Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-26-2013, 05:46 AM   #916
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 1,009
Same questions here DWB! Please take your time in reviewing that lens, Thank you in advance.

11-26-2013, 03:10 PM   #917
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by wed7 Quote
Same questions here DWB! Please take your time in reviewing that lens, Thank you in advance.
That image is gorgeous
Bad for LBA... really bad !
11-26-2013, 03:47 PM   #918
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
Got one w me right now, the initial feeling is that it's a very well made lens with great feeling in hands or mounted on camera. IQ is pretty good with great sharpness and bokeh, CA (or is it called purple fringe) is very well controlled, one of the best in this regard among all Pentax lenses I've ever used, far better than the FA31 at least (I'm talking about CA here). The AF can be faster though, maybe it's due to the WR sealing or indoor light condition last night when I tried.

Will take some actual photos over the weekend, if I'm not too tired after the full Marathon run.
11-26-2013, 04:29 PM   #919
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,828
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I'm also unable to answer your question whether it is a coincidence that you sold nothing from the 16-45, but I do wonder if the answer really matters.
Of course it matters. It matters, if for nothing else, in sales. If you were selling three cookies, on two of the cookies sold, and one did not, would you wonder if it mattered? After all, it's unlikely you'd be able to prove, scientifically, on the basis of physics, that the two cookies that sold were better than the third. I'm a pragmatist about such matters, as I think we all are when we're not arguing on behalf of some
ill-considered doctrine.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I do object to your statement that there are things that can't be measured that still affect image quality. I mean, it's all physics, really. It may be that reviews don't measure certain aspects of lenses, but that doesn't mean that those aspects can't be measured.
Even if true, it's largely irrelevant. In practice, some things are easily measured, some are not. If we adopt the attitude of anything real can be measured, in practice this can easily evolve into the (tacit) view of that which is more easily measured is more real. But even more to the point, photography is essentially an aesthetic discipline, and how photographs look to human perception always trumps whatever tests may be applied to the equipment used to make that photography. To be sure, the tests will often correlate with our aesthetic experiences. But the correlation will rarely be 100%. Occasionally, there may be very little correlation, and the tests will mislead those who place too much faith in them. How cameras and lenses produce images, and how people perceive those images, is a very complicated matter -- far too complicated to ever be adequately measured. Different lenses render color differently. That's even a "scientific" fact which can be corroborated via a spectrometer. But there's no perfect correleation between spectometer tests and what people see in the resulting images. That's because how colors are rendered by multi-coated glass is very complex. Designing tests for color rendition is not really practical, and so it isn't done. So one critical aspect of lens performance is largely ignored.

Rather than becoming misled by tests, It's better just to look at the images produced by a lens, because that's what counts. And that's what serious photographers tend to do. They evaluate lenses by how they actually perform in real world photography. Tests may be useful for red flagging potential issues. But if you're selling images, or entering contests, your image will be evalutated on how it looks to human perception, not how it manifests various laws of physics in sundry tests. Perception is essentially qualitative, immeasurable, aesthetic. Even if it were true (per implausible) that all subject matters could be reduced to physics, it would still remain impractical, and inhuman, to sacrifice human experience, particularly human aesthetic experience, on the altar of measurebation.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Just as the look and feel of really solid lenses could affect perception of images taken with those lenses.
Really? Do you have any evidence of that? Keep in mind: metal lenses are generally going to feature high end glass. No one any more makes metal kit glass or metal consumer grade lenses. So if people think a metal lens is a good lens, even if it's not based on an actual discrimination of the lens's qualities, they'll probably be right in any case. Or are we to assume that they have been deluded all along; that, in short, the DA 18-55 is just as good as the limiteds, only we're too deluded by build quality to perceive the similarity? I would say that the far more plausible thesis is that if someone can't perceive optical differences between the DA 18-55 and the limiteds, they should probably have their eyes checked.

I actually see far more examples of people being misled by tests rather than by build quality or the price of a lens. Take the old M 85 f2 for example. That lens got a very low resolution score from a Modern Photography test back in the late seventies. If you read some of the remarks on this lens during the early days of the internet, back when everyone was shooting film, complaints about its sharpness dominate. Even though everyone wasshooting film and couldn't pixel peep, yet we find so many photographers confidentally asserting that the lens was "soft." Then a few years ago photographers who knew nothing of the old Modern Photography tests or of all the complaints about the lens on the internet bought copies and began using them on their DSLRs. And they discovered, not by consulting tests, but by looking at actual images (what a concept!) that the old M 85 f2 was actually a superb lens capable of producing stunning, contrasty images with intensely bright, vivid color.

11-26-2013, 10:21 PM   #920
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Of course a 15-45 f:1.2 WR Ltd would be a nice addition, although it would be too heavy, too light, too long, too short, too big, and too small.
You forgot too Ricoh.
11-27-2013, 03:17 AM   #921
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,017
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Of course it matters. It matters, if for nothing else, in sales. If you were selling three cookies, on two of the cookies sold, and one did not, would you wonder if it mattered? After all, it's unlikely you'd be able to prove, scientifically, on the basis of physics, that the two cookies that sold were better than the third. I'm a pragmatist about such matters, as I think we all are when we're not arguing on behalf of some
ill-considered doctrine.
Yeah but I'm not Ricoh. The thing I meant was, whatever the reason is, photos made with your 16-45 don't sell as well. Why can't that be reason enough in itself, without having to delve into the reasons they don't sell as well?

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Even if true, it's largely irrelevant. In practice, some things are easily measured, some are not. If we adopt the attitude of anything real can be measured, in practice this can easily evolve into the (tacit) view of that which is more easily measured is more real.
That is your assumption.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
.....
We could go on like this forever. You are asserting things I did not say, or at least, pulling them out of context. I don't know if you are deliberately doing this or not, but I don't have the time or the energy to keep up.
11-27-2013, 03:31 AM   #922
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,008
QuoteOriginally posted by frank Quote
Got one w me right now, the initial feeling is that it's a very well made lens with great feeling in hands or mounted on camera. IQ is pretty good with great sharpness and bokeh, CA (or is it called purple fringe) is very well controlled, one of the best in this regard among all Pentax lenses I've ever used, far better than the FA31 at least (I'm talking about CA here). The AF can be faster though, maybe it's due to the WR sealing or indoor light condition last night when I tried.

Will take some actual photos over the weekend, if I'm not too tired after the full Marathon run.
Looking forward to your full report Frank!

Wim
11-27-2013, 04:32 AM   #923
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 804
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I am not. The rendition of bokeh is still based on physics. Everything around us is. So there must be a way to determine how bokeh from a certain lens is going to render, based on things like the optical formula from that lens. That will not generate a scale by which the "goodness" of the bokeh can be measured. But then again, that is subjective in nature, and really not what I meant.
I know that leaving some spherical aberration uncorrected favors a good bokeh. There is always some compromise...

11-27-2013, 04:37 AM   #924
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
QuoteOriginally posted by frank Quote
Got one w me right now, the initial feeling is that it's a very well made lens with great feeling in hands or mounted on camera. IQ is pretty good with great sharpness and bokeh, CA (or is it called purple fringe) is very well controlled, one of the best in this regard among all Pentax lenses I've ever used, far better than the FA31 at least (I'm talking about CA here). The AF can be faster though, maybe it's due to the WR sealing or indoor light condition last night when I tried.

Will take some actual photos over the weekend, if I'm not too tired after the full Marathon run.
Inform us, please, about focal range and apertures. Maybe standart focal range - 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 could be enough.
11-27-2013, 04:54 AM   #925
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 917
I read 2 or 3 reviews yesterday on the net , and its regarded as a very good, competent allrounder, except for its pricetag...
11-27-2013, 05:30 AM   #926
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lietuva, Vilnius
Posts: 627
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
I read 2 or 3 reviews yesterday on the net , and its regarded as a very good, competent allrounder, except for its pricetag...
"very good" by itself doesn't say much.
"very good compared to ........ " or "very good for (specific) use". That is much more clear.
11-27-2013, 05:42 AM   #927
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 917
i know, i'm vague, but i only vaguely read them...:-) I'll post the link when i can find them tonight.

But it came down to an excellent allrounder with very good IQ, rendition, bokeh & bit distortion on 20mm, not that small and in the end with a pricetag considered too high for f2.8-4. (not my words though...)

the latter being the end conclusion in both reviews i saw.
11-27-2013, 05:54 AM   #928
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,105
QuoteOriginally posted by Apapukas Quote
"very good" by itself doesn't say much.
"very good compared to ........ " or "very good for (specific) use". That is much more clear.
More clear perhaps, but of little us to people who've already made up their minds about it.
11-27-2013, 05:55 AM   #929
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lietuva, Vilnius
Posts: 627
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
i know, i'm vague, but i only vaguely read them...:-) I'll post the link when i can find them tonight.

But it came down to an excellent allrounder with very good IQ, rendition, bokeh & bit distortion on 20mm, not that small and in the end with a pricetag considered too high for f2.8-4. (not my words though...)

the latter being the end conclusion in both reviews i saw.
I hope for a review that puts this lens against the competitors offerings.

1K $ is a little too much for a walk around lens. This price tag gives all the possible reasons to believe that you will get professional grade IQ. And I hope it will.
11-27-2013, 06:12 AM   #930
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Apapukas Quote
I hope for a review that puts this lens against the competitors offerings.
Agreed but again (and IMO), there's no direct competition which makes the comparison difficult.
It'd still put things into perspective and help a lot.
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!
20-40mm, da, dc, f2.8-4, hd, lens, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-da, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The DA Limited Series Review [15/21/35/40/70] DonThomaso Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-04-2014 05:13 PM
KMZ remaking the MIR-20 and Helios 40-2 ironlionzion Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 09-27-2012 11:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 21, 40 and 70, D FA 100 WR and FA 50/1.4, all EX++(Canada) farfisa Sold Items 11 04-23-2012 06:38 AM
Wanted - Acquired: DA 40 ltd and a DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 Jeff Bennett Sold Items 5 03-22-2011 03:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM. | 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