[mecrox]

That's true but Pentax can easily produce any common optics they have already produced in the past with just enough improvements to get good picture quality and decent AF out of it. And if one is not available, we have the latest sigma/tamron that are really good challenger... Indeed the Pentax could be simply rebadged latest tamrons with better build quality!

---------- Post added 07-29-14 at 11:49 PM ----------



Sigma 8-16 & Pentax 12-24 are very well seen and offer good quality. On alternative, Samyang is making one of the best wide angle prime in term of sharpness and apperture for a bargain... And here AF is not really needed.

It is not perfect, true, but that's not that bad. My main problem with theses zooms & primes is they are too big... And going FF will not help on this.

But yes, due to being mirrorless Fuji has no problem designing good and small wide angle for APSC.

Interesting. I don't mind big as I use a lens like this on a tripod usually - inside an old church, I'll need anything from a half to several seconds of exposure at base ISO, plus bracketing to deal with the tricky lighting. I guess I do mind value for money though. The DA 12-24mm here is 719 pounds or around 1200 dollars. That's simply too much for what it is. The Nikkor 16-35mm f4, for example, is 819.00 or nearly 1400 dollars. Yes it costs more but given its heavyweight specs it sounds better value. Maybe it isn't. Anyway, I simply feel that there is a problem with some of the lens pricing on APS-C when the lens in question cannot be used with a larger sensor. It's unfair to single out Pentax here, I guess. Fuji is in a similar position - so further down the scale is m43. "Never mind the prices, just feel the quality" doesn't do much for me.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 07-29-2014 at 03:05 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

And going FF will not help on this.

That depends on your assumptions. If you want the same f-number, FF will be worse.

But most very-wide-angles are very retro-focal on APS-C behind a FF registration distance. If you have the same equivalent aperture, FF will be lighter/smaller, clean-sheet-design to clean-sheet-design.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the 21mm F/3.2 - a very small lens - and compare it to the 40mm F/2.8 (on FF), which is much smaller and lighter and also a stop-and-a-half (equivalent) faster. Fortunately or unfortunately, there's not a lot of examples in ultra-wide-angle-land, primarily because there's no clean-sheet designs that have equivalent aperture (that I'm aware of).


Pentax has said they're going to remain the supplier of small lenses; they're willing to give up aperture in part because ISO improvements from 2006 to 2010 were so dramatic. I don't see their niche changing just because the sensor size changes. Indeed, they've said in the past they're going to continue to have a niche, and NOT just offer another Canon.

[Rondec]

That depends on your assumptions. If you want the same f-number, FF will be worse.

But most very-wide-angles are very retro-focal on APS-C behind a FF registration distance. If you have the same equivalent aperture, FF will be lighter/smaller, clean-sheet-design to clean-sheet-design.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the 21mm F/3.2 - a very small lens - and compare it to the 40mm F/2.8 (on FF), which is much smaller and lighter and also a stop-and-a-half (equivalent) faster. Fortunately or unfortunately, there's not a lot of examples in ultra-wide-angle-land, primarily because there's no clean-sheet designs that have equivalent aperture (that I'm aware of).


Pentax has said they're going to remain the supplier of small lenses; they're willing to give up aperture in part because ISO improvements from 2006 to 2010 were so dramatic. I don't see their niche changing just because the sensor size changes. Indeed, they've said in the past they're going to continue to have a niche, and NOT just offer another Canon.

I believe the smallest lenses have focal lengths close to the registration distance. Pentax's smallest lens is at 40mm for this reason . I don't understand lens design so I can't explain why, but that was my understanding as to why mirror less with shorter registration distances can have smaller wide angle primes.

[ElJamoquio]

I believe the smallest lenses have focal lengths close to the registration distance. Pentax's smallest lens is at 40mm for this reason . I don't understand lens design so I can't explain why, but that was my understanding as to why mirror less with shorter registration distances can have smaller wide angle primes.

Absolutely true for DSLR's.

There's actually not as much benefit as I would think for mirrorless, in practice at least. I'd chalked it up to the degree of telecentricity required which makes the lenses get pushed further away.

[Big Dave]

I was just wondering how many folks in this thread actually have a FF digital camera, since this is a asp-c forum. I have two FF digitals and a aspc-c dslr. I gave my older dslrs to my kids to get some use out of them. I hate to see them collecting dust.

[Fogel70]

Comparing Fuji wide angle primes with Pentax, you see a advantage to the mirrorless design when it comes to size and weight.
The advantage is maybe not that the smallest possible lens get much smaller on mirrorless, but there is much less penalty to designing a fast wide angle or normal lens on mirrorless.

Fuji XF 14/2.8 is much lighter and much smaller than Pentax DA 14/2.8. (DA 15/4 Limited is lighter and smaller though).
Fuji XF 18/2 lens is lighter and not much bigger than Pentax DA 21/3.2 Limited.
Fuji XF 35/1.4 is the same weight and not much bigger than Pentax DA 35/2.4.

It will be interesting to see how the upcoming Fuji XF 16/1.4 will be. This is a lens that I don't think anyone would try to design for DSLR, as the front lens element would end up extremely big.

[normhead]

I was just wondering how many folks in this thread actually have a FF digital camera, since this is a asp-c forum. I have two FF digitals and a aspc-c dslr. I gave my older dslrs to my kids to get some use out of them. I hate to see them collecting dust.

Not a lot, but a few, before I bought my K-3 I briefly evaluated a D610 and 6D, and rejected both of them as a step down from a K-3 for my use... but there are a number, especially the more knowledgeable, who shoot 4/3, APS-c, MF and FF, and will discuss when they use what if asked. Just as a general comment I'd say most of the FF users still shoot extensively with APS-c , some saying 80% of their photos are still taken with APS-c even thought they've invested heavily in FF systems, others seem to sell their APS-c when they go FF, although some end up regretting that.

Over all as a general observation.. those of us who shoot soley APS-c tend to be a little less demanding, those shooting larger formats are more desirable of more control of the look a finished image might have, while those using smaller formats are desiring more portability. For myself, APS-c is the best compromise of portability and IQ. On the sliding scale (some would say slippery slope) of compromise, everyone falls at a different place.

Portability and Wide DoF are at one end of the scale. Point and Shoots and 4/3 tend to be the first tow denizens of that end.
Resolution and the ability create narrow DoF are at the other end of the scale. Occupied by large format cameras.

APS-c and 36x24 sensors are compromise solutions somewhere in the middle. With APS-c leaning towards portability and the more expensive FFs leaning towards resolution, low light performance and the ability to create shallower DOF but with neither system really excelling at anything.

[devouges]

I have been reading a LOT about full-frame..... pros and cons. Well, here is my take on it.

I started photo taking with my Minolta SRT-101 in 1968. 50mm 1.4 was the popular lens back then.
When that was stolen, I went to Konika ( similar to Minolta) then later to Minolta x700..

It took me 40 years before going into DSLR.... my first choice was Pentax K10D.

I had to make a lot of adjustemnts : 50mm is just not good any more for indoors/family/party stuff like it was with film.

Anything with APSC has to go at the very least 35mm......

Even outside, taking landscapes, my old 50mm with Minolta was, let's say __adequate__.

I have been with APSC 6 years now and I still have trouble adjusting to the "zoom by moving your feet" method.Seems to me I did not have to do that much with my film camera ( I do NOT like zooms: prefer standard)

In the old days, even 35mm lenses started showing aberrations in the corners.... although it is not much apparent on APSC, my stupid mind still sees them in my head.

And now with FF becoming a "little-bit" more affordable, I will sure get one and go back to my comfort zone.

I guess that by now you have figured out I am a grouchy-over-60 guy..... But I am sure others are out there.

Does anyone else have trouble adjusting to the crop factor vs the good old film days ?

Well... that was my 2 cents

[normhead]

I'm also over 60. I'm of the "look through the viewfinder and see what you've got" approach, so, no not at all. My goto lens for a prime tends to be the 21 ltd... otherwise my 18-135 is on the camera. But you nailed it there when you said you don't like zooms and you like 50mm on FF. A lot of people get themselves thinking there is some kind of direct equivalence. If you shot with a 50 on film, that was probably your kit lens and therefore your walk around lens. IN your case I'd try the 21 ltd or 40XS as my walk around to see if one suits you. Just because your 35 doesn't work for you doesn't mean there isn't one that will.

It's sad to here your objection to zooms. It's a lens, not a religion or ideology. The best zooms have been very close to the best primes, since the 90s, this isn't particularly new. in the 90s sometime Pop Photo published the 10 best lenses of all time according to their tests and half of them were zooms. It's been a png time since things were as they were in the 70s.

I guess since I was raised using 3 formats, and since expanded to use 3 more, for me what's in the viewfinder is all that matters. I look and see what I've got, and either work with it or change lenses.. and you have to do that with whatever sensor or format you use.

If you're really that stuck on what you used to see, go out and take a pile of APS-c images until you adjust.

Or just buy a 35x24 sensor in a camera. Just don't feel it's your only option, although from the sound of it, it might be your best option. That depends on you.

[devouges]

Thanks for the feedback normhead.

I am adjusting in a certain way because I do a lot of birding now, which I did not do preiviously on film.

My main birding walkaround is the 55-300mm, usually set on 300. Those critters are very far away.

Would love a 300mm.... bud retired budget prohibits,.

And I do not take many inside pics any more: kids are not home any more and partys are far and few between.... héhéhéhé

I do like my 35mm.... it is nice and sharp. I just miss the good old 50mm days ( nostalgia I guess).

I am, however being tempted by the 21mm or the 17-70. Playing with wide angle perspectives and controlled difformations could be fun.

I looked at the 18-135 also but I see a lot of negatives on it....... how is your experience ? Sounds like you are happy with it.

[normhead]

For me, i do a lot of canoe camping and hiking. I can put the 18-135 on the camera and go all day, rain or shine. If I get a chance, I'll take it off for the 21 ltd, or 70 macro, but to me it's a great lens.That being said, it's a great lens on a tripod... as are most great lenses. Off the tripod, results my carry, especially since it's not particularly fast.

There have been a few people with bad copies, who completely trash the lens. Same with the 31 ltd. But there's a lot of us quite happy with it.

These days I find the 21, 40XS and 70 macro make a great walking around kit. But if it's wet it all gets put away in a Pelican case. Mind you as soon as you mention the 18-135 a bunch of people will jump in and say 17-70 ƒ4. For myself I can't give up 70-135. That's like a whole lens worth. 18-135 saves a lot of unnecessary lens changes. And the difference between them in IQ is in the "I don't really care about that." range.

People who trash the lens don't explain where in my pictures, they see these supposedly serious deficiencies. There's everything from landscape to wildlife, butterflies to moose.Picture taken from moving boats...pictures taken in the mist of waterfalls... in falling snow and extreme heat..if there were any serious issues with the lens, I think I might have noticed.

And my feeling is, if you can't show me these deficiencies in my pictures, but you notice them in yours, it's either you, or your lens, but what you say has nothing to do with what I get from mine, with the design of the lens, or of what you can accomplish with it.

<For 18-135 slideshow, click here>

[Nicolas06]

Thanks for the feedback normhead.

I am adjusting in a certain way because I do a lot of birding now, which I did not do preiviously on film.

My main birding walkaround is the 55-300mm, usually set on 300. Those critters are very far away.

Would love a 300mm.... bud retired budget prohibits,.

And I do not take many inside pics any more: kids are not home any more and partys are far and few between.... héhéhéhé

I do like my 35mm.... it is nice and sharp. I just miss the good old 50mm days ( nostalgia I guess).

I am, however being tempted by the 21mm or the 17-70. Playing with wide angle perspectives and controlled difformations could be fun.

I looked at the 18-135 also but I see a lot of negatives on it....... how is your experience ? Sounds like you are happy with it.

Whart you miss from the 50mm days? Sharpness? Apperture? Rendering? Field of view?

I mean there no reason to read the number of the lens when you shoot anyway! You can find lens between 30-40mm with wide variety of quality... A sigma 30mm would give you the same kind of wide apperture and bokeh and good sharpness. DA35 plastic wonder would be very light and sharp corners to corners wide open while being very affordable. DA 35ltd would give you macro support... DA40 would be the smalest lens.avaiable... FA31 is an aristocrat with lot of character...

There plenty to choose from!

For wide angles, I would say I really like the 21, good focal lens that work for many different kind of shoots. 17-70 and 18-135 would have similar quality I think. DA18-135 is good (my father has it and i tryed) it is sharp, good colors... Not like a prime or DA* lens, but good really. It is just that is really better in the 17-70 range and the 70-135 range is not really great. But at least it is here. Not worst than 17-70 that doesn't have it.

And at the end of day, the 18-135 build is really high quality, the DC motor nice... And the WR is a nice to have too. Really a fine walkaround lens, can handle anything as long as you don't want the best possible rendering only the most expensive prime can give!

[devouges]

What I miss most is the field of view. I always knew, in my head, what my 35 or 50mm would take. Looking at a scene, I knew which lens to use.

Now, to get the same "rectangle" I need the 35mm which widens the view. On the film camera, I could look with one eye in viewfinder and one eye open outside in case something happened. With 50mm, it was 1:1 view..... It still IS like that, but with less of the scene. Doing it with a 35mm is more difficult ( for me anyways).

Anyways..... like I said earlier, most of my pics are bird pics now so all of that is much behind. I am seriously looking at the 18-135mm..... My problem here in the great city of montreal is that nobody stocks pentax lenses. I would like to try it out on MY camera BEFORE buying it. I have sent an email to the pentax-ricoh rep but methinks he is still on vacation.

[wilton]

Simply to say, you are lying since you even don't have a statistic of the market for the needs of FF Pentax DSLR. Why doesn't the Pentax company release 10000 FF DSLRs to the market and see the response? Disputing here is helpless and meaningless.

I guess that you are correct, I have no current or specific data in that regard. This link is now some 7 months and can be considered somewhat dated and even at CIPA there is no separation between ILC but strictly speaking saying that I lied suggest that you have the truth to present and that I'd love to see. maybe you would feel better if I said in my experience. Not withstanding, the data does suggest something very interesting, the 10000 FF DSLRs would be even less than my assumptions for my figures given but again you are correct that a dispute is both helpless and meaningless. It seems that P&S are still relevant for about 70% of the market and with all the available DSLRs and with entry level cameras being the bread and butter of the camera industry (I'm too lazy to find more stats) it is safe to say that a minority of cameras users think they need a FF.

Mind you, the original post did make it clear that there is a difference between needs and wants and without reservations I fit squarely in the latter group (as soon as my economics can justify it ).

[Big Dave]

What I miss most is the field of view. I always knew, in my head, what my 35 or 50mm would take. Looking at a scene, I knew which lens to use.

Now, to get the same "rectangle" I need the 35mm which widens the view. On the film camera, I could look with one eye in viewfinder and one eye open outside in case something happened. With 50mm, it was 1:1 view..... It still IS like that, but with less of the scene. Doing it with a 35mm is more difficult ( for me anyways).

Anyways..... like I said earlier, most of my pics are bird pics now so all of that is much behind. I am seriously looking at the 18-135mm..... My problem here in the great city of montreal is that nobody stocks pentax lenses. I would like to try it out on MY camera BEFORE buying it. I have sent an email to the pentax-ricoh rep but methinks he is still on vacation.

Here is an idea. Go to a local camera store with your SD card an try a Canon asp-c dslr with a EF18-135 in the store. It will give the approximate experience as as Pentax field of view. After all you just want to see the zoom range etc not the body features.