[JinDesu]

I'm down for this, just waiting for the price drop.

[Venom3300]

it looks to slightly outperform the Nikon on the charts at least.

[lytrytyr]

it looks to slightly outperform the Nikon on the charts at least.

I don't think the charts are comparing like with like.

[Winder]

If that were true, the Pentax lens would be way better than the comparable Nikkor.

I don't really care if its comparable to Nikkor. Nikkor lenses don't fit my camera.

[Nicolas06]

I have to disagree. An f3.5 lens is NOT a stopped down faster lens. Most lenses tend to give their best IQ stopped down one or two stops from their maximum aperture.

We say rougly the same thing, just phrase it a little differently.


For stop we roughly say the same thing differently, even through I would think more 2-4 stops for best aperture than 1-2 stop. I almost never seen an f/1.4 lenses having it best apperture at f/2.8 for example and that's already 2 stops. Let say it start to be good after 2 stops.

As formula and design it depend. Fast lenses are often better not because it is inherent to lens design but more for market demand. Having a fast aperture is a common demand and that's another selling argument that help when you ask high price for it.

Many lense design like DA40 or DA15 have shown that designing for average or slow max aperture can be better overall than a fast max aperture... Better flare resistance, small design, good rendering...

[lytrytyr]

Nikkor lenses don't fit my camera.

You're not trying hard enough:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/62-do-yourself/254770-mounting-nikkor-len...nt-camera.html

[Clavius]

Many lense design like DA40 or DA15 have shown that designing for average or slow max aperture can be better overall than a fast max aperture... Better flare resistance, small design, good rendering...

Funny that you mention the DA15. You say better, but that's just a matter of opinion. It's a super slow F4 prime. Which only gets decently sharp very late at ~F10. Forever marrying it to a tripod or clear sunny days. Don't get me wrong, it's very good at what it does. But the slowness has restricted its use severely.

[Digitalis]

But the slowness has restricted its use severely.

If the DA15mm f/4 was as fast as f/2.8 It would be a very different animal than what it presently is - which I think defeats the purpose of the lens. I'm speaking from personal experience here: the DA15 is a really fun lens to work with.

[luftfluss]

Funny that you mention the DA15. You say better, but that's just a matter of opinion. It's a super slow F4 prime. Which only gets decently sharp very late at ~F10. Forever marrying it to a tripod or clear sunny days. Don't get me wrong, it's very good at what it does. But the slowness has restricted its use severely.

The DA15 already has a high degree of center sharpness wide open, and max edge sharpness ~f/8. Pentax SMC-DA 15mm f/4 AL ED Limited - Review / Test Report - Analysis

With Pentax SR, you can't shoot f/8 1/30s with a DA15?

[Nicolas06]

Funny that you mention the DA15. You say better, but that's just a matter of opinion. It's a super slow F4 prime. Which only gets decently sharp very late at ~F10. Forever marrying it to a tripod or clear sunny days. Don't get me wrong, it's very good at what it does. But the slowness has restricted its use severely.

Restricted what? I don't spend my day take shoot of black cats inside tunnel on a night without moon...

When I take night shoots with it:

DA15 f/4, 1/10s, 2500isos, handled



DA15 f/4 (with polariser), 1/5s, 6400 isos, handled


When I take normal shoots with it (much more common):

DA15, f/9 1/400s, iso 100, handled



DA15, f/8, 1/125s, isos 100; 3 exposure HDR, handled



DA15, f/8, 1/250s, isos 100



DA15, my first tries with it, f/5.6, 1/80, triple exposure HDR, iso 100.




I had never problems with my DA15 or my DA21 also. I also did enjoy taking some night shoot with tripod with a few different lenses and got fantastic results. I don't get the reason to complain? If you want nice good shoot handled, the actual gear already does a good job. Want perfect shoot? That anyway require tripod or flashes or light. f/1.4 + FF will not replace good light. It will look a little less crap, no more.

So what? For me, you complain on the theory... Yeah this lense is slow, is severely restrict the possibilities blablabla.... Yeah in practice I get good images most in iso 100-400 range without any difficulty for most of my use case, I can also get good handled shoots at high isos too and if I want I can do long exposure with a tripod for very interresting result.

This is not a portrait lens where one could want to shoot at f/2 anyway. On the opposite, this baby, this DA15 is able to get blue skies when other just get burned highlight. It is able to keep high contrast and fantastic color in difficult conditions. A good photographer doesn't spend his time saying the gear is of bad quality... He use his gear to its strengh to get fantastics results.

Want to all your time complaining about how it is theorically bad to not take 15mm shoot at f/1.4 at isos 12800 in dark night for a close-up. That your problem. Me I don't do this kind of shoot anyway.

[normhead]

You have to understand... for people who don't actually use these lenses, it's easy for them to contemplate situations where they might not be what some people want. There are all kinds of discussions on the forum that go south when people who don't actually use the lens get involved. They see a test chart somewhere, and they imagine that they have some kind of insight into the performance of the lens. They then proceed to make a pile of comments that don't make any sense to people who use the lens.

People who have experience using a lens, know what they can get out of it. People who read paper evaluations, know pretty much nothing useful.

What's useful is, "How do I get a great image out of this lens". The analysis of paper weakness is worthless.
Really, in only one or two images of the thousands I've taken with the 18-135 is the edge weakness in the long end apparent. If it wasn't for the inordinate weight the numeric values put on such things, you wouldn't even know it was there. What you see is the excellent centre sharpness at all focal lengths. The edge weakness in the long end is a minor thing, because it comes into play less than 10% of the time.

[IchabodCrane]

You have to understand... for people who don't actually use these lenses, it's easy for them to contemplate situations where they might not be what some people want. There are all kinds of discussions on the forum that go south when people who don't actually use the lens get involved. They see a test chart somewhere, and they imagine that they have some kind of insight into the performance of the lens. They then proceed to make a pile of comments that don't make any sense to people who use the lens.

People who have experience using a lens, know what they can get out of it. People who read paper evaluations, know pretty much nothing useful.

What's useful is, "How do I get a great image out of this lens". The analysis of paper weakness is worthless.
Really, in only one or two images of the thousands I've taken with the 18-135 is the edge weakness in the long end apparent. If it wasn't for the inordinate weight the numeric values put on such things, you wouldn't even know it was there. What you see is the excellent centre sharpness at all focal lengths. The edge weakness in the long end is a minor thing, because it comes into play less than 10% of the time.

Good points. In addition, there might be instances where people complain about a lens they don't own just to dampen their own desire to buy it.

[filoxophy]

It's a super slow F4 prime.

Like the DA* 300/4?

[Zygonyx]

Fuji intoxication

[robjmitchell]

Fuji intoxication

LOL

---------- Post added 11-01-2014 at 10:39 AM ----------

Like the DA* 300/4?

F-stop is irrelevant, Its the size of your front element that counts!