Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-24-2010, 10:18 AM - 1 Like   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
I don't think there is one person that wouldn't want a bigger aperture in a lens if there weren't other tradeoffs. But the end users that you described usually want something to be as portable as possible. And in a lot cases they are also outdoors where they are stopping it down anyway.
Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything.

12-24-2010, 11:45 AM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hampton Roads
Photos: Albums
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length.
Ben,

Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8?

Thanks,
Sergey
12-24-2010, 05:01 PM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything.
I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible.

For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45.
12-25-2010, 01:03 AM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible.

For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45.
I pretty much agree with all of that. I realize that what I want doesn't represent the majority, and probably wouldn't be the best bet for Pentax to make. But then again I think maybe it would. Pentax has a pretty good entry level lens lineup. I think they really need to focus on lenses that are 'pro', and I mean that in every shallow sense of the word. Pentax lacks a professional presence in the market, and not a lot of people reckognize their ability as a system to be used in professional work. The K-5 is turning lots of heads, and I think a lot of people will be taking closer looks at the system. But I feel like a lot of people will take a second look, and feel like the lens line up isn't 'pro' enough for them. I think the next few lenses that Pentax releases really need to be pro grade lenses that fill in certain gaps in the lens map. The more Pentax can bring on pros, the more credibility the brand will get. The bottom line is that everyone wants an upgrade path. Regardless of whether a lens needs to be fast with how high modern ISOs are, or whether wide lenses should have f/2.8 since most wide shots are at f/8 anyways, or whether weight and size are more important than lens speed, the truth of the matter is that the 14-24/2.8 is a beg, heavy sexy piece of glass, and so many entry level Nikon users straight up lust after that lens. And it gives them lots of brand pride and brand loyalty to know that there is this bad ass beast of a lens that they could theoretically upgrade to. Even if the truth is that they'll never ever upgrade to a lens like that.

I think it would be a wise move for Pentax to release a few lenses in the near future at, that anyone would look at and say, 'yeah, that's some professional $#!+, right there.' It might not translate into more revenue as far as immediate lens sales goes, but I think it would be better for long term brand growth.

12-25-2010, 01:36 AM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Kammerer Quote
Ben,

Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8?

Thanks,
Sergey
Hmmm... Yes, I will try. In looking, I realize that wide angle/narow DOF isn't even something I even do too much. I guess it's just something I appreciate in concept and want to explore more. I think, like a lot of people, I tend to just fall back on the wide-angle, f/8, hyperfocal focus and everything will be in focus approach. And it works, and it's safe. But I feel like maybe it's creatively limiting, and that there are more unique images out there to be made with wide angle narrow DOF approaches.

Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation.














I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus.

I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks.
12-25-2010, 03:22 AM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 535
hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3
he did good that day

btw do you also climb?
12-25-2010, 01:39 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hampton Roads
Photos: Albums
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation.

I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus.

I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks.
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful.
12-25-2010, 03:42 PM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by dankoBanana Quote
hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3
he did good that day

btw do you also climb?
Jernej did great all comp. I was secretly pulling for him. But Daniel did great and deserved the win. They're both great climbers.

I do climb, but not as often as I'd like...

12-25-2010, 04:31 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Kammerer Quote
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful.
No problem. Glad you found it helpful!
12-26-2010, 01:12 PM   #85
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 175
Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?
12-27-2010, 01:02 AM   #86
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 817
QuoteOriginally posted by nicolas1970i Quote
Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?
It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design.
12-27-2010, 04:30 AM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 175
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design.
OK, I'll rephrase my question then :
Does the patent specify if some fluoride glass elements will be included?
01-02-2011, 05:56 PM   #88
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
QuoteOriginally posted by nicolas1970i Quote
Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?
The new glass type in the Sigma 8-16 was co-developed with Hoya so I would expect that Pentax would have access to it if they wanted to use it - either in the realisation of this patent or in other future lenses.
01-03-2011, 01:51 PM   #89
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 864
That's what I said....

QuoteOriginally posted by calculator01 Quote
This is fantastic news.

I would like to see a f2.8 though...
about this...



Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version...



Cameron
01-03-2011, 07:00 PM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
about this...



Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version...



Cameron
I think Pentax could make that lens smaller, especially if it is only an APS-c lens.
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!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Medium Format Patent ariahspam Pentax News and Rumors 42 12-12-2008 01:39 PM
Anyone notice the marco ring flash patent from Pentax? Red Pentax News and Rumors 21 09-12-2008 02:41 AM
Canon files for iris ID patent Duck Dodgers Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 02-12-2008 08:20 PM
Pentax Next New Model ? Patent Jan-07 in US BigMac Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 06-14-2007 01:30 PM
PMA: DA*200/300 SDM, 35mm Macro ltd, New Flash! nosnoop Pentax News and Rumors 38 02-28-2007 12:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 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