[Art Vandelay II]

You probably just answered why Pentax is not making the 30mm DA*:

1) Sigma 30mm 1.4
2) DA 35 mm 2.8
3) FA 31mm 1.8 (with no sign of going out of production)

The difference between primes and zooms has lessened a lot over the last few years. So investing in prime options is one thing, but over-investing runs into the law of diminishing returns.

I agree that the quality between primes and zooms has almost evened out over the last few years, so that's what bugs me about Pentax making primes no faster than f/2.8. Given, the DA 35mm Limited is a beautiful lens, and it would be nice to have a small prime like that, but when it comes down to it I couldn't justify buying it over the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The The only area the Tamron might give up ground is for macro work, and even there it is no slouch. So the coolness of the DA 35mm just isn't enough of a reason for me to splurge and spend $500 on it when a zoom can do the same thing for less.

As far as the Sigma goes; according to photozone.de that lens is a bit of a stinker with the edges never getting sharp no matter how much you step it down. By all accounts the FA 31mm Limited is a great lens, but it is also $900. That's up in the ballpark of the Canon 50mm f/1.2. As far as build quality goes it should be up in the price range of the Canon 50mm 1.2, but it is still only a f/1.8 lens. While that is faster then any zoom, Nikon sells a full frame 50mm 1.8 for $130 that is actually pretty good lens.

The fast 50 is still a favorite lens of many (a 50mm 1.4 was the only lens I had in college). However, there is currently nothing in the APS-C world that I think is worth buying that can give you the same look as the old 50mm 1.4's on film.

I personally would like to see Pentax drop the 40mm 2.8 Limited now that they have the 35mm 2.8 Limited and introduce the DA* 30mm 1.4. If Pentax is serious about never going full frame a "fast 50" at a reasonable price (under $400) is giant hole in their lens line up.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 05-11-2009 at 09:44 PM.

[lithos]

'Course, we're probably never end the FF/APS debate, as - and I understand this may come as a shock to some who post threads titled as provocatively as this one - most people out there are different to yourselves.

Yep.

Sorry.

It's true, it's true. It's very, very difficult to make the whole of humanity think as one single, homogenous mass, though lord knows some have tried.

People, as it stands, have different opinions. Different wants and needs. It's the human condition. Part of it, anyway. It's what makes this world rich and unique (as well, admittedly, violent and malignant on occasion.)

So, when someone starts a thread that basically states, as here, "People who are different to me are bad, smelly doo-doo-heads", that someone doesn't come across as a visionary beacon of straight-talking common sense - they come across as "petulant, whiny, arseholes who are throwing a tantrum."

So, let's dispel a few 36x24mm-related myths:

People who want 36x24mm sensors are bad photographers and can't hack having to use a smaller sensor:

Half true. That's what's called a "loaded" statement: welding two statements together, one positive, one negative, but giving only one chance to confirm or deny said statement. If you say, true, I can't stand ("hack") having to be limited to the APS format, you're confirming you're a bad photographer. If you say, instead, no, I am a good photographer, then you can't complain about the format size.

Of course, the answers to both the statements in the loaded statement are purely subjective, and, of course, unrelated.

People who want a 36x24mm sensor are closet Canonists/Nikonians. Pentax does APS-C, 35mm is Canon's (and later, after Nikon launched the D3) and Nikon's turf:

Ah, yes, the "love it or leave it, but never mention it" rule. Well, not so much a rule as an ideology. I forgot that every time you mention the words "Canon" or "Nikon", god kills a kitten. And that, somehow, over the years, 35mm was patented by these two companies. And whittling it down with Occam's good old Razor, therefore, Pentax should never, ever, ever include a feature that Canon or Nikon has on their cams. So, what, that means no viewfinder, no mirror, no battery, no bodyshell, no screws to hold it together, no copper in the PCBs, no PCBs at all, no lens mount, no buttons, no tripod thread, no LCD, no...

YOU sound like a Canonist/Nikonian, and are probably a plant by these rival companies to discredit Pentax and have its loyal followers, who would lay down their lives for the company if need be, switch to the tools of Satan!

Are you serious, or just quoting from Arthur Miller's The Crucible?

No one expects the Pentax inquisition!

Anyway, it's been well-known that if Pentax ever makes a 35mm-frame DSLR, they will send their jackbooted thugs around to smash all of my beloved APS lenses, then kill my family as an example of what'll happen to me if I ever mention the APS system again:

Well, no. Pentax won't. Apart from all the ethical and legal problems such actions would pose, there's the sad story of Hoya making the entirety of Pentax's Corporate Espionage - Jackbooted Thugs, Assassinations, and Torture Division in the wake of the takeover. Sorry.

No one here's suggesting that Pentax should dump all APS-C related products as soon as they make a 36x24mm sensored camera.

But that can't be! I am such a loyal follower of Pentax, it makes sense that Pentax would enforce such loyalty with such brutality, as it would make more Pentaxians as fanatical as I!

That's...that's rather disturbing.

Well, then, at any rate, I'm can take perfectly good photos with my Pentax gear. Don't know why you'd need anything else. Besides, in a coupla years, the APS-C sensor's gonna be as good as the 35mm sensors are today.

First part: good on you. I'm glad the gear suits your purposes. Second part: people are different to you, as elaborated previously.

Third part: why wait? If the APS-C sensors of tomorrow are only going to be as good as today's 35mm ones, how good are the 35mm sensors of tomorrow gonna be?

You, sir, are a smelly doo-doo-head! I'm going to hold my breath until you agree with me!

Duly noted.

[thibs]

Hmm. If thats true, then you could almost certainly do BETTER on an APSC camera. I think F2.0 is the fastest 135 made, but there are plenty of fast 85's down to F1.2.

Except Pentax A* 135/1.8
A* 135/1.8

[thibs]

You probably just answered why Pentax is not making the 30mm DA*:

1) Sigma 30mm 1.4
2) DA 35 mm 2.8
3) FA 31mm 1.8 (with no sign of going out of production)

The difference between primes and zooms has lessened a lot over the last few years. So investing in prime options is one thing, but over-investing runs into the law of diminishing returns.

As far as we can tell for now, the recently removed lenses are not canceled but were removed because of the lens policy change/lens line change.
True or not who knows, but the DA30 and teleconverter is supposed to come unless we get official denial.

[*isteve]

Except Pentax A* 135/1.8
A* 135/1.8

You are right, but even so I dont see the relevance of lenses no longer in production or easily obtainable, at least to the overall argument. If Pentax made an FF camera, they would need to attract new customers, and therefore they would need production lenses. Nice as it is for people with large collections, its not a great business model.

[Art Vandelay II]

Sorry, but I dont see the relevance of lenses no longer in production or easily obtainable.

Excuse me for jumping in, but I'm pretty sure he posted that just because you said:

I think F2.0 is the fastest 135 made, but there are plenty of fast 85's down to F1.2.

If we are limiting ourselves to lenses currently in production then, by your own standards, your statement about 85mm's is not relevent either. I don't know of a single 85mm prime currently in production by Pentax. Furthermore, I don't know of any Pentax 85mm f/1.2. Nikon doesn't even have one. Canon has one, but it is $1800. Besides, if you can spend $1800 on a lens then I don't think you'd sweat too much over the price difference between APS-C and FF bodies.

That aside, this argument points out the big advantage APS-C has. If you shoot a lot of telephoto lenses over 100mm's then APS-C is the best system for you. However, if you mainly use ultra wides up to 100mm then you will see advantages using FF.

[Gooshin]

That aside, this argument points out the big advantage APS-C has. If you shoot a lot of telephoto lenses over 100mm's then APS-C is the best system for you. However, if you mainly use ultra wides up to 100mm then you will see advantages using FF.

ding ding ding

need more people to understand this.

-_____________-

system A for work type Z

system B for work type K

APS-C is limiting, depending on what you want done, if you cant understand that ( *isteve, and others), then stop trying to persuade the rest of us that we are idiots for seeing value in a full frame format.

We're trying our best to showcase situations where a Full Frame might be advantageous, but you shoot us down every time, hand waving and all, when the fact of the matter is that you are outright wrong.

Seriously? Get your head out of your ass and stop being dicks.

We want full frame, let us dream, but dont tell us that its useless or has no merit.

---

Last edited by Gooshin; 05-12-2009 at 07:05 AM.

[thibs]

Excuse me for jumping in, but I'm pretty sure he posted that just because you said:


If we are limiting ourselves to lenses currently in production then, by your own standards, your statement about 85mm's is not relevent either. I don't know of a single 85mm prime currently in production by Pentax. Furthermore, I don't know of any Pentax 85mm f/1.2. Nikon doesn't even have one. Canon has one, but it is $1800. Besides, if you can spend $1800 on a lens then I don't think you'd sweat too much over the price difference between APS-C and FF bodies.

That aside, this argument points out the big advantage APS-C has. If you shoot a lot of telephoto lenses over 100mm's then APS-C is the best system for you. However, if you mainly use ultra wides up to 100mm then you will see advantages using FF.

Yep, thanks Art. You're correct.

[gnaztee]

'Course, we're probably never end the FF/APS debate, as - and I understand this may come as a shock to some who post threads titled as provocatively as this one - most people out there are different to yourselves.

Yep.

Sorry.

It's true, it's true. It's very, very difficult to make the whole of humanity think as one single, homogenous mass, though lord knows some have tried.

People, as it stands, have different opinions. Different wants and needs. It's the human condition. Part of it, anyway. It's what makes this world rich and unique (as well, admittedly, violent and malignant on occasion.)

So, when someone starts a thread that basically states, as here, "People who are different to me are bad, smelly doo-doo-heads", that someone doesn't come across as a visionary beacon of straight-talking common sense - they come across as "petulant, whiny, arseholes who are throwing a tantrum."

So, let's dispel a few 36x24mm-related myths:

People who want 36x24mm sensors are bad photographers and can't hack having to use a smaller sensor:

Half true. That's what's called a "loaded" statement: welding two statements together, one positive, one negative, but giving only one chance to confirm or deny said statement. If you say, true, I can't stand ("hack") having to be limited to the APS format, you're confirming you're a bad photographer. If you say, instead, no, I am a good photographer, then you can't complain about the format size.

Of course, the answers to both the statements in the loaded statement are purely subjective, and, of course, unrelated.

People who want a 36x24mm sensor are closet Canonists/Nikonians. Pentax does APS-C, 35mm is Canon's (and later, after Nikon launched the D3) and Nikon's turf:

Ah, yes, the "love it or leave it, but never mention it" rule. Well, not so much a rule as an ideology. I forgot that every time you mention the words "Canon" or "Nikon", god kills a kitten. And that, somehow, over the years, 35mm was patented by these two companies. And whittling it down with Occam's good old Razor, therefore, Pentax should never, ever, ever include a feature that Canon or Nikon has on their cams. So, what, that means no viewfinder, no mirror, no battery, no bodyshell, no screws to hold it together, no copper in the PCBs, no PCBs at all, no lens mount, no buttons, no tripod thread, no LCD, no...

YOU sound like a Canonist/Nikonian, and are probably a plant by these rival companies to discredit Pentax and have its loyal followers, who would lay down their lives for the company if need be, switch to the tools of Satan!

Are you serious, or just quoting from Arthur Miller's The Crucible?

No one expects the Pentax inquisition!

Anyway, it's been well-known that if Pentax ever makes a 35mm-frame DSLR, they will send their jackbooted thugs around to smash all of my beloved APS lenses, then kill my family as an example of what'll happen to me if I ever mention the APS system again:

Well, no. Pentax won't. Apart from all the ethical and legal problems such actions would pose, there's the sad story of Hoya making the entirety of Pentax's Corporate Espionage - Jackbooted Thugs, Assassinations, and Torture Division in the wake of the takeover. Sorry.

No one here's suggesting that Pentax should dump all APS-C related products as soon as they make a 36x24mm sensored camera.

But that can't be! I am such a loyal follower of Pentax, it makes sense that Pentax would enforce such loyalty with such brutality, as it would make more Pentaxians as fanatical as I!

That's...that's rather disturbing.

Well, then, at any rate, I'm can take perfectly good photos with my Pentax gear. Don't know why you'd need anything else. Besides, in a coupla years, the APS-C sensor's gonna be as good as the 35mm sensors are today.

First part: good on you. I'm glad the gear suits your purposes. Second part: people are different to you, as elaborated previously.

Third part: why wait? If the APS-C sensors of tomorrow are only going to be as good as today's 35mm ones, how good are the 35mm sensors of tomorrow gonna be?

You, sir, are a smelly doo-doo-head! I'm going to hold my breath until you agree with me!

Duly noted.

Wow, welcome to the world of straw men

[Aristophanes]

ding ding ding

need more people to understand this.

-_____________-

system A for work type Z

system B for work type K

APS-C is limiting, depending on what you want done, if you cant understand that ( *isteve, and others), then stop trying to persuade the rest of us that we are idiots for seeing value in a full frame format.

We're trying our best to showcase situations where a Full Frame might be advantageous, but you shoot us down every time, hand waving and all, when the fact of the matter is that you are outright wrong.

Seriously? Get your head out of your ass and stop being dicks.

We want full frame, let us dream, but dont tell us that its useless or has no merit.

By your logic, however, you would need 2 camera systems: FF for anything less than 100mm, and APS-C for longer.

This is precisely why B-Schools tell companies NOT to listen to their consumers when it comes to product development. You cannot push product development to the point where there is no ROI just to keep a vocal minority happy.

What Pentax is telling you is that if you want FF you need to move to another brand. If the extra cost is so advantageous to you for your IQ needs, then off you go.

I watched this same issue kill windsurfing in the 1990's, when the sport evolved from needing one board and maybe 2 sails, to requiring specialized boards for different wind conditions and a quiver of 9 sails, 3 masts, etc. The cost factor ramped up and guess what? Consumers fled in droves. The price/performance ratios plummeted.

In cameras you do not want to be the brand that makes niche products that cannot perform reasonably well within the norm. APS-C takes excellent sub-100mm photos more consistently than all but the best film. By the measure of historical and technical continuum, it excels. Pentax aims to excel at this and if you as a personal consumer want to pay bucketloads more for incremental gains via FF, then you need to switch brands.

[jeffkrol]

ding ding ding

need more people to understand this.

-_____________-

system A for work type Z

system B for work type K

APS-C is limiting, depending on what you want done, if you cant understand that ( *isteve, and others), then stop trying to persuade the rest of us that we are idiots for seeing value in a full frame format.

It's were tired of being called idiots because WE see no need for FF at this time, either economically or quality wise...

We're trying our best to showcase situations where a Full Frame might be advantageous, but you shoot us down every time, hand waving and all, when the fact of the matter is that you are outright wrong.

Because you fail at this. That's why. I have yet to see real proof in general. There are (BUT very few) times the limit is the sensor size.. That is my reality...

Seriously? Get your head out of your ass and stop being dicks.

We want full frame, let us dream, but dont tell us that its useless or has no merit.

Oh do behave... nobody said it was worthless and had no merit (except economically)
Fun read: Check date....
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml

[*isteve]

If we are limiting ourselves to lenses currently in production then, by your own standards, your statement about 85mm's is not relevent either. I don't know of a single 85mm prime currently in production by Pentax. Furthermore, I don't know of any Pentax 85mm f/1.2. Nikon doesn't even have one. Canon has one, but it is $1800. Besides, if you can spend $1800 on a lens then I don't think you'd sweat too much over the price difference between APS-C and FF bodies.

I was not specifically taking about Pentax. Pentax only have a handful of FF lenses in current production. But of the companies where you can truly compare FF and APSC (ie Nikon and Canon) then you can (for a very steep fee) buy fast 85mm glass.

That aside, this argument points out the big advantage APS-C has. If you shoot a lot of telephoto lenses over 100mm's then APS-C is the best system for you.

Correct, though I would argue that to all except the very well heeled, the crossover point is not 100mm, its 50-55mm on APS (75-85 on FF). Portrait lens and upwards.

All companies make a cheap fast 50mm lens (Pentax 50mm F1.4 is still available). As a portrait lens on APSC (its too short on FF) this is a very cheap shallow DOF solution. To get more DOF on FF would require one of those fast 85mm lenses which as you say are very VERY expensive.

At all longer focal lengths, the shorter lens tends to be faster, so the DOF is very similar on both formats.

However, if you mainly use ultra wides up to 100mm then you will see advantages using FF.

Hm - ultra wides tend to go up to 24mm on FF. However I accept that FF cameras have access to wider glass at wider F stops.

But thats only an advantage if you use narrow DOF on ultrawide shots (ie you do a lot of subject photography using ultrawide lenses). Most WA work however is landscape photography, and most uses narrow DOF, so shallow DOF WA work is not "common usage".

It's there if you want it, true.

But, I dont see art galleries full of this type of shot, just a bunch of amateurs moaning that they can't do it because someone TOLD them it mattered. So far I have not seen one shot that would convince me I am missing anything.

True, I have used photoshop to blur a background on a WA shot once or twice, but to make it effective it was far more that you could achieve with a single stop on a lens. The fact is the backgrounds in most WA shots at wide apertures are not that smooth (irrespective of the format) because the DOF increases so rapidly with distance.

However, one valid reason for buying FF in my book is the availability of REAL wide angle lenses (rectilinear 14mm on FF is stunning) and wide angle T&S lenses for architectural work. If you are an architectural photographer this has real, positive value and I would not argue with anyone who wanted to do that.

However noone mentioned this.

[cousinsane]

The canikon 85/1.2 and 85/1.4 are very expensive.
But their 85/1.8s are very reasonably priced.

All companies make a cheap fast 50mm lens (Pentax 50mm F1.4 is still available). As a portrait lens on APSC (its too short on FF) this is a very cheap shallow DOF solution. To get more DOF on FF would require one of those fast 85mm lenses which as you say are very VERY expensive.

[Pål Jensen]

But, I dont see art galleries full of this type of shot, just a bunch of amateurs moaning that they can't do it because someone TOLD them it mattered. So far I have not seen one shot that would convince me I am missing anything. .

I've said it before but I can repeat it: one in a million published images have so narrow DOF that it isn't readibly available in any system (and now I'm being generous). The main problem, when there is a DOF problem, is in 99,9999% of the cases too little DOF...

[Art Vandelay II]

Hm - ultra wides tend to go up to 24mm on FF. However I accept that FF cameras have access to wider glass at wider F stops.

I just meant if you shoot all of your photos from 100mm's down. I didn't mean a 20-100mm zoom. Although I wish someone would attempt something like a 20-75mm f/4. A lens like that would hardly ever leave my camera. It seems like no one will go down below 24mm's (or 16mm's in APS-C land) on a "standard zoom".

Nikon has a 24-85 f/2.8-4 and Sony has a 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5. Each of those do a really good job of balancing size, speed, and range. Pentax obviously has the 17-70mm f/4 in APS-C. Not quite as wide, but also a very attractive range. But I'd love to see a standard zoom start in true ultra-wide territory. I don't know the first thing about lens manufacturing, but it seems like Nikon could scale their 18-70mm APS-C design up a bit to cover a FF image circle. I wish there was more demand for such a lens.