in PP. If it's too thin, it's quite a bit harder to sharpen the Out of Focus areas. If there's a margin for error, I'll usually take too much DOF over not enough.

There are, of course, a lot of situations where we want deeper DOF, like macro where we never seem to get enough, and super tele at close distances where it's also usually way too thin, and that's where the Q shines, both with its extreme crop factor and deeper DOF..Ultra wide with a significant foreground object is another type of shot where deeper DOF is what you're usually looking for. The Q can accomplish all of these with the advantage that they can be done in lower light situations (because you can use larger apertures) than the larger formats without the need for a tripod, and that only emphasizes the small system concept.

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; 09-15-2012 at 12:00 AM.
09-15-2012, 01:14 AM   #13
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
if you dont mind spending the cash and want narrow DOF with nice bokeh and tele I would go with the sonnetar, 135 equiv... Or you can get the Kern Paillard 25mm 1.8 switar with cmount adapter. If you want an auto focus tele get the pentax, but you also want some bokeh action on your Q I would look into the SLR magic, it's a 60 eqiv, cheap @ $140 I think and a f1.4 close focus... But stay away from the toy lenses and spend that money on some c or d mount equivs, they render better if they are the old school kind meant for film.
09-15-2012, 01:20 AM   #14
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
The Q with the right lens can have some thin DOF...





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!
camera, equivalent, length, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, range, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best 18-50-ish standard zoom under $500 used CPTenorII Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 09-10-2012 05:09 PM
A few with the standard zoom lens Heinrich Lohmann Pentax Q 11 06-06-2012 06:41 PM
standard zoom woes adpo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 06-24-2011 02:01 PM
Standard zoom lens choices pencilnink Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 05-09-2011 10:53 PM
Good Standard and Telephoto zoom lens combo for under $1000 asdfTT123 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-17-2010 05:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 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