Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-26-2015, 02:01 PM - 1 Like   #31
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Do you know how is the coating and flare resistance of FA lenses versus older M lenses ?
They are both good, but the FA are better, at least for the two I own. I still remember the first time I looked at the front element of my FA 35/2. The lack of reflection startled me.


Steve

09-26-2015, 02:04 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,811
Consider:

FAJ 18-35
FA 28-90
FA 80-320
09-26-2015, 07:18 PM   #33
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,253
An estimate with modern zooms:

15-30 (~2000 USD), 24-70 (~1300 USD), 70-200 (~2000 USD), 150-450 (~2000 USD)

so roughly 7300 dollars to cover ultra wide to mid telephoto.

And that is just lenses.. guestimate another 2100 USD for the body and we have 9400 bucks.

ouch!
09-26-2015, 07:27 PM   #34
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,459
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
And that is just lenses.. guestimate another 2100 USD for the body and we have 9400 bucks.
And if the body is $2,699 you're right at $10,000.

09-26-2015, 07:30 PM   #35
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,253
On the other hand.. APS-C setup:

10-20 (500 USD), 16-50 (800 USD), 50-135 (900 USD), 55-300 (400 USD)
so around 2700 USD for lenses.. K-3 II is around 750 currently.. all in for 3450 USD.

Though the tele lens should be a better quality lens.. and the SDM is probably better in the 24-70.. so there are some differences.

However, just by focal length.. that is almost 3x the cost for the advantage of a FF sensor..
09-26-2015, 07:38 PM   #36
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,459
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
On the other hand.. APS-C setup:

10-20 (500 USD), 16-50 (800 USD), 50-135 (900 USD), 55-300 (400 USD)
so around 2700 USD for lenses.. K-3 II is around 750 currently.. all in for 3450 USD.

Though the tele lens should be a better quality lens.. and the SDM is probably better in the 24-70.. so there are some differences.

However, just by focal length.. that is almost 3x the cost for the advantage of a FF sensor..
After all this time it is discomfiting to have a monkey whisper in my left ear, "Your LX is good enough for legacy lenses' image circles".
09-26-2015, 10:42 PM   #37
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,816
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
They are both good, but the FA are better, at least for the two I own. I still remember the first time I looked at the front element of my FA 35/2. The lack of reflection startled me.
The FA lenses from the last film camera models of the 90s have pretty good coatings and glass I suppose, so, yes the FA35/2 is a good one.

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Consider: FAJ 18-35 FA 28-90 FA 80-320
Humm yes, according the PF lens database, those are cheap, but they don't have very good rating. Would be interesting to see how they perform on a 24x36 sensor. Perhaps some one tried on A7 ?

---------- Post added 27-09-15 at 07:49 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
An estimate with modern zooms: 15-30 (~2000 USD), 24-70 (~1300 USD), 70-200 (~2000 USD), 150-450 (~2000 USD) so roughly 7300 dollars to cover ultra wide to mid telephoto. And that is just lenses.. guestimate another 2100 USD for the body and we have 9400 bucks. ouch!
You can have a car for this price ! Amazing. In this case , lenses contribute to 75% of the spending...
09-26-2015, 10:58 PM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,576
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
However, just by focal length.. that is almost 3x the cost for the advantage of a FF sensor..
One factor to consider is that most people here will be going from APS-C to FF, and probably keeping their APS-C bodies.

So a way to manage the costs of FF may be to divide the shooting work between the two bodies. Use the FF for wides (eg anything below 85mm) and low light, and keep your APS-C body for tele. That way a FF kit could include a nice cheap UWA prime (eg SamYang 14mm f2.8), and a few fast primes (eg a FA 50 f1.4/DA 50 f1.8 and a FA 77 f1.8), and that's it for your FF lens spend. Anything above that use APS-C.

09-27-2015, 12:23 AM   #39
Senior Member
bilybianca's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Many of us already have FF capable lenses. All we want is a camera body to mount them on. So, in many cases the cost of moving to FF is nothing more than the body (which may be a lot).
That's me! Coming from film with a small collection of good FF manual lenses, I have kept buying FF lenses (K, M, A, F and FA) since I got my *istDS. I only have two DA:s, and I'm set from 15 to 600 mm with high quality FF lenses. Still lacking a good macro though.

I will get the FF body mainly for two reasons: get the full potential from my WA lenses and the easier manual focusing with a larger WF. Any improvement in IQ will just be an extra plus. If I miss "the longer reach" with tele lenses I can simply crop in Photoshop.

Kjell
09-27-2015, 01:31 AM - 2 Likes   #40
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
I have all the lenses I need for FF and even apsc ones will work in crop mode.
So practically speaking, I just need to spend on the Pentax FF.



QuoteOriginally posted by Jamey777 Quote
Ah ok, whew!

My K 24 f/2.8 has such unique colors I can't wait to see it on a full frame in like five years when I can afford one :-)
There is some truth in the lenses not working as well (mainly for wides though from my own experience).
The manufacturer can choose a thick filter stack that interferes more with the more acute light angles from lens to sensor edge.

Here is an example on a Sony A7 between a stock A7 with thick filter stack and a modified one with thin filter stack:


Pentax SMC K24/2.8

Full Image




Center Crop







Left Crop







Right Crop









We don't know what thickness the filter stack will be for the Pentax FF.
But being Pentax, (also Ricoh seems to know this stack interaction very well with their excellent implementation of the GXR M-module), I am hopeful they will choose the better thickness for the legacy wides.



Just to lift the gloom a bit.
Here are sample shots using the Pentax K28/3.5 at f8


Full Image




Center Crop




Left Crop




Right Crop



This to me, probably shows off whats possible with AA filter removal and thin filter, plus a good WA even when its an old lens.
The first thought that ran through my mind when I inspected the image at 100% was that it so reminds me of my DP1m image
09-27-2015, 01:44 AM   #41
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,816
Original Poster
Thanks for sharing, interesting examples. Overall you get very decent results.

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Here is an example on a Sony A7 between a stock A7 with thick filter stack and a modified one with thin filter stack
Questions: are you referring to color filter stack on the sensor itself? How did you manager to get two different A7 models?
09-27-2015, 02:26 PM   #42
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
You can have a car for this price ! Amazing. In this case , lenses contribute to 75% of the spending...
OTOH, you can skip the ultra-wide zoom and ultra tele and bring the lens price to a more reasonable $3300. Why? Focal lengths wider than 24mm are basically special application glass and a longer tele zoom belongs more appropriately on an APS-C body than on FF.


Steve
09-27-2015, 04:30 PM - 1 Like   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
If one starts off fresh, they just need :
Samyang 14/2.8 (works very well on FF)
New DFA 24-70/2.8

That covers as wide as most people need at 14mm and a very reasonable skip to 24mm (on the zoom).
I use a 12mm and then a 24mm UWA prime combi very often for travels.
In fact, in places where thre are wide expanses of land, 14mm may be overkill.
The zoom provides all the focal length one generally needs too and at f2.8.

Alternatively, one can just get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and give up the 24-27mm for a cheaper option.

So, a FF even if starting from scratch, does not cost that much more than an APS-C, certainly wider for cheaper.


Oh..yeah.. add a rather cheap DA 55-300 in crop mode if one wants long reach.


QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Thanks for sharing, interesting examples. Overall you get very decent results.


Questions: are you referring to color filter stack on the sensor itself? How did you manager to get two different A7 models?

I sent my camera to Kolari Vision which pioneered the thin filter replacement and my brother (another Pentax user who got A7 for his Pentax lenses) has the unmodified one.

AKAIK, its the overall thickness of filters on-top of the sensor. ie. color filter, AA filter, UI/IR filter.
09-27-2015, 04:43 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,811
Do you sacrifice anything at all with the thin filter?
09-27-2015, 05:37 PM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Do you sacrifice anything at all with the thin filter?

Leica used the thinnest possible cover glass and the result was incidences with cracked glass and more widely the cover glass corrosion issues, especially in more humid places.
So these are the risks, nothing is free.

It's only recently that a newer more corrosion resistant cover glass is available and the Kolari mod uses it.

The other risk is IR/UV blocking efficiency, though it's not an issue so far from this mod.


IMHO, the thing is that I am sure the Pentax engineers know all this, so the question is what will they choose.
Unlike a sensor mod house (ie. Kolari), a large brand product will need to pass reliability tests (RH85/85; biased damp heat; shock and vibe, etc) and reduce warranty risks.
I'm not sure if such thin filters can withstand this (then again, see like GXR M-module did)

Last edited by pinholecam; 09-27-2015 at 06:15 PM.
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!
24x36mm, body, budget, camera, circle, dslr, fa, ff, film, focus, frame, full-frame, glass, lens, lenses, m50, pentax, pentax ff setup, photography, quality, samyang, setup, setup versus apsc, steve, tamron, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ff/ apsc retired2007 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 03-28-2015 08:27 AM
Top 5 lens pick for a Pentax APSC and FF shooter AtitG Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-02-2015 12:20 PM
FF for APSC-an idea choong_dc General Photography 20 02-21-2015 11:16 AM
Depth of field difference between FF & APSC AtitG Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 37 04-25-2014 06:20 PM
Will Pentax FF have a APSC crop mode?? COULDBE2 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 10-29-2012 06:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 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