[Gooshin]

You do realize this all comes down to choice and taste, a very subjective matter where superiority is not going to be quantified in a unit of measure that would be acceptable to you.
............................
I already understood there is nothing in this lens for you, i understand nothing i can say will make you understand that i say a lens that is not for you may be for others, and i still say we should all be happy for any company making any lens that is for someone and can be used on a Pentax.

So in conclusion i was right (somewhere on page 4 i think) that ownership of this lens is nothing more than a personal choice and a loyalty to the brand rather than any concrete evidence of this lens's particular superiority to others.

I received alot of flack at the begging of this thread for my... blunt statement, but it seems in the ends i was more or less right, perhaps it was simply a poor choice of first words for me.

[morfic]

Although we both used the term choice, on page 4 you show that to you owning a Zeiss lens is purely about some ill elitism, and brand recognition alone, and that you chose to stick with a Sigma.
The choice to me was about color, contrast and resolution of a lens.
I am not a brand loyalist, i use what works, if i was about brand recognition amongst peers, i would be lost with my "Penwhat?"
You are thus only partially right about choice due to brand loyalty/elitism, that's the choice you refer to, a choice made solely on a name, which would be someting you could make fun of, unfortunately (for the validity of your above claim), that's not why people choose it, and if the 18/3.5 does not live up to it's reputation, people will not choose it based on the name on the box alone, which is what your "choice" statement said, even above you reiterate that, so no, i am not agreeing with you despite us both using the term choice.

[morfic]

a 18mm F3.5 lens with no electronic control is dull

Not that a 18mm without an electronic aperture is a drama, where did you get the information from that the ZK 18/3.5 is not a KA lens like all other ZK lenses?

[Gooshin]

Not that a 18mm without an electronic aperture is a drama, where did you get the information from that the ZK 18/3.5 is not a KA lens like all other ZK lenses?

i believe that was a mistake on my part.

[Duplo]

First off, I am not going to get all heated up about this, you have your opinion and I can respect that, but that said I do have a few comments to add.
These camments are based on personal preferences, experience, opinion and what I do, not a general this is the universal truth kind of thing.
Call it a different viewpoint.

because in todays world a point and shoot can be configured both in studio setup and in daylight to produce images on par if not indistinguishable from those of expensive DSLR cameras.

especially for 1200X1000 resolutions and lower

even 8X10 prints one would be hardpressed to see the difference

viewing images at 1X1 pixels, while informative, is pointless, since no one does it in real life.

you do not walk up to a poster and look at it from 2 inches awaway.


the only way left to differentiate your SLR work from point and shoots is creative depth of field control, and excel at night shots, both of which require fast glass.

F3.5 on an 18 mm means a very short hyperfocal distance, unless you're shooting someone 5 or 6 feet away from you, you might as well be using a point and shoot.

I respectufully disagree, unless you can find me a point and shoot that goes to 18mm in 35mm equivalent terms.

Now again there is tonality, colour reproduction, Dynamic range, noise etc. where there will be differences and visible ones.

But above all there is the optical difference between the two sensor sizes and lenses used that you just cannot get around with a compact regardless of quality.

and please, hyperfocal distance is a tool I rarely use and yes I am shooting a lot of landscapes, there are a number of different ways to focus aside from hyperfocal distance. Esecially if you print large, hyper focal distance standard is optimised for small prints, not large prints and there is a difference between having certain parts of a landscape in critical focus and within an acceptable focus range.

okay please describe a situation and end product (work/art) in which a F3.5 18mm lens will be superior to anything else on the market.

well I can for my application a landscape situation where I will be using a combination of grad ND's, a polarizer and long exposures, for these kind of situations I prefer manual focus lenses as i do for landscape work in general.
To me a manual focus lens will be better than any AF lens in such a situation. YMMV, but we are down to personal preference and tools of choice.
But please do not dismiss my tool off choice as I will not dismiss yours.

take a canon G9 and go photograph the rocky mountains in RAW in broad daylight

then do whatever you want with your Ziess lens, hell, mount it on a 5D for all i care.

on a computer screen, you wont be able to tell the different

on a 5X7 photo, you wont be able to tell the difference

on an 8X10, you MAAAYYYYY be able to tell the difference

only at about poster size will you be able to start telling a difference, and thats if you bring it up to your face. (or do 1X1 pixel peeping)


modern Point and Shoots suck ass when you want to do low light no flash, macro, or shallow DOF.

wide/normal angle shots done at hyperfocal distance produce almost indistinguishable results compared to SLR.

Again, I do my proof printing in A4, which is the first qulity check, second is A3.
but yeah for web the differences will be minor, but they are still there, I mentioned tonality, Dynamic range, colour reproduction and noice just above.
in broad daylight, it is almost given that in full daylight, any DSLR will retain better highlight and or shadow information than the G9, just hate to say it.

Again mounting it on a 5D or in my case D3, I will get a very different Field of view, than a G9 will ever come close to, and now you have upped the benchmark in terms of DR, tonality and colour reproduction and noice by quite a bit too.

Have you done a lot of large printing? I can most certainly discern between my DSLRs at A3 size, even A4 and that is at regular view distance... if you cannot good for you, you just saved yourself a lot of money.

Again that hyperfocal myth... hyper focal distance is based on a 10x15cm print size. I have absolutely no use for it when I know the output size is 40x60cm and again there is a difference between having objects in a landscape in critical focus or within acceptable focus.

The Zeiss 18/3.5 is aimed a quite a different market than the G9 or any other compact, it is a tool suitable for some, difinitely not for all.
It may be a worthless lens to you, but an invaluable tool to another.
Personally it will not make my shortlist, but I have other manual focus lenses that did and remain some of my favourites for landscape photography, among these the zeiss 28/2, which is very similar in FOV to what the zeiss 18/3.8 would be on APS-C.

I am not knocking the G9 or a compact for situations where they are useful, but for landscape work in particular, there is quite a difference, regardless of light, especially at poster print sizes, at least from what I have seen and experienced.

[Gooshin]

when i use the term hyperfocal i mean slapping the lens into infinity and going nuts

i dont know what kind of landscape shots you are doing where you need to manually focus...i just whipped out my 16mm fisheye, at F2.8 my coworkers monitor which is 8 feet away is in focus at infinity...


with regards to dynamic range of course APC sensors have more of that, but they have more dynamic range across the entire spectrum, particular in the darker areas. While they probably carry a stop or two into the highlights, with RAW capability you can shoot a nice high quality HDR set with a G9...



the Canon G9 goes from 35mm to 210mm SLR equivalent

your Ziess on a DLSR will be a 27mm, difference, yes, but nothing too severe.




color reproduction, i regress, there are many things that can done today during the post processing stage which is no different than doing shit in a darkroom, if i find the colours lacking i just tweak it with a mouse click, no biggie.


with regards to noise, go find me noise shooting ISO 80 on a G9 in broad daylight thats going to be visible on a small print or computer screen.

[thibs]

take a canon G9 and go photograph the rocky mountains in RAW in broad daylight

then do whatever you want with your Ziess lens, hell, mount it on a 5D for all i care.

on a computer screen, you wont be able to tell the different

on a 5X7 photo, you wont be able to tell the difference

on an 8X10, you MAAAYYYYY be able to tell the difference

only at about poster size will you be able to start telling a difference, and thats if you bring it up to your face. (or do 1X1 pixel peeping)


modern Point and Shoots suck ass when you want to do low light no flash, macro, or shallow DOF.

wide/normal angle shots done at hyperfocal distance produce almost indistinguishable results compared to SLR.

I will beleive that when I'll see it. Please show me.

[Duplo]

when i use the term hyperfocal i mean slapping the lens into infinity and going nuts

i dont know what kind of landscape shots you are doing where you need to manually focus...i just whipped out my 16mm fisheye, at F2.8 my coworkers monitor which is 8 feet away is in focus at infinity...

Never mind... your approach i so different from mine that I am not going to start.
I am talking tripod, careful framing, careful focus in such away that the focus aids your composition, mirrow lock up, cable release and tripping the shutter when the light is right. stuff like that.

First of all there is quite a difference between a 16mm fisheye on aps-C which is close to a 20mm reclinarlens in 35mm equivalent terms.
Is your screen in focus, or just within acceptable focus given the small viewing size? print in 40x60cm and answer that question again

with regards to dynamic range of course APC sensors have more of that, but they have more dynamic range across the entire spectrum, particular in the darker areas. While they probably carry a stop or two into the highlights, with RAW capability you can shoot a nice high quality HDR set with a G9...

Depends entirely on the output size, motive and a lot of other stuff, clouds could have passed, light changed etc...
and you will still not get the same quality, like it or not.

the Canon G9 goes from 35mm to 210mm SLR equivalent

your Ziess on a DLSR will be a 27mm, difference, yes, but nothing too severe.

First of all I shoot mainly 35mm digital, an 18mm is an 18mm.
The difference between 28 and 35 is anything but marginal in my book and the difference between 18 and 35 is simply massive, you brought the 5D into the discussion I did not

color reproduction, i regress, there are many things that can done today during the post processing stage which is no different than doing shit in a darkroom, if i find the colours lacking i just tweak it with a mouse click, no biggie.

You are going to loos out on tonal graduations and quality, regardless of the amount of PS you do, and you still cannot get something back that is not there in the first place.

with regards to noise, go find me noise shooting ISO 80 on a G9 in broad daylight thats going to be visible on a small print or computer screen.

Well what happended to the postersized comparison you talked about in your previous post?

Lets just agree to diagree... you clearly do not want to see things other ways than your own, clearly did not read my reply to you or chose not to understand it.

[Gooshin]

I will beleive that when I'll see it. Please show me.

careful what you wish for... tune in next week around Wednesday.

[Pål Jensen]

i dont know what kind of landscape shots you are doing where you need to manually focus.

Can you please what the hell is the point af AF with an 18mm lens for landscape? Its an utter waste of electricity.

[Gooshin]

Can you please what the hell is the point af AF with an 18mm lens for landscape? Its an utter waste of electricity.

AF for landscape shots on an 18mm, total waste of electricty

photographing things within 8 feet, not a total waste of electricy.

[Gooshin]

N

Lets just agree to diagree... you clearly do not want to see things other ways than your own, clearly did not read my reply to you or chose not to understand it.

clearly, since my original complaint was that a MF 18mm F3.5 lens in the current pentax lineup is useless considering we have other similar options at our disposal.


ohh wait, you mean this would benefit the film guys? what a profitable demographic...

[thibs]

I see, again one of those RH & co... narrow minded.

Ignore list power. Sad... this is going the DPR way. A shame.

[Gooshin]

I see, again one of those RH & co... narrow minded.

Ignore list power. Sad... this is going the DPR way. A shame.

why must you resort to personal attacks?

[Blue]

I see, again one of those RH & co... narrow minded.

Ignore list power. Sad... this is going the DPR way. A shame.

Not hardly. I'm a Pentax fan. I like shorter primes to be somewhat fast or I may as well be using my old SMC and Super Tak wides that are f3.5.