When I say 'blown highlights' I mean it seems to perform less than superb (perhaps just 'adequate') under lighting circumstances that would have been handled better with the 50mm 1.7. The speed of the lens is not terribly important to me, as I am stopping in the middle most of the time -- f/4 to 4/11 and using the hyperfocals. That I am still getting 'issues' stopped down to f/8 at ISO 200 with good light tells me
something is going on with at least my copy of the SMC M 28mm f/2.8, perhaps. I have taken to spot metering which seems to work a little better on the k-o1, but has its consequences. I am mainly shooting in the street under unpredictable light and 'at a moments notice.' Not really enough time to always spot meter (at least with the k-o1. It seems to need a second to adjust). It seems strange that it just seems to resolve less detail, clipping to white "too soon" Not really able to get a full value range out of this in the way that the 50mm can.
I may just be being picky, and otherwise it is an okay lens. I was just wondering if there is some kind of issue with 28mm lenses in particular, and wide angle lenses in general. I apparently have four sub-par 28mm lenses then and this may be giving me this impression that there is an issue with 28mm lenses. They all sort of exhibit similar tendencies under similar circumstances.
Yes, I am partial to the vintage pentax primes. I am not really a collector, and can rarely justify, on my budget, an expenditure of more than $100 for ANY used lens ($500 for the 2.0 "k" -- collector's grade or not, would be very hard to justify. Especially since I do not make a living in photography) as an eBay purchase. A lens of unknown provenance and, in reality, unknown condition, at that price is simply out of reach. Also, that was part of my reason for writing this, if there is a problem with the focal length (so in other words, if I did somehow justify a purchase like that, would the issues I am having persist due to the focal length?)...or more specifically, the interior arrangement of the elements (as in, due to the 28mm focal length, you need this many elements arranged in this way or that way, but never in some other way....or rather, to put it another way, the 50mm f/1.7 can owe its sharpness to its interior engineering. These same engineering parameters cannot work in a 28mm for some reason...that was at the heart of what I am getting at. The hypothesis, if you can call it that. More of a deduction based on some things I have read on the web about the 31mm f/1.8 and the Zeiss 28mm which are comparable in price.) The review I read of the Zeiss lens said that it was engineered in an 'old fashioned' way and therefore suffered from the same issues as other 'old fashioned 28mm lenses.' My experience with four different 28mm lenses (Pentax-M 2.8; Ricoh P 2.8, Focal 2.8 and a Vivtar 2.8 with an A setting and plastic construction. It has also occurred to me that these four 28mm lenses may be nearly identical internally, and/or the specific engineering of the elements at f/2.8 require some kind of compromise in design...so maybe I just need to pony up some cash for a good 28mm -- that's another possibility) made me think that perhaps there was something going on at 28mms which will persist across the range of apertures and price-range.
So, basically -- what I am hearing back is that :
a). there is nothing inherently problematic with the 28mm focal length. It is probably, just an issue of having four mediocre 28mm lenses giving me this impression. That I happened across someone who seemed to imply in their review of a Zeiss lens that there is some 'issue' with the way the older lenses were designed as a contributing factor to apparent sub-par performance on digital is hogwash (found the links, here is the one on the Zeiss 28, where he says that he cannot recommend the lens, :
The Online Photographer: Zeiss ZF / ZK Distagon T* 28mm f/2 Review .. and the article about the 31mm Ltd:
The Online Photographer: The Pentax 31mm ?/1.8 Limited Lens)
b). you are saying that the 28mm K f/2.0..at about half the price of the 31mm LTD (new) is probably a little easier on the wallet and can perform up to par?
c). I may be able to get better performance out of the lens I have with a lens hood.
I mean -- okay. Here's the crux of the issue. If you had to choose between the K 28mm at $500 and the 31mmf/1.8 ltd. at about $1k....and it would take you twice as long to save the money for the 31mm....which is the better buy?
I reference to the 50mm, I can compose with it on the street, but I am really partial to the 28mm field of view for street photography. The 50 is just a tad too long. I can see it being a great portrait lens. And I have taken some really great shots with it. It resolves at infinity like a champ. I think it spoiled me. Set the bar a little high. I basically want that lenses resolution, contrast, color rendition in the 28mm focal length. I am quickly learning, that if that is what I want, I have to be willing to plunk down some real money for it. I have narrowed it down to vintage primes as my preferred types of lenses in both form and handling. I understand that almost all of the "K" lenses are not only top-notch performers, but also very rare and cost about as much as a new limited prime, depending on the lens. So....if I wanted something in the "wide-ish normal" end of the range, I am limited to 24mm (rough 35mm equiv) through about 30 or 31mm (42 - 46mm equiv). I suppose it is really a judgment call. I know that there is a lot of hype around the 31mm. I have even read people who bought into the Pentax system specifically because of that lens and that it handles very much like the older manual primes, but with AF and an "A" setting to boot. The clinical tests seem to demonstrate that the thing is pretty tight. The barrel distortion appears to be admirably controlled. If, on the other hand, a "K" 28 or 30 is equally sharp for half the price, then what the hell? I am just trying to sort out a big purchase. I am leaning towards delayed gratification and saving over the course of 10 months to a year for the 31mm, and wanted to rule out the idea that 'all vintage 28mm lenses are going to have issues' before making that decision.
I havent been steered wrong by the people on this forum. And I have found that, when there are more than 5 or 6 reviews in the database, and the aggregate score is 9 or higher, the lens can be trusted to perform. My wife recently won a 50mm f/1.4 (M) for about $94. She thought that she overpaid, until she used it. The 1.7 is by far my favorite lens. The 28mm f/2.8, at $80...I feel I overpaid for it. $50 is probably a more fair price for what it delivers. That said, I was just hoping that I could rule the idea of "it is hopeless to expect a 28 to ever perform like a 50" and get some advice concerning which lens is going to deliver something similar to the SMC-M 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.4. I seem to have narrowed it down to the "Ks" in this range and the 31mm ltd.
Thanks for your replies. Gives me some more to consider.
Originally posted by cristigj 
Similar Threads 
