[rparmar]

I know Pentax users love their Limited lenses, but so far I have not been real impressed. My 35-100 f/2 zoom is sharper than any Pentax Limited lens I have seen.

Assuming after all this time that you are not a troll, I will present your three errors and then leave you to your own devices.

ERROR 1: Pentax Lens Quality Is Deficient

Your overall perspective on Pentax lens quality runs counter to every expert of any note I have ever read. (That is, at least those not in the pocket of Canikon.) Granted that there is no such thing as a perfect lens, Pentax regularly betters other brands in build, usability, bench tests and final photo quality. Let me present a few examples.

In an older German test of the fastest normals, the SMC 50mm f/1.2 emerged sharper than the Nikon Nikkor, Canon FD, Minolta Rokkor, Canon FD, Yashica ML, Leitz Noctilux, Konica Hexar and Olympus Zuiko [ref: manual focus forum].

Mike Johnston prefers the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 for overall image quality to the Carl Zeiss Contax, AF-Nikkor, Canon EF, Yashica 50, Voigtländer Nokton, not to mention both the Leica R and M fifties [ref: post on PMDL]. And he has used more camera systems than any six of us.

Popular Photography considers the FA 31 Limited one of the best three prime lenses it has ever tested, in the company of the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 and the Nikon Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P [March 2002].

When Popular Photography tested the FA43 (in a different article) they measured resolution at "OVER 100 lines in center, and OVER 40 lines in corners, from f/2.8 through f/11, an outstanding result!" Note the enthusiasm [ref: Michael Kuhne].

Mike Johnston (again) wrote: "when it comes to the best autofocus lenses in the world, whether for a viewfinder camera or SLRs, it's still Zeiss and Pentax, baby, same as the old days." And of these he picked the FA 77mm Limited as perhaps the ultimate, noting all three FA Limiteds can be matched but not bettered by other makes [ref: The Luminous Landscape].

Many others have chosen the FA43 as one of the best lenses ever made. After testing by Amateur Photographer they made it their gold standard for normal lenses. Stephen Gandy at Cameraquest couldn't restrain his appreciation: "By substantially improving the craftsmanship, finish, and construction materials in their AUTOFOCUS 43/1.9 lens, Pentax audaciously challenged and destroyed today's much loved modern standard of mediocre construction quality." That's from a dude who makes his living from Leica, Voigtländer, etc.

ERROR 2: Comparing Apples To Alabaster

The Zuiko 35-100mm f/2 is a gigantic 213.5mm in length and massive 1650g. I have no interest in anything that big. Ever. Not even as a weapon. I'd rather use my medium format kit and blow the IQ of any small sensor out of the water. But say I did stoop to compare it to Pentax APS-C offerings. Hmmmm... using eBay prices I can have the DA15, FA43, FA77 and D-FA 100mm macro lenses for the same price. The hilarious thing is that they would actually be slightly shorter stacked end to end and weigh 40% less!

That would give me a more versatile kit that covers a wider range of focal lengths and magnifications while maintaining excellent quality in small, well-built ergonomic packages.

I know which I'd rather have.

ERROR 3: Not Being A Photographer

If you can't take a good (nay, excellent) photo with the Pentax Limited lenses you are simply incapable of being a photographer. Quibbling about how a lens might or might not be this bit or that bit better is fun for a lark but has no bearing on real life.

[Christopher M.W.T]

DA* 20/2.8
DA* 30/1.4
DFA 50/2.8 WR Macro
DFA 135/2.8 WR
DA* 200/4 macro
DA* 300/2.8
DA* 600/4

and two bodies..(this i'm not sure)

Cool list but is it speculation or based on solid evidence/

Huh? It's not denial; it's called commitment.

Wait. Isn't it sort of like paying alimony??? Hm . . . . maybe not.

[Ishpuini]

I am missing something. How would this lens enable any photography that cannot already be done with the already excellent DA12-24? Would you pay double for a lens that was one stop faster and went one point wider? What the heck for?

Of course there's more to it.
- Firstly the Tokina 11-16/2.8 was tested (on Nikon I believe) and found to be the best UWA zoom on the market.
- Secondly the Pentax version of the 11-16/2.8 could be a DA* lens (to complement the 16-50/2.8), as such offering weather sealing (for ultra wide landscapes in the wild) and SDM (for discreet interior shots like in churches).

One mm wider and one stop faster (brighter view finder?) won't make that much difference indeed, but a DA*11-16/2.8 would have been one step better than the DA12-24 for other reasons imho...

If they would start making it now, I would still buy it. The weather sealing being the most important reason. Getting another non-weather sealed DA lens (next to my DA15 and DA10-17) makes no sense to me... But I'm not counting on this in any way really...

Wim

[rparmar]

I get where you are coming from. I definitely see the benefit of weather-sealing a zoom, though less so with such a wide front element. It would be difficult to take shots with it in any sort of inclement weather, regardless of sealing.

SDM to me is a negative, not a positive, given its reliability history. It is indeed remarkable how quiet it is, but I just cannot trust it. For me manual focusing is really quiet too!

It's good we all have different priorities, though Pentax has a tough job meeting every expectation.

A far bigger gap in the line-up is a lack of a tilt-shift lens. That is something I would save up for.

[i83N]

A far bigger gap in the line-up is a lack of a tilt-shift lens. That is something I would save up for.

Yes indeed we need tilt-sift!
There is a third party tilt-sift and not Lensbabies MC 35 mm Tilt & Shift Pentax lens

[bdery]

My 35-100 f/2 zoom is sharper than any Pentax Limited lens I have seen. Pentax does have some unique focal length lenses, but AF is slow, vignetting is a problem, and CA seems to be common.

To add to what rparmar wrote, I put in a few things:

1-sharpness : measurebating about sharpness is like saying "your car must be really fast, it has good tires". tires help, but they're just a tiny part of the equation. when considering the output of a lens, sharpness, bokeh, contrast, saturation, colours rendering and aberrations must be taken into account.

2-CA control : Olympus corrects it via software, their lenses are bordering on the crappy by themselves.

3-Vigneting : uh?

4-AF : compare apples to apples, again. The best AF lenses from Canon will be in the same league as the best AF lenses from Pentax. Maybe a a tad faster, but both will be faster than you, the photographer, ought to be. And even with a "slow AF" lens you will get a lock in under a half-second. If you can't play within these rules, I'm just glad for you that you weren't born in the age of manual focus and amazing photographers.

You started complaining that every single round number doesn't have an f1,4 lens dedicated to it. Now you complain about all the rest (and I mean all). you say you don't want to pay for a body but say you want to use a K7. You might want to decide one way or another.

In the meantime, we'll be shooting amazing pictures with our Pentax lenses.

[Aristophanes]

For taking pictures of e.g. houses interriors meant to go on sale. You need wide/very wide and you need light.

I do not do this personaly but I know those who do often cry for fast WA/UWA lenses.

How does f/2.8 make it better for photos of interiors requiring DOF?

The DOF on a 2.8 is going to plain wrong for interior real estate photos. My agent's camera guy used bounce flashes, a reflector, and f/5.6-8 or thereabouts so the room was in focus front to back, which is what the seller wants the buyer to see. An 11mm f/2.8 will have a DOF of less than 9 feet. The 12mm at f/4 adds about 2 more feet to the DOF. The difference is negligible for real estate photos until you stop down and add more light.

You are confusing aperture with DOF, thinking wider will add more clarity because it lets in more light. Barely more at the sacrifice of making more of your subject OOF.

[Winder]

To add to what rparmar wrote, I put in a few things:

1-sharpness : measurebating about sharpness is like saying "your car must be really fast, it has good tires". tires help, but they're just a tiny part of the equation. when considering the output of a lens, sharpness, bokeh, contrast, saturation, colours rendering and aberrations must be taken into account.

2-CA control : Olympus corrects it via software, their lenses are bordering on the crappy by themselves.

3-Vigneting : uh?

4-AF : compare apples to apples, again. The best AF lenses from Canon will be in the same league as the best AF lenses from Pentax. Maybe a a tad faster, but both will be faster than you, the photographer, ought to be. And even with a "slow AF" lens you will get a lock in under a half-second. If you can't play within these rules, I'm just glad for you that you weren't born in the age of manual focus and amazing photographers.

You started complaining that every single round number doesn't have an f1,4 lens dedicated to it. Now you complain about all the rest (and I mean all). you say you don't want to pay for a body but say you want to use a K7. You might want to decide one way or another.

M4/3 uses software for lens correction. The E-3 and the 4/3 standard lenses do not have any type of lens correction. Most of the 4/3 equipment was released before there was such a thing as "in-camera correction". The reason I have no interest in picking up a M4/3 is that the lenses are crappy and they do require software correction. If a lens needs a "profile" in lightroom to correct its optical flaws then it is probably not a very good lens.

And just how do you know what "age" I was born in? You have no clue, but you make a pointless statement anyway. I started a few years before AF was available. That does not change the fact that Pentax needs to improve its AF and its SDM.

You're right. "sharpness, bokeh, contrast, saturation, colours rendering and aberrations must be taken into account." Most of those can be adjusted in post, but sharpness and bokeh are next to impossible to correct for in post. Yes, I would like to see faster glass. I can not compensate speed in post processing.

I did not say I did not want to pay for a body. I said I will pay more for good glass because good glass holds it value. Bodies lose value fast, so I typically wait until a body has been on the market for a year and a few firmware releases are out before I buy a body. My Canon 5D and Olympus E-3 were both factory refurbished that I picked up for a very good price. The Contax 645 was the only "new" body I had purchased prior to buying a a new K-7 for $750.00. Most of my lenses I have bought new as they tend to hold value.

I realize this is a Pentax forum and most people on here think the line up is perfect, and Pentax has no need to improve anything, but not not everyone thinks that. If you are happy with the quality and it meets you level of expectation then great.... go be happy. I like the K-7, I enjoy using the K-7, but the current line-up of lenses does not meet my expectations and I hope they do improve.

Some of you seem to be taking my criticism of Pentax pretty personally, and that is not very healthy. If you are so attached to a brand that you feel you have to defend it and make personal attacks against the people being critical of it you might need professional help.

[Pål Jensen]

Some of you seem to be taking my criticism of Pentax pretty personally, and that is not very healthy. If you are so attached to a brand that you feel you have to defend it and make personal attacks against the people being critical of it you might need professional help.

You haven't provided any kind of constructive criticism but claim that some of the best lenses ever made, as stated by countless of tests and user reports, aren't good enough for you. Instead you buy Sigma lenses, but expect Pentax to make ultrafast lenses better than the current state of the art and sell them cheaply. Your criticism is completely without basis in reality.

[Biro]

The reason I have no interest in picking up a M4/3 is that the lenses are crappy and they do require software correction. If a lens needs a "profile" in lightroom to correct its optical flaws then it is probably not a very good lens.

Well, yes and no. To each his own and if you don't like micro four-thirds, no problem. Personally, I really don't think they're "crappy" lenses. It's just that the emphasis is on small size and light weight. That's just the slightly different mission of micro four-thirds. If the cameras add a bit of distortion compensation to make it all work, it's fine by me. It's not much different than any other kind of post production. I can't see any user of Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. complaining about that.

[Angevinn]

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate but Winder does have a point. Many 4/3 and M4/3 lenses rely on software correction (even part of the camera's firmware) for correcting chromatic aberration and other optical flaws. To me that's cheating and not a well designed lens. Another fly in the 4/3 ointment is that Panasonic cameras do not apply the needed corrections to Olympus lenses and Olympus cameras do not apply the needed corrections to the Panasonic lenses.

Check this link out:

Flaw in the 4/3 Concept [Page 1]: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


I just want to rely on software for basic touching up and printing. To me the required optical correction is going to far. How well are these lenses going to work when Panasonic and Olympus no longer support them? I love Panasonic products but Panasonic is terrible when it comes to software support.


I have a 60 year old single-coated Carl Zeiss Tessar that is extremely compact and built to last. Some simple tweaks in Apple Aperture are all this lens needs for some great images. How useful will the M 4/3 and 4/3 lenses be in the future when no one is writing software for them?

Well, yes and no. To each his own and if you don't like micro four-thirds, no problem. Personally, I really don't think they're "crappy" lenses. It's just that the emphasis is on small size and light weight. That's just the slightly different mission of micro four-thirds. If the cameras add a bit of distortion compensation to make it all work, it's fine by me. It's not much different than any other kind of post production. I can't see any user of Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. complaining about that.

[bdery]

I realize this is a Pentax forum and most people on here think the line up is perfect, and Pentax has no need to improve anything, but not not everyone thinks that.

I never said the lineup was perfect. I said there were no "gaping holes". That's a different thing.

I am the fartest there could be from a fanboy. I've used Vivitar, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax in my time. I go with what suits my needs, and for a DSLR that's Pentax. That's all.

[DogLover]

M4/3 uses software for lens correction. The E-3 and the 4/3 standard lenses do not have any type of lens correction. Most of the 4/3 equipment was released before there was such a thing as "in-camera correction". The reason I have no interest in picking up a M4/3 is that the lenses are crappy and they do require software correction. If a lens needs a "profile" in lightroom to correct its optical flaws then it is probably not a very good lens.

And just how do you know what "age" I was born in? You have no clue, but you make a pointless statement anyway. I started a few years before AF was available. That does not change the fact that Pentax needs to improve its AF and its SDM.

You're right. "sharpness, bokeh, contrast, saturation, colours rendering and aberrations must be taken into account." Most of those can be adjusted in post, but sharpness and bokeh are next to impossible to correct for in post. Yes, I would like to see faster glass. I can not compensate speed in post processing.

I did not say I did not want to pay for a body. I said I will pay more for good glass because good glass holds it value. Bodies lose value fast, so I typically wait until a body has been on the market for a year and a few firmware releases are out before I buy a body. My Canon 5D and Olympus E-3 were both factory refurbished that I picked up for a very good price. The Contax 645 was the only "new" body I had purchased prior to buying a a new K-7 for $750.00. Most of my lenses I have bought new as they tend to hold value.

I realize this is a Pentax forum and most people on here think the line up is perfect, and Pentax has no need to improve anything, but not not everyone thinks that. If you are happy with the quality and it meets you level of expectation then great.... go be happy. I like the K-7, I enjoy using the K-7, but the current line-up of lenses does not meet my expectations and I hope they do improve.

Some of you seem to be taking my criticism of Pentax pretty personally, and that is not very healthy. If you are so attached to a brand that you feel you have to defend it and make personal attacks against the people being critical of it you might need professional help.

Winder, I don't think it's what you say, it's the arrogant tone in which you say it. I have agreed with you once or twice and disagreed other times. I just think you would raise much less dander if you didn't come across as being so pompous. You're an older gentleman and you've been around the photographic block a time or two. We get it.

[Aristophanes]

You're right. "sharpness, bokeh, contrast, saturation, colours rendering and aberrations must be taken into account." Most of those can be adjusted in post, but sharpness and bokeh are next to impossible to correct for in post. Yes, I would like to see faster glass. I can not compensate speed in post processing.

Sharpness no, cannot be corrected in post.

Bokeh, absolutely. The airbrush was around long before Photoshop as much for this as making the model's skin look flawless.

One can make the very legitimate argument that most brands do not make super-fast glass anymore because the pros that might buy it are more likely to use Photoshop to isolate the subject and make a more pleasant, artful, less distracting background. f/1.2 is competing against Adobe's money-making machine.

And whoever said Zuiko 4/3 glass is junk is plain wrong. The Oly lens line-up is stellar glass. In fact, that's what makes the brand. Not so sure about M4/3. Oly has some choices to make.