Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-06-2010, 07:36 AM   #91
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I don't get it. The DA12-24 is a perfectly capable, even exemplary, lens. Are you holding out for one more millimetre? I am sceptical any lens from Tokina could match it on IQ.

For when things really need to be wide, consider the Samyang 8mm. It implements the stereographic projection so there is much less deformation than with a standard fish-eye.
This discusses the Tokina/Pentax issue: Pentax Tokina Partnership Terrible for Pentax mount - Photo.net Pentax Forum

09-06-2010, 12:46 PM   #92
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
We have different interests, of course, but there certainly is more to distinguish the 12-24 from the 11-16 than focal length - a full stop. Not a big deal for landscapes, perhaps, but could be critical for me indoors (think: church/museum interiors).
There are two things about interiors. First, they always have three dimensions, so I want pretty decent depth of field, say f/8 to f/11. Second, I prefer to exposure bracket so as to have the full EV range to play with in post. Both restrictions mandate use of a tripod.

I love fast lenses but don't really see the benefits here.
09-06-2010, 02:39 PM   #93
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,679
while the 12-24 is a super lense if I ever can go with another nice lense again I am inclined to go for the Sigma 8-16 over the other options even if it's a "slow" lense. The wide end of that beastie is just too enticing.

Still I could see the desire for a WR UWA as well...getting those nice landscapes under inclement conditions would be a really nice tool compared to risking a "normal" lense even if I never have had a problem in years gone by with any lense, why risk it when WR is there for the asking.
09-06-2010, 08:14 PM   #94
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
There are two things about interiors. First, they always have three dimensions, so I want pretty decent depth of field, say f/8 to f/11. Second, I prefer to exposure bracket so as to have the full EV range to play with in post. Both restrictions mandate use of a tripod.

I love fast lenses but don't really see the benefits here.
I hesitate to disagree with a photographer with a rep of 100+, but here we go ....

* At f/2.8 on a K-X/7, a focus point at eight feet gives me a focus depth of 3.5 feet to infinity. That would work for the typical church, cathedral, museum, atrium, etc. May even work for a standard home interior. I'm afraid I don't get the point of f/8 or f/11. Perhaps you could help me here.

* If the aperture is large, I might be able to use fast enough shutter speeds for a bit of hand-held bracketing - particularly with Photomatrix or some similar SW than can align three or five shots. We'll leave K-(whatever) shutter blur/mirror slap out of the discussion for the moment by assuming that f/2.8 can keep me under 1/60 second.

* If the church/museum/etc. has a rule on tripods, as is too often the case, I'm stuck with a monopod (if I feel like carrying it about) or hand-held in any case. For me, that makes long exposures at f/8 or f/11 a bit difficult. Shaky hands and all that.

* Even if the venue smiles upon tripods, I may not be happy lugging one about the big city on the Underground. My hands, when not fumbling with the Oyster card, are much more portable.

What am I missing??

09-06-2010, 10:42 PM   #95
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by brecklundin Quote
while the 12-24 is a super lense if I ever can go with another nice lense again I am inclined to go for the Sigma 8-16 over the other options even if it's a "slow" lense. The wide end of that beastie is just too enticing.

Still I could see the desire for a WR UWA as well...getting those nice landscapes under inclement conditions would be a really nice tool compared to risking a "normal" lense even if I never have had a problem in years gone by with any lense, why risk it when WR is there for the asking.
actually it more comes down to your particular use. like 8mm versus 24mm. how much you wanted or use an 8mm or 24mm. in my case, I would miss the 24mm end which I use on a regular basis when I'm using the DA12-24. although I liked the Sigma 8-16 but the lack of of extra length made it tough for me to justify having 2 UW lenses overlapping each other at the middle. it would had been right if Sigma made a prime 8mm corrected lens. and I believe everyone would had been so happy.

the Sigma 8-16 is of luxury because it covers a wider perspective which would require less panoramic stitching involved.

I had though of a Sigma 8-16 + 24mm prime combo but I find it that the prime is lost somewhere along the line, if you know what I mean. a 2 lens zoom combo would be good like an 8-16 + 16-45 or 16-50, but I like using my primes from 28 - 50mm.
09-06-2010, 10:47 PM   #96
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
I hesitate to disagree with a photographer with a rep of 100+, but here we go ....

* At f/2.8 on a K-X/7, a focus point at eight feet gives me a focus depth of 3.5 feet to infinity. That would work for the typical church, cathedral, museum, atrium, etc. May even work for a standard home interior. I'm afraid I don't get the point of f/8 or f/11. Perhaps you could help me here.

* If the aperture is large, I might be able to use fast enough shutter speeds for a bit of hand-held bracketing - particularly with Photomatrix or some similar SW than can align three or five shots. We'll leave K-(whatever) shutter blur/mirror slap out of the discussion for the moment by assuming that f/2.8 can keep me under 1/60 second.

* If the church/museum/etc. has a rule on tripods, as is too often the case, I'm stuck with a monopod (if I feel like carrying it about) or hand-held in any case. For me, that makes long exposures at f/8 or f/11 a bit difficult. Shaky hands and all that.

* Even if the venue smiles upon tripods, I may not be happy lugging one about the big city on the Underground. My hands, when not fumbling with the Oyster card, are much more portable.

What am I missing??
you are still missing DOF. same principle why macros are at it's best stopped down at such aperture speeds. to compensate for things that should be in sharp detailed focus.


having said that, although the images may appear sharp or excellent at f2.8 or F4, the border and corners would appear less balanced than the center resolution. this may be ok for you, but the general school of thought is to have a sharpness equilibrium all over when it comes to architectures. you can only find that balance at lower apertures particularly f8 and lower where such depth sharpness is emphasized. for longer or more distant shots, the more you have to stop down and could reach f16 and over, where you can balance the entire scene. now, does my explanation makes any sense?

Last edited by Pentaxor; 09-06-2010 at 11:25 PM.
09-07-2010, 12:51 AM   #97
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 908
Limited use of WR :D

QuoteOriginally posted by brecklundin Quote

Still I could see the desire for a WR UWA as well...getting those nice landscapes under inclement conditions would be a really nice tool compared to risking a "normal" lense even if I never have had a problem in years gone by with any lense, why risk it when WR is there for the asking.
The problem with UWA lenses is that the front element is fairly exposed as the Field of view does not alow for a large - golly i cannot think f the name for that thingy at the end of the lens but you know wat I mean - thus the front element will easily get wet and/or dusty in bad weather, so for those UWA's WR is less usefull. Same for long tele's. if you need the WR protecton, chances are rather big that visibility is so reduced that there is hardly any need for reach .

WR Flash?? Spoiling images with the reflection of light on raindrops.....
09-07-2010, 05:47 AM   #98
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
I hesitate to disagree with a photographer with a rep of 100+, but here we go ....
Hey, my rep has nothing to do with it. Please disagree -- only way to get a discussion going in which we both might learn.

QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
At f/2.8 on a K-X/7, a focus point at eight feet gives me a focus depth of 3.5 feet to infinity. That would work for the typical church, cathedral, museum, atrium, etc. May even work for a standard home interior. I'm afraid I don't get the point of f/8 or f/11. Perhaps you could help me here.
I can only say... try it and see. Theoretical calculations are all well and good, but in reality the image is only sharp at exactly one plane of focus. Everything else is out of focus to a degree. The f/8 image will retain apparent sharper focus at more distances than the f/2.8 image. (It's enough of a compromise using APS-C without sacrificing even more detail!)

QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
If the church/museum/etc. has a rule on tripods, as is too often the case, I'm stuck with a monopod (if I feel like carrying it about) or hand-held in any case. For me, that makes long exposures at f/8 or f/11 a bit difficult. Shaky hands and all that.
This contradicts your previous point in which you say you don't mind trying hand-held shots. A monopod will definitely help bracketing even if you could otherwise hold the shot fairly steady yourself. A monopod can easily tuck into a rucksack and makes a handy defensive weapon on the Tube.

Though I'm with you: I prefer travelling light. If you can't take a monopod try resting the camera on a pew, a font or whatever else is available.

My experience is not great with images that are not perfectly aligned. The artefacts as the software combines images is visible as detail smear.

In any case, we are only talking about a single stop. Yes, that is nice to have but it won't make the difference between getting and missing a shot. Technique in exposure, among other things, is more important. Turn the ISO up a notch and use more noise reduction, if necessary. The enhanced clarity with increased DOF will more than make up the difference.

P.S. Maybe this should all be in a different thread?

09-07-2010, 06:43 AM   #99
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
you are still missing DOF. same principle why macros are at it's best stopped down at such aperture speeds. to compensate for things that should be in sharp detailed focus.


having said that, although the images may appear sharp or excellent at f2.8 or F4, the border and corners would appear less balanced than the center resolution. this may be ok for you, but the general school of thought is to have a sharpness equilibrium all over when it comes to architectures. you can only find that balance at lower apertures particularly f8 and lower where such depth sharpness is emphasized. for longer or more distant shots, the more you have to stop down and could reach f16 and over, where you can balance the entire scene. now, does my explanation makes any sense?
Yes, very much so. Thanks for your patience - I certainly should have thought about that. I'm afraid I'm spending my efforts on seeing (and getting) the shot, composition, and exposure. Corner-to-corner sharpness will get its turn, as well.

Thanks again.
09-07-2010, 05:07 PM   #100
music_lover
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by HeavyD Quote
I would like a DA WR in the 18-200mm range. I can't find an old DA 18-250mm anywhere.
here you go

pentax 18-250 | Tri-State Camera, Video, and Computer=
09-07-2010, 08:37 PM   #101
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Hey, my rep has nothing to do with it. Please disagree -- only way to get a discussion going in which we both might learn.


< snip good advice for economy >

In any case, we are only talking about a single stop. Yes, that is nice to have but it won't make the difference between getting and missing a shot. Technique in exposure, among other things, is more important. Turn the ISO up a notch and use more noise reduction, if necessary. The enhanced clarity with increased DOF will more than make up the difference.

P.S. Maybe this should all be in a different thread?
Yes, I thought of the thread issue later. I'll try this subject again in a while - see below.

A better sensor and better NR (both likely for me in the next six months) may bring all under control w/o f/2.8.

In the meantime, thanks for the coaching.
09-08-2010, 09:19 AM   #102
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,679
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
Yes, I thought of the thread issue later. I'll try this subject again in a while - see below.

A better sensor and better NR (both likely for me in the next six months) may bring all under control w/o f/2.8.

In the meantime, thanks for the coaching.
Sorry, I just don't like the feeling I get from being accepting of less for higher prices and thanking them for the screwing.

Basically what I see happening is companies like HoyaTax are looking to make lenses STOP lasting for decades and by making them more cheaply with lower quality (and yes slower lenses ARE very often lower quality glass, though not always if you look at the Canon 70-200/4 (either the IS or non-IS versions are amazing and sharper than the first generation 70-200/2.8 versions). But I might say the Pentax 50-135/2.8 is a crisper lense with better colors than the 60-250/4...still neither sucks at all...I took about 5-6 pictures with my 50-135 before the motor started crapping out so I don't have the luxury of having spent enough time with it...sniff-sniff...

But while a good sensor with improved ISO & noise performance, dynamic range is also a must to consider as well; but the improved sensor might make f2.8 the "Mendoza Line" for most needs, nothing will ever replace the control even half a stop adds to your shots. Yeah, you can make some compensations with subject distance but that works only to a point.

I am NOT the target market for HoyaTax. I am now middle-age and I do not care about a 2-4lb lense if it means getting the results and giving me more creative freedom. Mind I have physical problems which make lugging around, say, a Sigma 150-500mm for 8hrs over a day near to impossible anymore, I will and have done it many times over the past few years, along the day I would just take more pain meds. Yippee, recreational opiates!! hehehe...But I am still of a generation that expects, no I genuinely demand, the items I buy work 100% problem free for more than 6-months to a year or two. Though these days a year will end up being long enough for me.

Still at the same time I have come to know WHY I used to love Pentax as a teen, the nice compact high quality primes...and have gotten very comfy with the size/weight of my Ltd's...I had the chance to basically trade my gear for a 7D with a nice set of Canon primes and I am happy the deal did not happen in the end. Still I am pondering a 7D and just a K-mount adapter if the new K-series HoyaTax body is again asking for too many compromises without the associated price advantage Pentax once offered.

I just don't care to see HoyaTax point the brand at the same market who thinks they need a new cell phone every year or two because something better comes out so they just don't demand the quality in the product. So the company then build devices which don't have the build quality and come with a HUGE profit margin with the end user spending more in the long run. I guess I am trying to explain, I worry HoyaTax is working at finding a way to keep lower prices but cause us end users to spend as much or more than shooting Canikon in the long run, just not all at once and done so subtly the sheepeople never notice.
09-08-2010, 01:34 PM   #103
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,416
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
actually it more comes down to your particular use. like 8mm versus 24mm. how much you wanted or use an 8mm or 24mm. in my case, I would miss the 24mm end which I use on a regular basis when I'm using the DA12-24. although I liked the Sigma 8-16 but the lack of of extra length made it tough for me to justify having 2 UW lenses overlapping each other at the middle. it would had been right if Sigma made a prime 8mm corrected lens. and I believe everyone would had been so happy.

the Sigma 8-16 is of luxury because it covers a wider perspective which would require less panoramic stitching involved.

I had though of a Sigma 8-16 + 24mm prime combo but I find it that the prime is lost somewhere along the line, if you know what I mean. a 2 lens zoom combo would be good like an 8-16 + 16-45 or 16-50, but I like using my primes from 28 - 50mm.


Individual preference will vary, but I find the 8-16mm plus a 24mm f2.8 a good WA combo. The gap between 16mm and 24mm is equivalent to the classic FF 24mm plus 35mm combo.
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!
lens, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumors on Lens Upgrades ? wll Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-20-2009 02:52 AM
Samsung Rumors dopeytree Pentax News and Rumors 14 05-02-2009 03:11 AM
pma rumors philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 33 09-21-2008 12:47 PM
More Rumors of a possible K1D jbcampbell Pentax News and Rumors 79 02-10-2008 09:00 PM
No any rumors about NEW AF SYSTEM ogl Pentax News and Rumors 31 12-30-2007 11:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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