[tomtor]

You're forgetting the lack of the opposite: an ultrawide fast zoom. Considering that Tokina and Pentax have apparently teamed up in the past for optical design sharing, I'd love to see a weather-sealed Pentax version of either the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, or the new 11-20mm f/2.8. For landscape shooters who also do astrophotography, this would be huge. Otherwise, I'm "stuck" with lenses like the un-sealed, plastic-fantastic Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 and 16mm f/2, if I want to do justice to a extremely pixel-dense sensor like the K-3 / K-3 mk2... (Not that that's a bad thing; if anybody has tried that Rokinon 16mm f/2 they'd be able to vouch that it's insanely sharp, even when challenged by 24 megapixels and no AA filter. But then again, even Canon, Nikon, and Sigma lenses are all hard-pressed to beat some of the Rokinons for sharpness or other astrophotography qualities such as coma / field curvature!

BTW, it's official, my entire collection of Nikon APS-C gear is now gone. I'm gonna pre-order the K-3 II just as soon as I can, and happily await the May 22 (?) ship date!!! Now the only question is, what lens to buy first, as an astro-landscape lover?

=Matt=

@matthew: I'm just starting with some astro experiments and have tried my DA12-24/4 and DA35/2.8macro wide open with decent results. The coming week I'll have a holiday at a darker place, so I'll try to gain some experience.
Next I plan to experiment with my M50/1.7 wide open in panoramas and perhaps my Tokina 17/3.5. Do you think the last one is usable wide open? I saw a comment from you on dpreview that you liked that lens in its ATX Nikon version? I assume the 12-24 will give me better results but I should give it a try.

I'm thinking about buying a Samyang/Rokinon 24/1.4 but I read a lot about bad copies so I'm a bit afraid because it is not really cheap (€ 659). I'd rather spent eg €1200 on a future Pentax 24/2.0 with AF and WR.

-edit-

Another astro option for me might be the sigma 18-35/1.8 (I read your review).

---

Last edited by tomtor; 05-10-2015 at 01:05 AM.

[UncleVanya]

Probably means the DA 14 f2.8.

I was too sleepy to decipher that last night, thank you.

[Zygonyx]

Sorry yes 14mm

[MadMathMind]

Nikon and Canon could put more R&D into in-body stabilization (I’m sure they’ve already put in plenty).

I'd wager that number is zero or very close to it. From a sales point of view, there's no incentive if the other doesn't do it. They're at Nash equilibrium: you have to buy outside the Big 2 if you want this feature, and they don't think many people will do that. (They are right, of course.)

You’ll miss the lens selection available on the other systems as your shooting style begins to change slightly.

Lens selection is a bit of a red herring. Unfortunately, it's one people fall for often, I suspect. There are holes in the Pentax lens lineup, of course, but a lot of the lenses Canon and Nikon offer are just out of the price range of most purchasers. It's nice to have $5k lenses sports lenses available, but 95% of Canikon buyers probably won't spend more than $2k for a lens, and about 90% will probably stay under $800-1k. A good 75% probably won't go over $500. When you start looking in those price ranges, the difference in selection starts to evaporate quickly.

Some things are missing: a non-plastic mount of a fast 50 (the FA50 f/1.4 is not really in production), an affordable 85mm or so fast lens, and a faster but more affordable ~30mm or so. The DA35 is nice, but they could easily do a f/2 or so version for little money. Both Nikon and Canon have lenses like this around $400.

And depending on who you are and what programs are available to you, you may miss out on some great behind-the-scenes support through NPS or CPS when you’re in a bind.

I don't think this is worth citing. CPS has low dues--Free for Silver, $100/year for Gold, $300/year for Platinum--but very high buying requirements. You'd need to have and EOS 6D and a 16-35mm f/2.8 to get silver. That's about $3000 right there. Silver gets you almost nothing, and to step up from gold from there, you'd need another $2k or so in lenses (like the $2200 70-200 IS f/2.8, since the f/4 or non-IS version won't get you to the needed points). You're looking at a $5k investment or so to get anything worthwhile from the program.

You'd need to have about 4 or 5 of the consumer grade lenses to qualify for gold. Still, the minimum you're going to spend is $2k to get to silver, about $3k to get to gold.

I doubt most people even know what it is, let alone have interest in it. For the people who *do* use this, it's great, but I probably wouldn't join were it available to Pentax users.

---

Last edited by MadMathMind; 05-09-2015 at 08:01 AM.

[Matthew Saville]

One of the specific capabilities that is key to Pentax, is its IBIS. Canon and Nikon decided to forgo that in favor of putting OIS in the lenses. Even Sony was putting OIS in their lenses.

Then Olympus came out with their 5 axis thing and everyone raved. Then Sony came out their 5-axis thing and that A7mkII is probably the most popular A7 version yet. Then Olympus came out with pixel shifting. So now Pentax is doing pixel shifting, improved 4.5 stops of SR, astrophotography shifting of the sensor, using the sensor for anti moire control, etc. Suddenly, those companies with IBIS, i.e. Pentax, Sony, Olympus, have the hot ideas. Canikon find themselves unable to emulate the specific IBIS related innovations without undermining their own VR lenses.

Judging by the popularity of Olympus and Sony model A7mkII, a lot of photographers seem to get the value of IBIS. This is a good thing for Pentax to be part of the in-crowd.

While this is indeed awesome, and one of the main reasons I'm switching to Pentax, I can't figure out if you're simply making mention of it, or using it to point out that most folks are less inclined to have a need for fast aperture lenses. Because indeed, I'd still prefer to have an f/2.8 ultra-wide much more than an f/4. And considering the tiny size and weight of lenses like the Tokina 11-16, I don't think that's too much to ask. :-)

---------- Post added 05-10-15 at 10:44 AM ----------

Probably means the DA 14 f2.8.

14mm f/2.8 is indeed quite respectable, however at 1.5x it "only" reaches 21mm, and I can get a 20mm f/1.8 for my full-frame Nikon now. It accepts 77mm filters, too! Besides, I would don't know if the Pentax 14mm can hold its own versus the Rokinon 14mm, which has been by far the sharpest 14mm prime I've ever used, especially on a crop sensor. The same goes for the Rokinon 16mm f/2. "Cheap crap" by Pentax' standards for robust construction and weather sealing, but so dang sharp that you just can't overlook them.

So, while I would certainly buy one, (a 14mm) it would mainly be a stop-gap while I wait for a full-frame Pentax to hit shelves. On a crop-sensor, I'd really prefer to be able to hit 9-11mm, at f/2.8, with or without accepting front filters.

=Matt=

[Matthew Saville]

@matthew: I'm just starting with some astro experiments and have tried my DA12-24/4 and DA35/2.8macro wide open with decent results. The coming week I'll have a holiday at a darker place, so I'll try to gain some experience.
Next I plan to experiment with my M50/1.7 wide open in panoramas and perhaps my Tokina 17/3.5. Do you think the last one is usable wide open? I saw a comment from you on dpreview that you liked that lens in its ATX Nikon version? I assume the 12-24 will give me better results but I should give it a try.

I'm thinking about buying a Samyang/Rokinon 24/1.4 but I read a lot about bad copies so I'm a bit afraid because it is not really cheap (€ 659). I'd rather spent eg €1200 on a future Pentax 24/2.0 with AF and WR.

-edit-

Another astro option for me might be the sigma 18-35/1.8 (I read your review).

The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is a great cheap, lightweight way to get 17mm affordably and sharply on a crop sensor, in fact for Nikon users (though not Pentax?) for a long while it was one of the widest primes available that accepted front filters.

Now, however, my standards are a bit higher. When I owned the 17mm f/3.5, it was mostly used on a 6 megapixel crop sensor camera. I've since tried out almost every single version of the 17mm f/3.5 from both Tokina and Tamron, and they're all a bit under-whelming on full-frame; they deliver sharp results but you can just tell that you're not taking full advantage of a 24 MP sensor, let alone a 36 MP one without an AA filter. On a crop sensor, though, they are indeed decently acceptable, all of them. I like the Tamron adaptall 17mm f/3.5, despite its lack of front filters, because it is one of the tiniest ever. Manual focus, though.

I would definitely consider a 12-24 f/4 to be a better option, simply put, for general landscape and travel photography, or an f/2.8 or faster lens, for astrophotography.

If you're not bent on abandoning APS-C in favor of full-frame as immediately as possible, I'd highly recommend the Rokinon 16mm f/2 instead of the 24mm f/1.4, it will give you the true full frame equivalent, and doesn't cost much at all. Or, as you mentioned, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is a killer choice, especially if you need AF.

Last but not least, probably the best option currently for crop-sensor astro-landscape photography on Pentax is the Rokinon 10mm f/2.8. It is incredibly sharp wide open, offers you a 15mm equivalent FOV, and again, doesn't cost too much. Although unfortunately I think it may cost a bit more than either the 14mm or 16mm's... I haven't checked in a while.

[tomtor]

Thanks Matthew for the info!

I did some tests yesterday. The Tokina 17/3.5 is sharp wide open but it has a lot of coma. The Pentax 12-24 was quite good wide open, so that will have to do for now.

I plan to buy the Samyang 14/2.8, a nice lens on FF and sufficiently wide on aps-c for now.

[Spodeworld]

Thanks for the suggestions Matthew.

BTW, I checked out some of your photography. Truly work of the highest caliber. You're going to be (and already are) an extremely valuable asset to this community.

[Matthew Saville]

Thanks Matthew for the info!

I did some tests yesterday. The Tokina 17/3.5 is sharp wide open but it has a lot of coma. The Pentax 12-24 was quite good wide open, so that will have to do for now.

I plan to buy the Samyang 14/2.8, a nice lens on FF and sufficiently wide on aps-c for now.

Yup, I love the Rokinon 14mm on both my full-frame and 1.5x crop Nikons, and I'm delighted that it's available for Pentax too. I'm even more delighted that Pentax, unlike Canon and Sony, still supports "oldschool" aperture control, meaning that Rokinon lenses are microchipped to allow EXIF transmission and even on-camera aperture control. In fact, I'd argue that Rokinon's Pentax version lenses are the BEST, because unlike Nikon version lenses, the Pentax ones even offer a push-button locking mechanism on the aperture ring, so I don't have to tape the ring in position to allow aperture control on-camera! I only hope that Rokinon also has a ~16/17mm f/2.8 prime up its sleeves, with 77mm filter threads, so that I can get ultrawide angles AND use ND filters. That's the only major bummer about the 14mm on full-frame. (On APS-C, of course, there's already the ultra-sharp Rokinon 16mm f/2)

---------- Post added 05-20-15 at 09:50 AM ----------

Thanks for the suggestions Matthew.

BTW, I checked out some of your photography. Truly work of the highest caliber. You're going to be (and already are) an extremely valuable asset to this community.

Thank you; I'm really looking forward to the shipping of the K-3 II! All I have to decide now is, which lenses to buy first... ;-)

[Omestes]

Yes I perfectly understand it too. I've experienced it myself when Olympus discontinued 4/3. I was stuck with 2 bodies and I wanted to upgrade my lenses. However, I thought it over and decided to jump to Pentax. My reason was if I upgrade my lenses, I would be stuck with it as there will be no new bodies to use them in the future. Despite the presence of the EM-1, I'll definitely be in a dead end in about 5 - 10 years.

Why Pentax? Well I researched and found that it had IBIS. Plus the K-mount has been there since I don't know when and Ricoh's acquisition also gave life to Pentax. As evidenced now, Ricoh is storming Pentax with new products with upgraded capabilities. My experience with my K-5II is really great. I'll be with Pentax all the way through. I just hope they add more distributors and service centers here in my country. It's really funny, Pentax cameras are made here in my country yet the after sales service is bad.

Why Pentax? Well I researched and found that it had IBIS.

On the reverse; I went for Oly for my second kit, because it has IBIS. And now shooting 50% Olympus and 50% Pentax, I've come to realize that Olympus is very Pentax like. It is sad that they killed 4/3, but I can see why, it sort of became the odd bird.

[Winder]

On the reverse; I went for Oly for my second kit, because it has IBIS. And now shooting 50% Olympus and 50% Pentax, I've come to realize that Olympus is very Pentax like. It is sad that they killed 4/3, but I can see why, it sort of became the odd bird.

I shot with an Olympus E-3 for a couple of years. Olympus makes great cameras and a lot of Olympus people migrated to Pentax as 4/3 was dying off. Most of those people moved on to Nikon, and now several of them are shooting Fuji or Sony Mirrorless. Its interesting to see the people I use to see on the 4/3 forums on different forums and how they have moved around. If Olympus would make a larger sensor body, they would move way up my list.

[officiousbystander]

My EM5 is like a mini version of my K5 (except Pentax menus are much better organised). And while I'm probably also a 50/50 Olympus Pentax person I'm not involved in other lists. PentaxForums is the friendliest of the camera sites.

[Omestes]

If Olympus would make a larger sensor body, they would move way up my list.

It would be nice, but I doubt they will. It seems, other than M43, the only two paths available (FF, and APS-C) are about as saturated as possible. I would love something like the EM5, but with a beefier sensor.

My EM5 is like a mini version of my K5 (except Pentax menus are much better organised).

Olympus, like Pentax, knows how to build a camera. I just bought an EM5 Mark II, and it does remind me of my K5. It looks a bit like a toy, but the second you pick it up, you realize it is serious kit. Olympus glass also reminds me of Pentax glass, I'm not sure why, but it does. It has a certain feel, it feels more "crafted" than "engineered", for lack of a better phrase, and to risk sounding like a pompous aesthete.

But their menus... The opposite of Pentax. I HATE having to change a setting on my Oly bodies, despite shooting on them for 4 years I still can't find things; opposed to Pentax, where I pretty much had everything down in a matter of months.

PentaxForums is the friendliest of the camera sites.

This place is a shining jewel, and I have yet to find a place as helpful, experienced, and full of supportive voices. If I ever (*gasp*) stopped shooting Pentax, I would still find an excuse to read the forums here.

[Matthew Saville]

You know, every time I hear someone say pentax lacks a good lens library I look at all that amazing old m42 and K mount gear and have a good laugh.

I want to see the author mount some Zeiss glass to that Nikon and try to hit infinity...

Currently manufactured selection is a touch sparse, but the library is larger than that.

Other than that, that article is a ton of humble brag with a side of "so what if Pentax is better?"

This makes it sound like An ad For Nikon and Canon; The choice of Starbucks drinking iPad users, who's common argument for their choices are "it's the best." the logic is as flimsy as their image.


... all that said, i would Kill for a Pentax done the same way the Nikon df is... work of Damn art.

As a Nikon user, I do enjoy the rich heritage of lenses, and the knowedge that there are decades of direct-mount classic lenses, with plenty of EXIF data. This is a stark contrast to the horribly annoying, complete lack of EXIF for both Canon and Sony. It may seem like an irrelevant feature in this day and age, but there are still plenty of us out there who appreciate history, and enjoy the nostalgia of using classic lenses just for the heck of it.

However (in the Nikon camp at least) more and more often we are finding that those older lenses we revered are beginning to fall short on the ever-increasing, pixel-dense sensors that keep coming out. Galen Rowell's classic 20mm f/4 lens is something I've wanted to have in my collection for about a decade now, but with a lens like the new 20mm f/1.8 G being so incredibly sharp, and also relatively lightweight thanks to high-grade plastics, ...it's hard to call the classic lenses anything more than a hobby / trophy lens.

I fear the same might be the case for Pentax, especially when the full-frame camera comes out. Heck, full-frame corners aside, a 24 megapixel AA-less DX sensor with pixel-shifting is even more demanding on a per-pixel basis.

I guess it is time then for me to mosey on over to the Lens section of this community, and read up on which lenses might still be able to hold their own...

Because yes, I do love the classic look of the Nikon Df. I love its light weight even more, especially now that I've "stepped down" from a Nikon D800e to a Nikon D750, for both adventure photography and wedding photography.

If Pentax takes the K-3 III and inflates it to the size of an FX sensor, that would be a powerhouse of a camera, but a shame in weight savings considering the long library of Pentax lenses that offer such amazing portability.

Hopefully when Pentax "makes big bucks" with their first FX body, they'll use that $$$ to create a more portable, lightweight version that maintains the tradition of still being well built and weather sealed. :-)

[Omestes]

As a Nikon user, I do enjoy the rich heritage of lenses, and the knowedge that there are decades of direct-mount classic lenses, with plenty of EXIF data. This is a stark contrast to the horribly annoying, complete lack of EXIF for both Canon and Sony. It may seem like an irrelevant feature in this day and age, but there are still plenty of us out there who appreciate history, and enjoy the nostalgia of using classic lenses just for the heck of it.

However (in the Nikon camp at least) more and more often we are finding that those older lenses we revered are beginning to fall short on the ever-increasing, pixel-dense sensors that keep coming out. Galen Rowell's classic 20mm f/4 lens is something I've wanted to have in my collection for about a decade now, but with a lens like the new 20mm f/1.8 G being so incredibly sharp, and also relatively lightweight thanks to high-grade plastics, ...it's hard to call the classic lenses anything more than a hobby / trophy lens.

I fear the same might be the case for Pentax, especially when the full-frame camera comes out. Heck, full-frame corners aside, a 24 megapixel AA-less DX sensor with pixel-shifting is even more demanding on a per-pixel basis.

I guess it is time then for me to mosey on over to the Lens section of this community, and read up on which lenses might still be able to hold their own...

Because yes, I do love the classic look of the Nikon Df. I love its light weight even more, especially now that I've "stepped down" from a Nikon D800e to a Nikon D750, for both adventure photography and wedding photography.

If Pentax takes the K-3 III and inflates it to the size of an FX sensor, that would be a powerhouse of a camera, but a shame in weight savings considering the long library of Pentax lenses that offer such amazing portability.

Hopefully when Pentax "makes big bucks" with their first FX body, they'll use that $$$ to create a more portable, lightweight version that maintains the tradition of still being well built and weather sealed. :-)

Hopefully when Pentax "makes big bucks" with their first FX body, they'll use that $$$ to create a more portable, lightweight version that maintains the tradition of still being well built and weather sealed. :-)

At the point, why not just get an APS-C camera? Lightweight. Weather sealed. Highly portable. Not $2000+.

But then again, I recently decided that I'm probably not going FF, instead opting for either a cheap K-3 and a good lens (I'm thinking the FA77 might enjoy a FA31 little brother), or for the K-3 II. I don't see the need, in my own photography, at least I don't see the need for the cost (I can buy a EM5 II, K-3, and a lens for the same price, to put things in perspective). I don't see it as the second coming, though I hope it does make Ricoh a tidy sum, and allows them to put that into lens design.

As for you original point, I haven't really read about any of the "classic" lenses losing their luster with higher resolutions. That could because of nostalgia and expectations, or because Pentax really nailed it on some lenses. Probably a mixture of both.

Galen Rowell's classic 20mm f/4 lens is something I've wanted to have in my collection for about a decade now, but with a lens like the new 20mm f/1.8 G being so incredibly sharp, and also relatively lightweight thanks to high-grade plastics, ...it's hard to call the classic lenses anything more than a hobby / trophy lens.

So how has the 20 f4 suffered? It is just not as technically sound? Does this change anything? I have several flawed lenses, and I love putting their flaws to use. This isn't a matter of novelty, or a trophy, but those lenses do something that modern lenses generally avoid doing; have a personality. I don't need a perfectly flat, ultra sharp, super-neutral lens all the time. Sometimes that old, ugly, brick of metal takes a better picture. Hell, my favorite (with the most postive results according the the internet) lens is an ugly, creaky, cheap feeling plastic zoom with horrid bokeh (the F35-70 Macro). Of all my lenses, I feel dirty to say that it is probably the best lens I own, warts and all. For some reason I can wring more out of it than I can any of my "superior" lenses.