If FF=Y then FA Lenses=?

**Pål Jensen** · 05-24-2012, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by DSims

Going with a f/4 instead of f/2.8 zoom undermines one of the key advantages of the FF camera, which is shallower depth of field. .

At 200mm at least you won't see much difference between F:2.8 and F:4. In fact you couldn't tell whether an image was shot at F:2.8 or F:4 by looking at a single image.
Obviously I disagree that the extra shallow DOF ar the same aperture compared to APS is an advantage. In most cases it isn't.

Besides, if you want shallow DOF theres less need for fast lenses on FF than on APS in order to achieve it.

The 80-200/2.8 lenses have a small zoomrange, probably the smallest currently available in a zoom. They are expensive and heavy and make a truly cumbersome 80mm, a clumsy 100mm lens and a larger 135mm lens.

They are a relic from the film days when 100ISO was the fastest you could shoot and maintain quality. Also from a time when technology didn't allow a larger range for the speed. I'm pretty sure that if Nikon and Canon started at scratch now, something Pentax would have to do, they would choose a longer zoom range. The 60-250 should cover FF; a very good alternative.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 05-24-2012 at 03:44 PM.

Tonto · 05-24-2012, 08:35 PM

After re-thinking how much I like 24-70mm on APSC who would like a 35-100 2.8? Then the portrait lengths are sorted for narrow DOF and you could match an overlapping 70-200 F4 (I like having overlap with 2 bodies, particulary in the portrait range (28-75 and 50-135 is a great combo).

Or is this just too weird for the establishment - you would need to go another lens to do the group shots (24mm)
Also 35-100 is a strange lens for APSC although would do a similar job to the current 50-135.

**PPPPPP42** · 05-24-2012, 09:49 PM

OK this is an edited version (to show just Pentax and be readable size) of an ad from August '85 for B&H, it shows the best of the A lens lineup at the time which I believe is the last series that Pentax had a genuinely worthwhile variety of lenses. To compensate for inflation you essentially double the price to get today's dollars.
Anyone else willing to pay $320 for a new A50 F1.2?

Check the price on a 400mm F2.8, now that's some serious cash, they don't even list the 1200mm F8, anyone remember what it cost back then new?
Anyways you can see that they did have a 28-135 F4 with a built in macro function which on paper should have been amazing and my ideal range but in reality is apparently anything but, plus the cost and size were ridiculous to boot.
The more modest A35-105 F3.5 (the best zoom lens ever made thank you very much) had a better macro (all zoom ranges instead of just 28) was 0.5 faster, noticeably smaller and only cost about 60% of the price. The reports I read say the IQ on the 28-135 was worse but I've never experienced it.

So 35-100 isn't a strange range, its an ideal one lens range. I would like to see it as a 28-100+ though a 2.8 with that big a range would definitely be a rather expensive * lens.

Sandy Hancock · 05-24-2012, 10:51 PM

As far as high quality weather resistant lenses go, remember that he DA*55, DFA100WR macro, DA*200, DA*300 and DA*60-250 are already good to go on full frame.

Add the DA35/2.4, DA40 limited, DA70 limited and DA55-300 to the three FA limiteds and that is a reasonable selection. Are the FA35 and FA50/1.4 still being produced as well?

The problem, of course, is at the wide end. Third party lenses are available already, and there are three wide zooms on the roadmap; it would be no surprise if at least one of these might be full-frame compatible.

**Pål Jensen** · 05-25-2012, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by PPPPPP42

OK this is an edited version (to show just Pentax and be readable size) of an ad from August '85 for B&H, it shows the best of the A lens lineup at the time which I believe is the last series that Pentax had a genuinely worthwhile variety of lenses. To compensate for inflation you essentially double the price to get today's dollars.
Anyone else willing to pay $320 for a new A50 F1.2?

Check the price on a 400mm F2.8, now that's some serious cash, they don't even list the 1200mm F8, anyone remember what it cost back then new?.

The Dollar was far more worth back then and the Yen less so you can't just compensate for inflation. By 1990 the A* 300/2.8 costed around $2500.
I don't believe the 1200/8 was released in 1985; I believe it came in '86 or '87....

DSims · 05-28-2012, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

The problem, of course, is at the wide end. Third party lenses are available already, and there are three wide zooms on the roadmap; it would be no surprise if at least one of these might be full-frame compatible.

Yes, you have a very good point - I think this is another key clue that FF is coming, although still not as important as what Pentax is saying (and what they're not denying).

DSims · 05-28-2012, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

At 200mm at least you won't see much difference between F:2.8 and F:4. In fact you couldn't tell whether an image was shot at F:2.8 or F:4 by looking at a single image.
Obviously I disagree that the extra shallow DOF ar the same aperture compared to APS is an advantage. In most cases it isn't. Besides, if you want shallow DOF theres less need for fast lenses on FF than on APS in order to achieve it.

They are a relic from the film days when 100ISO was the fastest you could shoot and maintain quality.

According to some of us, the DOF really makes a difference:

Originally posted by tjk911

I know quite a few local photojournalists and APS-C really can't match up with their FFs. The DOF difference is really huge, I often compare my 50-135 with their 70-200 shots because of the similar focal lengths.

Pål Jensen, While your logic sounds reasonable I don't believe this is true for many shooters, including myself. As we know the K-5 is still one of the top high-ISO performers. Nevertheless, I often use my FA*85/1.4 indoors on it because my f/2.8 zooms simply aren't fast enough (people naturally move, and the images blur when they do). Prior to it I found the FA77/1.8 was my only usable lens in some similar situations (including performers on stage).

A couple of sensor generations in the future your statement may be closer to being true. But the question always is: What percentage of your shots do you want to come out clear? 20%? 50%? Will 80% be enough? I doubt it. Only when the percentage becomes somewhere around 98% will people be able to forget about the factors that lead to a sharp image.

So while there may be some aspects of these zooms (both 24-70 and 70/80-200) that may be relics, the fast aperture is not one of them - from either a DOF or quality standpoint.

Last edited by DSims; 05-28-2012 at 01:54 AM.

05-24-2012, 09:49 PM	#18
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947 Original Poster	OK this is an edited version (to show just Pentax and be readable size) of an ad from August '85 for B&H, it shows the best of the A lens lineup at the time which I believe is the last series that Pentax had a genuinely worthwhile variety of lenses. To compensate for inflation you essentially double the price to get today's dollars. Anyone else willing to pay $320 for a new A50 F1.2? Check the price on a 400mm F2.8, now that's some serious cash, they don't even list the 1200mm F8, anyone remember what it cost back then new? Anyways you can see that they did have a 28-135 F4 with a built in macro function which on paper should have been amazing and my ideal range but in reality is apparently anything but, plus the cost and size were ridiculous to boot. The more modest A35-105 F3.5 (the best zoom lens ever made thank you very much) had a better macro (all zoom ranges instead of just 28) was 0.5 faster, noticeably smaller and only cost about 60% of the price. The reports I read say the IQ on the 28-135 was worse but I've never experienced it. So 35-100 isn't a strange range, its an ideal one lens range. I would like to see it as a 28-100+ though a 2.8 with that big a range would definitely be a rather expensive * lens. Last edited by PPPPPP42; 05-24-2012 at 09:57 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do m42 lenses measure up to todays lenses?	Vantage-Point	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	05-14-2011 07:51 AM
Huge test on the influence of fungus in lenses (on 9 lenses)	CarbonR	Photographic Technique	18	03-14-2011 10:34 PM
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

05-24-2012, 03:32 PM	#16
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by DSims Going with a f/4 instead of f/2.8 zoom undermines one of the key advantages of the FF camera, which is shallower depth of field. . At 200mm at least you won't see much difference between F:2.8 and F:4. In fact you couldn't tell whether an image was shot at F:2.8 or F:4 by looking at a single image. Obviously I disagree that the extra shallow DOF ar the same aperture compared to APS is an advantage. In most cases it isn't. Besides, if you want shallow DOF theres less need for fast lenses on FF than on APS in order to achieve it. The 80-200/2.8 lenses have a small zoomrange, probably the smallest currently available in a zoom. They are expensive and heavy and make a truly cumbersome 80mm, a clumsy 100mm lens and a larger 135mm lens. They are a relic from the film days when 100ISO was the fastest you could shoot and maintain quality. Also from a time when technology didn't allow a larger range for the speed. I'm pretty sure that if Nikon and Canon started at scratch now, something Pentax would have to do, they would choose a longer zoom range. The 60-250 should cover FF; a very good alternative. Last edited by Pål Jensen; 05-24-2012 at 03:44 PM.

05-24-2012, 08:35 PM	#17
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	After re-thinking how much I like 24-70mm on APSC who would like a 35-100 2.8? Then the portrait lengths are sorted for narrow DOF and you could match an overlapping 70-200 F4 (I like having overlap with 2 bodies, particulary in the portrait range (28-75 and 50-135 is a great combo). Or is this just too weird for the establishment - you would need to go another lens to do the group shots (24mm) Also 35-100 is a strange lens for APSC although would do a similar job to the current 50-135.

05-24-2012, 10:51 PM	#19
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	As far as high quality weather resistant lenses go, remember that he DA55, DFA100WR macro, DA200, DA300 and DA60-250 are already good to go on full frame. Add the DA35/2.4, DA40 limited, DA70 limited and DA55-300 to the three FA limiteds and that is a reasonable selection. Are the FA35 and FA50/1.4 still being produced as well? The problem, of course, is at the wide end. Third party lenses are available already, and there are three wide zooms on the roadmap; it would be no surprise if at least one of these might be full-frame compatible.

05-25-2012, 07:26 AM	#20
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by PPPPPP42 OK this is an edited version (to show just Pentax and be readable size) of an ad from August '85 for B&H, it shows the best of the A lens lineup at the time which I believe is the last series that Pentax had a genuinely worthwhile variety of lenses. To compensate for inflation you essentially double the price to get today's dollars. Anyone else willing to pay $320 for a new A50 F1.2? Check the price on a 400mm F2.8, now that's some serious cash, they don't even list the 1200mm F8, anyone remember what it cost back then new?. The Dollar was far more worth back then and the Yen less so you can't just compensate for inflation. By 1990 the A* 300/2.8 costed around $2500. I don't believe the 1200/8 was released in 1985; I believe it came in '86 or '87....

05-28-2012, 01:18 AM	#21
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock The problem, of course, is at the wide end. Third party lenses are available already, and there are three wide zooms on the roadmap; it would be no surprise if at least one of these might be full-frame compatible. Yes, you have a very good point - I think this is another key clue that FF is coming, although still not as important as what Pentax is saying (and what they're not denying).

05-28-2012, 01:36 AM	#22
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Pål Jensen At 200mm at least you won't see much difference between F:2.8 and F:4. In fact you couldn't tell whether an image was shot at F:2.8 or F:4 by looking at a single image. Obviously I disagree that the extra shallow DOF ar the same aperture compared to APS is an advantage. In most cases it isn't. Besides, if you want shallow DOF theres less need for fast lenses on FF than on APS in order to achieve it. They are a relic from the film days when 100ISO was the fastest you could shoot and maintain quality. According to some of us, the DOF really makes a difference: Originally posted by tjk911 I know quite a few local photojournalists and APS-C really can't match up with their FFs. The DOF difference is really huge, I often compare my 50-135 with their 70-200 shots because of the similar focal lengths. Pål Jensen, While your logic sounds reasonable I don't believe this is true for many shooters, including myself. As we know the K-5 is still one of the top high-ISO performers. Nevertheless, I often use my FA85/1.4 indoors on it because my f/2.8 zooms simply aren't fast enough (people naturally move, and the images blur when they do). Prior to it I found the FA77/1.8 was my only usable lens in some similar situations (including performers on stage). A couple of sensor generations in the future your statement may be closer to being true. But the question always is: What percentage of your shots do you want to come out clear? 20%? 50%? Will 80% be enough? I doubt it. Only when the percentage becomes somewhere around 98% will people be able to forget about the factors that lead to a sharp image. So while there may be some aspects of these zooms (both 24-70 and 70/80-200) that may be relics, the fast aperture is not one of them - from either a DOF or quality standpoint. Last edited by DSims; 05-28-2012 at 01:54 AM.*