Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-12-2009, 02:36 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 410
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Indeed, same here, although big and heavy I LOVE the DOF effects it allows
I`m so glad I got my FA31 before sh*t hit the fan.

FA31 really goes beyond just shallow DOF. The volume feeling it is able to produce is amazing, sometimes when you look at the pictures, it feels like you can touch it.

However talking about DOF, one really ought to try 1:1.2 glass. The pic below is just a thrash, but it surely has shallow DOF

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K10D  Photo 
08-13-2009, 01:28 AM   #77
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
Well there is one think which made the Sigma 28/ very unique and you misses that, the very very short focussing possibilities. FA35, FA31... none will give you that on top of f/1.8.

Strictly optically speaking, FA35 and FA31 or most likely quite better. However, Got my Sigma at 175 euros 2nd hand so yes, very happy owner
08-13-2009, 06:54 AM   #78
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteQuote:
FA35, FA31... none will give you that on top of f/1.8.
True - but the FA35 is so damn sharp that I can often pull off a pretty extreme crop - 100% crops on that lens look like 50% crops from my others.
08-13-2009, 07:44 AM   #79
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
True - but the FA35 is so damn sharp that I can often pull off a pretty extreme crop - 100% crops on that lens look like 50% crops from my others.
Sure but that's not the point, the point is the wide aperture combined to 'macro' capabilities allows for very unique DOF effects.

08-13-2009, 09:26 AM   #80
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
QuoteOriginally posted by SCGushue Quote
More trash talk on third party lenses.

I don't know your experience level and how you evaluate your lenses. But I have been buying lenses for over thirty years to cover my use of four different film formats. I make my living peering through a viewfinder with said lenses on the other side.

I like Pentax lenses. But, contrary to your supposition that IQ is not great on Sigma lenses, I have to ask you... what the hell are you talking about?
I was talking about the two lenses mentioned specifically in the post before, the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500. And they are what I said, poor on IQ, not wheater sealed and slow. I have used them, and they are just that. Surely they are good for what they cost, but they are not what one could expect from a supertelephoto from Pentax. By the way, they are poor on IQ and slow compared to many supertelephoto from the same manifacturer, like the Sigma 300/2,8 or 500/4,5. That's the kind of quality I am expecting from a Pentax supertele.
08-13-2009, 11:16 AM   #81
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Sure but that's not the point, the point is the wide aperture combined to 'macro' capabilities allows for very unique DOF effects.
True - a macro 1.8 is probably some of the thinnest DOF you're ever going to find.

At any rate, I'm not sure how this thread turned into a debate about the Sigma 28/1.8, but I think it's obvious that the lens does perform excellently for many folks, even if it isn't ideal for my purposes. Nothing wrong with that.

To get back on topic - I would be thrilled by an 11-16mm/2.8, as it will surely be a twin of the excellent Tokina version. The only downside I see is that it doesn't focus as closely as the 14mm/2.8 or the 15mm/4.0. I would find that limiting for the composition I like to do with wide-angles.
08-13-2009, 12:52 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I was talking about the two lenses mentioned specifically in the post before, the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500. And they are what I said, poor on IQ, not wheater sealed and slow. I have used them, and they are just that. Surely they are good for what they cost, but they are not what one could expect from a supertelephoto from Pentax. By the way, they are poor on IQ and slow compared to many supertelephoto from the same manifacturer, like the Sigma 300/2,8 or 500/4,5. That's the kind of quality I am expecting from a Pentax supertele.
Poor IQ from the Bigma? Sure, it's not as good as the best, but for the money it is a hell of a lot of bang for the buck. I sold my 50-500 to a friend who uses it on a 5D Mark II and after a small microadjust it's very very sharp just stopped down 1/3 stop or so. Obviously it's not going to be as good as a prime, but "poor on IQ" is not something I can agree with. The 150-500 I have not shot, so can't comment on it, other than that it looks to be not as good as the Bigma.

I think there's a snowball's chance in hell we'll see a Pentax 400/4 -- there just isn't enough of a market for one. The people who would need such a beast are already shooting another brand, and a single super tele would not sway them. Canon's 400/4 is around $5k so I would wager a guess that there's no way in hell Pentax would price theirs much lower. How many Pentax pros are there around who would put that kind of money down?
08-13-2009, 01:30 PM   #83
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Poor IQ from the Bigma? Sure, it's not as good as the best, but for the money it is a hell of a lot of bang for the buck.
That's the same I said. Good for the money, but not absolutely excellent.As for the 400/4, the canon is a special DO construction, it costs proportionally more than a normal one; but I am expection from Pentax something very expensive. I don't think that Pentax was much more prominent in the market at the MZS time than today, yet they had a 200/4 macro, a 300/2,8, a 600/4 and a 250-600/5,6 and they all were expensive as hell. They were for just a few lucky ones, I guess ONE of such pricey lenses could go in the roadmap.

If not, I think we'll just get a slightly reworked Tokina 80-400/4-5,6...

08-13-2009, 02:34 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Canon's 400/4 is around $5k so I would wager a guess that there's no way in hell Pentax would price theirs much lower.
As has already been discussed in this thread the Canon lens is a DO design which adds to the cost significantly. Since I have not used it myself I can only go by reputation but the DO lens does NOT have a good reputation for image quality. If any company were to make a 400/4 with a traditional style it would be less than the cost of the DO lens. By how much I have no idea. But still, the idea that nobody with a Pentax would want a nice piece of big glass seems unreasonable. There are plenty of us who already have older Pentax FA*, F*, A* glass (300, 400, 600, 250-600, 1200) it does not seem unreasonable for Pentax to produce a single high end lens in the $3000 range.

If nothing else there is some undeniable advertising value in having an "upgrade path". I bet a huge number of people who buy a Rebel Xti dream of one day owning a 500mm F4 lens even though it obviously never happens. Perhaps some of those people are staying away from Pentax because no such option exists?
08-13-2009, 06:39 PM   #85
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,294
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I was talking about the two lenses mentioned specifically in the post before, the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500. And they are what I said, poor on IQ, not wheater sealed and slow. I have used them, and they are just that. Surely they are good for what they cost, but they are not what one could expect from a supertelephoto from Pentax. By the way, they are poor on IQ and slow compared to many supertelephoto from the same manifacturer, like the Sigma 300/2,8 or 500/4,5. That's the kind of quality I am expecting from a Pentax supertele.

Point taken and thank you for putting your comments in context.

I will agree with you that the Sig EX DG 300 and 500, as well as the 800 are serious professional lenses through and through. As well, their EX DG Macros tend to be excellent to exceptional regardless of pricepoint. Certain incarnations of the EX DG (non HSM) 70-200 2.8 are exceptional too and the 100-300 4 probably has no peer in the industry (ouch what a price jump on that lens recently).

Wide and ultra fast aps generally don't make for good professional lenses, espceially at three hundred bucks.

I think many people have a tendency to slam Sigma for their early days and their rather pedestrian lenses which were manufactured prior to their EX DG series. Sigma has come a long way in the past 6 years and their best lenses can readily rival nearly any OEM on the market.

Cheers,

Stephen
08-14-2009, 04:43 PM   #86
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,144
Its been mentioned on the Samsung 85/1.4 tread that there is a 300/2.8 in the works.
Considering pentax has made all the previous samsung lenses, it might just be possible that our super telephoto lens mentioned in the roadmap could be a 300/2.8. Just speculating
08-14-2009, 08:45 PM   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Chwisch87 Quote
Well 300 F/4 is the standard for sports photography couple that with the new AF system in the K7 and pentax is ... dare i say making its way slowly into the world of sports photography?? I mean when with the 200 F2.8, and now the rumors of the 400 F4 you never know???

That being said, Just from reading these post its sound like both of these lenses would be shall we say ... expensive? The most expensive glass in the current lineup is what? 1200 dollars?? Its obviously a major step.

While of course the Canon 400 F4 is also an L-series and i would imagine features expensive things like in lens shake reduction. I am expecting a 2499 price with a 2350 amazon price.
I feel like 300/2.8 is more of a sports standard. I feel no attraction to the 300/4. I'm on the verge of getting the 60-250/4 and once I get that, the 300/4 is practically redundant. If it were 2.8 on the other hand, I would still want it quite badly. The difference between 250mm and 300mm is so negligible, that it's not worth it if you aren't picking up speed. But a 200/2.8,60-250/4, 300/2.8 and 400/4 would be a badass line up. It would be even better if they could make the 200 F/2, so we could get the same DOF as a full-framer with a 300/2.8.
08-21-2009, 05:22 AM   #88
Junior Member
smcPixellie's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: North Wales UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35
Love your Flickr photostream Andrew.
08-21-2009, 09:25 AM   #89
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
@ General Benson

I have read several extensive tests on French photo magazines about the 60-250.

While they actually consider this lens to be very high quality, the 250 is actualy much weaker than the 60-250. This is only good, while the rest of the range is not very good.

On the other side the 300 is exceptional (well, it is what you would expect from a pro-grade prime) I haven't done a side by side comparaison of the 60-250 and the 300, but I wouldn't be surprised to have the 300 being clearly superior to the 60-250 at similar lengths.

That said, I am very much restraining myself from buying the 60-250 this year. I do photo from a sail boat and this is just the perfect focal range for it (with weather sealing on top) but the season is almost over....
08-21-2009, 03:10 PM   #90
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
While they actually consider this lens to be very high quality, the 250 is actualy much weaker than the 60-250. This is only good, while the rest of the range is not very good.

you probably meant:

the 200 is actualy much weaker than the 60-250
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da*, f/2.8 and da*, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fisheye MC Zenitar-K (Pentax) 16mm f/2.8 Lens hs57 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-09-2009 07:44 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Pentax K mount asecsc4 Sold Items 2 06-05-2009 09:44 PM
For Sale - Sold: Zenitar 2.8/16mm lens Pentax-K chubasco Sold Items 4 05-04-2009 03:05 PM
Pentax A 16mm F/2.8 fisheye Feanor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 12-17-2008 02:29 PM
Pentax 16-50 at 16mm Sample benjikan Post Your Photos! 5 11-25-2007 09:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top