[lsimpkins]

The Pentax is not overpriced, it's even 21% cheaper than the initial price of the DA* 60-25mm. And the DA* has lower resolution,...

Sorry, I missed this information somehow. Can you direct me to this data or comparative review? I use the DA* on its originally intended format, so have no experience with it on FF, but I find it to be extremely sharp. My only complaint is AF speed on my K-3.

[ffking]

So today I see this...

Perfect is Boring: Lens Makers Need to Loosen Up and Have Fun

The funny thing is seeing all brand supporters rushing to claim that that brand's lenses aren't perfect

We know Pentax has always favoured characteristics tthat aren't alwyays appteciated in reviews, but that's what makes the images stand out, and in a good way.

[mee]

Since the lens build length moves the center of gravity of the camer-lens-combo to the lens, the lens put's more weight on the mount than the camera.
So an tripod collar makes sense. And Tamron offers one: A034TM

You can check the weight and accesory names in the wikipedia article for the D FA 70-210mm:
Pentax D FA 70?210mm lens - Wikipedia

You might be overthinking this. I actually own this lens in F mount form (mounted to a D750), without a tripod foot its not a concern.


It is about an inch and a half longer than the DA* 50-135mm and only .3 lbs more heavy while being the same diameter (both take 67mm filters). The DA* lens doesn't even have a foot because it's not a concern.


The K-1 II weighs more than this lens, the K-3 II is about the same as the lens. I find it is a largely an unnecessary expenditure if you're buying it due to stress on the mount.

[mee]

I, for one, would like to see more some WR small primes (à la Limited style and size) that aren't necessarily optically perfect.

Anyways it's not technical perfection that's limiting my images...

Tamron 35, 45, 85 f/1.8 lenses would look lovely in K mount. They aren't Limited size, but they perform very well and are weather sealed.

[Mistral75]

Holes usually are useful.

That's naughty!

[baro-nite]

The funny thing is seeing all brand supporters rushing to claim that that brand's lenses aren't perfect

The article struck me as a Leica humblebrag.

[reh321]

The original Canon Rebel film camera was so flimsy that the kit zoom was heavy enough to warp the body enough to be noticable on the pictures.
I think Pentax bodies are made of sterner stuff than that.

The zoom kitted with my digital Rebel would never have warped the body - it just plain wasn't heavy enough.

[Wheatfield]

The zoom kitted with my digital Rebel would never have warped the body - it just plain wasn't heavy enough.

The kit lens that came with the body that I mentioned shouldn’t have been heavy enough either. The body was that flimsy. It’s nice that it only took Canon 15 years and a complete change in capture technology to figure out how to make an entry level camera.

[WorksAsIntended]

I used to own an eos 300, which I think was called Rebell 2000 on the us market. One of the last, I even think the last, entry level manual slr.
That thing was of such bad build quality, it simply felt like a toy. I can imagine that thing got bent even a cheap kit lense.

[BigMackCam]

I don't really buy this whole thing about perfection being a problem and aberrations being a goal to chase. I think that is lens baby's marketing and lens creation strategy and I guess it works for them, but overall, I would rather have Pentax working to create lenses that are as sharp as possible with the least amount of distortion, smoothest rendering of auto of focus areas and least flaring possible, all while keeping the size of the lenses down as much as can be.

Everything is a compromise and obviously you can have performance that ranges from the DFA *50 to whatever the worst uncoated 50mm lens of the past was. But honestly, there are enough old lenses that fit the "odd and interesting" category that I'm OK with new lenses being designed more for performance.

I've no problem whatsoever with the pursuit of what I'd call "technical perfection" in lenses - by which I mean complex optical formulae and tuning that provides the highest possible resolution with greatest consistency across the frame at the widest range of aperture settings, smoothest out-of-focus transitions and bokeh, minimal aberrations and vignetting, realistic colour and contrast, maximum flare resistance, etc. Arguably, such lenses provide the greatest versatility in terms of image quality, since they work well for all use cases... so it makes sense for manufacturers to pursue this line (even more so because reviewers increasingly judge them on numbers).

At the other extreme are the "odd and interesting" Lensbaby / Lomography-type products, and the "dizzying, panic inducing circular bokeh, heavy fringing, sharp in the center only, slow (or manual) focusing antiques" that @mee mentioned, both of which seem to be what some folks think of whenever "characterful rendering" is mentioned. I see a fairly small market for such lenses, but it's definitely a niche and not something I'd expect major manufacturers to produce for obvious reasons.

I totally get why there are photographers who like lenses from either or both of these extremes. I like some of them too. But they are extremes, and there's a big, wide middle ground between them...

I might be in the minority (I really don't know), but I certainly don't think I'm alone in enjoying the rendering of some (not all) film era lenses that don't fall into that odd / interesting / dizzying / panic-inducing category - lenses that have real individuality in character that can add to images, yet not so much that it slaps you about the face, makes your eyes bleed and becomes the very point of every image. Some are older auto-focus models, most are vintage and have manual focus and diaphragm. I think there's a market (though I've no idea what size) for modern lenses - either recreations, or inspired by older rendering traits - that also benefit from modern glass, coatings, auto-focus mechanisms etc. Sure, folks could simply buy vintage lenses, clean them, service / re-lubricate them, then work within the focusing limitations. Indeed, I've done that and continue to do so. This doesn't mean we should have to, though... and in any case, not everyone is equipped and/or willing to do so.

I accept that the lenses I'm suggesting wouldn't necessarily appeal to everyone, but then, neither do those from the two previously-mentioned extremes, for a variety of reasons.

I hesitate to mention this, because I've done so frequently in the last few months, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art I bought in 2018 renders beautifully, to my eyes... I've often described it as being rather like a modern interpretation of a classic film era lens. It has some flaws optically - I won't go into them here, as there are plenty of reviews that accurately describe them and present them in measurement charts - but the rendering is to die for (in my opinion). It's also a very modern design, very well built, really nice to use, benefits from reasonably quick and almost silent sonic drive AF, and was (still is, in fact) inexpensive for a fast AF lens.

Some folks look down their noses at Sigma's Art series lenses, taking "art" to mean "optically poor" (I guess they associate the word "art" with hipster Lomography-type glass) - but from what I can tell, it's more the case that Sigma prioritised rendering character above outright technical performance (since it's clearly capable of the latter). I don't know if this is true and, if so, whether the approach worked so well across every Art model, but with the 30/1.4 they hit the ball out of the park, based on my personal preferences.

Again, I don't have a problem with the pursuit of technical perfection. But I wonder whether - at some point in the future - we'll end up with a whole range of complex and expensive prime and zoom lenses at different focal lengths and ranges where performance and rendering are so normalised (or, at least, so similar) that the main distinguishing factor will be field of view I'd be a little sad if that were the case... but perhaps it's an ideal strategy in the current market; to produce a small number of lenses that cover all major focal length requirements (plus macros) and make them all render much the same, with amazing technical performance.

[Rondec]

I've no problem whatsoever with the pursuit of what I'd call "technical perfection" in lenses - by which I mean complex optical formulae and tuning that provides the highest possible resolution with greatest consistency across the frame at the widest range of aperture settings, smoothest out-of-focus transitions and bokeh, minimal aberrations and vignetting, realistic colour and contrast, maximum flare resistance, etc. Arguably, such lenses provide the greatest versatility in terms of image quality, since they work well for all use cases... so it makes sense for manufacturers to pursue this line (even more so because reviewers increasingly judge them on numbers).

At the other extreme are the "odd and interesting" Lensbaby / Lomography-type products, and the "dizzying, panic inducing circular bokeh, heavy fringing, sharp in the center only, slow (or manual) focusing antiques" that @mee mentioned, both of which seem to be what some folks think of whenever "characterful rendering" is mentioned. I see a fairly small market for such lenses, but it's definitely a niche and not something I'd expect major manufacturers to produce for obvious reasons.

I totally get why there are photographers who like lenses from either or both of these extremes. I like some of them too. But they are extremes, and there's a big, wide middle ground between them...

I might be in the minority (I really don't know), but I certainly don't think I'm alone in enjoying the rendering of some (not all) film era lenses that don't fall into that odd / interesting / dizzying / panic-inducing category - lenses that have real individuality in character that can add to images, yet not so much that it slaps you about the face, makes your eyes bleed and becomes the very point of every image. Some are older auto-focus models, most are vintage and have manual focus and diaphragm. I think there's a market - though I've no idea what size - for modern lenses - either recreations, or inspired by older rendering traits - that also benefit from modern glass, coatings, auto-focus mechanisms etc. Sure, folks could simply buy vintage lenses - clean them, service / re-lubricate them, then work within the focusing limitations. Indeed, I've done that and continue to do so. This doesn't mean we should have to, though... and in any case, not everyone is equipped and/or willing to do so.

I accept that the lenses I'm suggesting wouldn't necessarily appeal to everyone, but then, neither do those from the two previously-mentioned extremes, for a variety of reasons.

I hesitate to mention this, because I've done so frequently in the last few months, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art I bought in 2018 renders beautifully, to my eyes... I've often described it as being rather like a modern interpretation of a classic film era lens. It has some flaws optically - I won't go into them here, as there are plenty of reviews that accurately describe them and present them in measurement charts - but the rendering is to die for (in my opinion). It's also a very modern design, very well built, really nice to use, benefits from reasonably quick and almost silent sonic drive AF, and was (still is, in fact) inexpensive for a fast AF lens.

Some folks look down their nose at Sigma's Art series lenses, taking "art" to mean "optically poor" (I guess they associate the word "art" with hipster Lomography-type glass) - but from what I can tell, it's more a case that Sigma prioritised rendering character above outright technical performance. I don't know if this is true and, if so, whether the approach worked so well across every Art model, but with the 30/1.4 they hit the ball out of the park, based on my personal preferences.

Again, I don't have a problem with the pursuit of technical perfection. But I wonder whether - at some point in the future - we'll end up with a whole range of complex and expensive prime and zoom lenses at different focal lengths and ranges where performance and rendering are so normalised (or, at least, so similar) that the main distinguishing factor will be field of view I'd be a little sad if that were the case... but perhaps it's an ideal strategy in the current market; to produce a small number of lenses that cover all major focal length requirements (plus macros) and make them all render much the same, with amazing technical performance.

Of course. I think we feel pretty similarly. For me, lenses like the DA 15 limited are very enjoyable to use, even though that particular lens has weak corners wide open and quite a bit of field curvature. But I do find that I often have to work around a lenses weaknesses.

So, I have used the DA *16-50 a lot over time, but I know that it has a lot of distortion at 16mm and has a lot of fringing and flare badly in many situations. I still shoot with it, but I keep those things in mind and try to avoid things that make it look bad because it also has strong points that make up for that.

The reality with lens design is that because cost needs to kept under control and lens size needs to be controlled as well, lenses end up have some aberrations. Particularly small lenses like the limiteds. But I generally feel negatively towards folks who speak glowingly of the past eras when there were a lot more "non-perfect" lenses released by camera brands. My experience tells me that those sorts of lenses could sink a brand as fast as anything when reviewers test them and find them below average.

[Kunzite]

The reality with lens design is that because cost needs to kept under control and lens size needs to be controlled as well, lenses end up have some aberrations. Particularly small lenses like the limiteds. But I generally feel negatively towards folks who speak glowingly of the past eras when there were a lot more "non-perfect" lenses released by camera brands. My experience tells me that those sorts of lenses could sink a brand as fast as anything when reviewers test them and find them below average.

Fact: Pentax had such lenses, and they weren't praised for them (with very few exceptions, e.g. Mike Johnston / The Online Photographer). This "I want to see imperfect lenses" business feels quite disingenuous to me.

[Rondec]

Fact: Pentax had such lenses, and they weren't praised for them (with very few exceptions, e.g. Mike Johnston / The Online Photographer). This "I want to see imperfect lenses" business feels quite disingenuous to me.

Most people (at least for general shooting) want the closest to perfection that they can afford. If they have a lens like the Soligor or Lensbaby they only breaking them out for certain situations. And when someone buys a lens like the DFA *70-200 or DFA *50, even though they are big, they end up trying to shoot everything with that lens because they love the results.

[bertwert]

Fact: Pentax had such lenses, and they weren't praised for them (with very few exceptions, e.g. Mike Johnston / The Online Photographer). This "I want to see imperfect lenses" business feels quite disingenuous to me.

Most people (at least for general shooting) want the closest to perfection that they can afford. If they have a lens like the Soligor or Lensbaby they only breaking them out for certain situations. And when someone buys a lens like the DFA *70-200 or DFA *50, even though they are big, they end up trying to shoot everything with that lens because they love the results.

Not directed at you, but just saying that I (and I presume others) are not necessarily wanting to use lenses with imperfections, but rather willing to accept imperfections for size, weight and cost.

[WorksAsIntended]

I hesitate to mention this, because I've done so frequently in the last few months, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art I bought in 2018 renders beautifully, to my eyes... I've often described it as being rather like a modern interpretation of a classic film era lens. It has some flaws optically - I won't go into them here, as there are plenty of reviews that accurately describe them and present them in measurement charts - but the rendering is to die for (in my opinion). It's also a very modern design, very well built, really nice to use, benefits from reasonably quick and almost silent sonic drive AF, and was (still is, in fact) inexpensive for a fast AF lens.

Some folks look down their nose at Sigma's Art series lenses, taking "art" to mean "optically poor" (I guess they associate the word "art" with hipster Lomography-type glass) - but from what I can tell, it's more a case that Sigma prioritised rendering character above outright technical performance. I don't know if this is true and, if so, whether the approach worked so well across every Art model, but with the 30/1.4 they hit the ball out of the park, based on my personal preferences.

I own the old 35 1.4 EX, which has a lot similarities with the newer art version. It is my cheapest lense but by far the one I took most photos with on aps-c, as I love its rendering, especially between f1.8 and f2.8. Most people consider it a bad lense.
Mine is rather sharp, I selected it between three lenses and it was by far better than the other two, so there is no issue in sharpness.
The only downside is some cornered bokeh wenn there are lightsources in the background. If this would be different, it would be the perfect lense to me.