Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-14-2007, 11:42 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
Hi all,

I am curious about one thing.

In the past, in film era, we had 70/80-200mm/f2.8, right? Why not 120-300mm/f2.8? I don't believe that most of the manufacturers accidentally taken those focal lengths out from nowhere. I think there was a real reason for 80-200mm/f2.8. What was it?

06-15-2007, 12:37 AM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 126
Some pics taken with the DA* lenses: DA* Lens Test - a photoset on Flickr
(unfortunately they have been resized and are quite small)

Taken with pre-production lenses, the final versions could be different...



@Edvinas: for most users (and/or uses), 70-200mm is enough (and it's what the 50-135mm becomes on an aps-c dslr), that's the main reason

Last edited by Lazar; 06-15-2007 at 12:56 AM.
06-15-2007, 07:27 AM   #33
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 46
QuoteOriginally posted by Lazar;66967=:
@Edvinas: for most users (and/or uses), 70-200mm is enough (and it's what the 50-135mm becomes on an aps-c dslr), that's the main reason
Umm... no, its not. Thats why we want more range! the 50-135 isnt on my radar; the 60-250 certainly is...
06-15-2007, 08:06 AM   #34
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by option Quote
Umm... no, its not. Thats why we want more range! the 50-135 isnt on my radar; the 60-250 certainly is...
I want more range too, but not everyone does. I've read several comments (in the DPR Nikon forum, for instance) from people wishing for a 1.0 crop camera from Nikon so their 70-200mm f/2.8 lens will behave like it did on their 35mm film body. The main reason was that 70mm on APS-C was too long for their use.

So maybe Pentax is on to something after all...

06-15-2007, 12:42 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 371
QuoteOriginally posted by option Quote
Umm... no, its not. Thats why we want more range! the 50-135 isnt on my radar; the 60-250 certainly is...
Yeah the 60-250 is a very interesting lens. Since I use my Sigma 70-200/2.8 at F4 most of the time, I'm interested in seeing how the DA* zoom compares to the Sigma at F4.

Cheers,
-Asad
06-15-2007, 01:41 PM   #36
sft
Senior Member
sft's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 173
Oh man just reading this whole thread gets me pumped about all this upcoming DA* glass!! I know for certain I will be getting the 16-50, 60-250 and probably the DA*55 f/1.4 SDM too. Now think about the FA50 but with * quality and SDM!! And 5mm for even better portrait application!
06-15-2007, 01:45 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
Da 50-135

QuoteOriginally posted by Edvinas Quote
Hi all,

I am curious about one thing.

In the past, in film era, we had 70/80-200mm/f2.8, right? Why not 120-300mm/f2.8? I don't believe that most of the manufacturers accidentally taken those focal lengths out from nowhere. I think there was a real reason for 80-200mm/f2.8. What was it?
The new DA 50-135 gives you the same FOV on a K10 as you would get with a 80-200 on a film camera.

Regards,
06-15-2007, 03:37 PM   #38
TDN
Forum Member
TDN's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 94
It seems like a lot of people would just like to see a rework of the FA* 80-200mm

Kinda makes me wonder why Pentax stopped producing the FA* models. Well not exactly why they stopped (probably just too few buyers before digital came out), but why they don't move them back into production, like the FA 1.4 50mm?

There are enough people that buy the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L glass, so I would imagine there's a market for that...


Now, to answer the question why 50-135mm would be useful? Well, for a concert photographer, that's everything he/she needs! 70mm on an APS-C is too long, can't fit enough of a musician in the frame without changing lenses. + it's wheather sealed and more compact than the 60-250mm (or any 70-200mm f2.8)...concert/event photographer's dream.
I know if I ever save up for one, it'll be the 50-135mm...

Tom

06-15-2007, 04:11 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 371
The FoV of the 50-135/2.8 is similar to a full frame 70-200 FoV, however it will *NOT* give the same kind of magnification, DoF or compression as a 70-200mm lens. That said, the lens definitely has use as a portrait zoom, wedding lens and like TDN said, concert/event shots.

Not much of a sports lens, though. (unless the sport is ping pong )

Cheers,
-Asad
06-15-2007, 04:53 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
The new DA 50-135 gives you the same FOV on a K10 as you would get with a 80-200 on a film camera.

Regards,
Yes, and this is exactly my point! Who cares about what the FOV is on 35mm film? If I'm faced with purchasing a 50-135 or an 80-200 for my K10D, does it matter what that lens will look like on 35mm film? No!

I'm saying that Pentax has fallen for the same stupidity that Sigma (and others) have. With the exception of wide angle lenses, no one cares about 35mm equivalents. Even with the wide lenses it just comes down to FOV, the wider the better - this was the same with film!

16-50mm is fine. 50-135? Sheesh.



Dear Pentax,

I would love an 85mm lens and a 200mm macro. Ditch the 50-135 and focus on the 60-250 and longer primes - and an 80-200/2.8.

Love,
Sean
PS - You've got wide covered - good job.
06-15-2007, 04:54 PM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by Asad_Masede Quote
Not much of a sports lens, though. (unless the sport is ping pong )


LOL!! !
06-15-2007, 07:55 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by TDN Quote
There are enough people that buy the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L glass, so I would imagine there's a market for that...
Unfortunately, Pentax does not have that big of a market just yet (although with their recent releases, they're well on their way). There are enough people on Canon's side because they have a big market already.
06-16-2007, 07:51 AM   #43
Veteran Member
GaryML's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote

16-50mm is fine. 50-135? Sheesh.
There are many users who would prefer a 50-135mm lens over an 80-200mm lens, and I am one of them. To begin with, the 50-135mm is about 1/2 the weight of the competitors' 80-200mm f2.8 (and Pentax's prior 80-200mm f2.8). I like to travel as light as possible, and a lens that weights 1 1/2 lbs instead of 3+ lbs makes a big difference.

Second, with the 18x24mm digital sensor, the focal length range of 50 to 70 (or 80mm) is useful for more flexibility in framing the shot, especially if there isn't room to move farther back from the subject. So more reach on the short end will be useful for many people.

Third, I usually do not need a lens longer than 135mm for general use, landscape and travel photography. Paring the DA* 50-135mm f2.8 with my DA 12-24mm f4 will give me an excellent two lens kit that covers everything from ultra-wide to medium telephoto. I would prefer a 50-135mm lens to an 80-200mm lens as a compliment to my ultra-wide zoom.

Finally, there are some occasions when I need a longer lens. For this purpose, I have a Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX DG with the matching APO 1.4X EX DG teleconverter. For wildlife and sports/action shots, I find 200mm to be too short most of the time. So when I need a long reach, an 80-200mm lens isn't going to meet my needs anyway.

If you prefer a lens longer than 135mm, Pentax will offer the DA* 200mm, DA* 300mm, DA* 60-250mm, and the DA 55-300mm within the next year or two. And third-party manufacturers like Sigma have a number of offerings in this range that are available now.

So maybe a 50-135mm is not the best lens for your particular needs, but there are plenty of other people for whom this is a very useful range and are eagerly awaiting this lens. I personally don't have an interest in a 16-50mm zoom as 16mm isn't wide enough for my needs, but I wouldn't claim that Pentax is stupid for making such a lens simply because it isn't what I need.

Last edited by GaryML; 06-16-2007 at 05:03 PM. Reason: Fixed typo
06-16-2007, 08:15 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
[
QuoteQuote:
QUOTE=GaryML;67289]There are many users who would prefer a 50-135mm lens over an 80-200mm lens, and I am one of them. To begin with, the 50-135mm is about 1/2 the weight of the competitors' 80-200mm f2.8 (and Pentax's prior 80-200mm f2.8). I like to travel as light as possible, and a lens that weights 1 1/2 lbs instead of 3+ lbs makes a big difference.

Second, with the 18x24mm digital sensor, the focal length range of 50 to 70 (or 80mm) is useful for more flexibility in framing the shot, especially if there isn't room to move farther back from the subject. So more reach on the short end will be useful for many people.

Third, I usually do not need a lens longer than 135mm for general use, landscape and travel photography. Paring the DA* 50-135mm f2.8 with my DA 12-24mm f4 will give me an excellent two lens kit that covers everything from ultra-wide to medium telephoto. I would prefer a 50-135mm lens to an 80-200mm lens as a compliment to my ultra-wide zoom.
I agree, the 50-135 is a very usefull range on the APS size sensor and much more practical for general use than the longer 70/80-200 carryover.

QuoteQuote:
Finally, there are some occasions when I need a longer lens. For this purpose, I have a Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX DG with the matching APO 1.4X EX DG teleconverter. For wildlife and sports/action shots, I find 200mm to be too short most of the time. So when I need a long reach, an 80-200mm lens isn't going to meet my needs anyway.

If you prefer a lens longer than 135mm, Pentax will offer the DA* 200mm, DA* 300mm, DA* 60-250mm, and the DA 55-300mm within the next year or two. And third-party manufacturers like Sigma have a number of offering in this range that are available now.

So maybe a 50-135mm is not the best lens for your particular needs, but there are plenty of other people for whom this is a very useful range and are eagerly awaiting this lens. I personally don't have an interest in a 16-50mm zoom as 16mm isn't wide enough for my needs, but I wouldn't claim that Pentax is stupid for making such as lens simply because it isn't what I need.
Again I agree, however I have both the 16-50 and 50-135 on order as I find my current (old) 28-70 general purpose lense a bit long on the wide end with the 1.5X factor.

What I would really like is a 12mm prime as the 14 is just too close to the 16-50. With my MZ-S I used a 20mm along with that 28-70 when I needed wide.

While on the "would be nice" track ...I would like to see a 60 or 70mm macro limited along the lines of the announced 35mm lens.

Mike.
06-16-2007, 10:09 AM   #45
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
I think Pentax can release whatever they want and with a 16-50 its not that strange to make a 50-135.

However there is nothing longer in f2.8 on the market by any manufactorer than the Tamron 28-75 at the moment, so the cry for a 70-200 f2.8 is VERY understandable.

I am in dire need of a good and longish f2.8 for the theater shooting I do. The 135mm is not long enough there. The Sigma 50-150 is sort of rumoured to come out in K mount, but we've heard that before. Tamron is developing a 70-200 f2.8 and that is suppposed to be lightweigth for its sort.

Now its good news that there will finaly be two very good lenses, f2.8 and fast focussing. They will cost about $1500 won't be useable on a fullframe camera and only go from 16 to 135 mm. So for me personaly, its bit too little usefull for too much money.
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*, hours, lenses, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting My K-x and Lenses into a Concert (<24 hours) jaieger Photographic Technique 17 10-05-2010 09:25 PM
Same Picture 24 hours apart Jimbo Post Your Photos! 7 07-29-2009 12:51 PM
12 Hours of Sebring two68s Post Your Photos! 28 03-26-2009 05:00 PM
First 2 hours with the Jupiter 9 Igilligan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 10-22-2008 07:09 PM
this went up 23 hours ago, what does it mean? davebris33 Pentax News and Rumors 3 09-19-2008 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:11 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