Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-27-2015, 10:14 PM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,831
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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
Thanks Steve.

---------- Post added 28-09-15 at 07:35 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
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.
Actually, I already have the Tamron 28-75, already having unsharp corners on APSC, so I suppose this is specific to my copy. While this is still acceptable on APSC , I expect that it won't be acceptably sharp in the corners with an FF body.
But, the thing with Pentax DA glass and limited, is that focal length below 35mm do not cover the image circle: DA15, DA21, DA12-24, and 16-17 -> 50/70 zooms. From 35mm onward, as Steve mentioned, the FA35 is a good prime candidate (... and also the FA50 1.4). Beyond 35mm FL, the DA40 , DA70 also seems to cover the FF image circle. Then the DA*200 and DA*300 also supposedly work on FF. However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF. As stated by pinholecam, yes there is a Samyang 14 f2.8, if we don't mind using Samyang MF lenses. To me it feels weird to have not other k mount choice than using a Samyang lens, on an expensive Pentax FF body. So, I definitely look forward to a good 15-30, or a good wide angle prime in K-mount, for two reasons: I can use them on my K-3 first, and use them later on on a FF body whenever I get a FF body.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-27-2015 at 10:37 PM.
09-27-2015, 11:16 PM   #47
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,249
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF.
DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.
FA31 goes OK too I am told
09-27-2015, 11:38 PM   #48
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,831
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.
I guess it was a joke :-)

QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
FA31 goes OK too I am told
:-) Yes, sure, ok, I should have written between 15mm and 31mm...
09-28-2015, 12:02 AM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,777
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Thanks Steve.

---------- Post added 28-09-15 at 07:35 ----------



Actually, I already have the Tamron 28-75, already having unsharp corners on APSC, so I suppose this is specific to my copy. While this is still acceptable on APSC , I expect that it won't be acceptably sharp in the corners with an FF body.
But, the thing with Pentax DA glass and limited, is that focal length below 35mm do not cover the image circle: DA15, DA21, DA12-24, and 16-17 -> 50/70 zooms. From 35mm onward, as Steve mentioned, the FA35 is a good prime candidate (... and also the FA50 1.4). Beyond 35mm FL, the DA40 , DA70 also seems to cover the FF image circle. Then the DA*200 and DA*300 also supposedly work on FF. However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF. As stated by pinholecam, yes there is a Samyang 14 f2.8, if we don't mind using Samyang MF lenses. To me it feels weird to have not other k mount choice than using a Samyang lens, on an expensive Pentax FF body. So, I definitely look forward to a good 15-30, or a good wide angle prime in K-mount, for two reasons: I can use them on my K-3 first, and use them later on on a FF body whenever I get a FF body.

I had the Tamron 28-75/2.8.
It was a good lens on aps-c, but hard to judge on IQ vs current cameras from what I have since my picts with it was on a K100D at 6mp.

FA35, FA50, both good.
I have both lenses and '0' issues on FF.
In fact, the FA35 is excellent.

DA40XS is a surprise as well.
Highly usable from wide open with only the corners being soft and is totally ok at f8.
Far better than say a Voigtlander M-mount 40/1.4, 35/1.4 or Canon ltm 35/1.8 which have issues on digital (esp on a thick sensor stack camera) and hence soft off center performance even at f2.8.



Generally, I'd advise going for a modern UWA.
The tech was just not as good in the old days for many of the UWA. (edges; CA; flare; though they often too more care about distortion since there was no software to handle that in film days)
So even a cheap Samyang 14/2.8 goes toe to toe with a Zeiss 15 and Nikon 14-24 and certainly beats any Canikontax legacy wide in the 15mm to 18mm range.
Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8




QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.
FA31 goes OK too I am told
31ltd, totally fine.
In fact there was a thread posted here and FM forums where the user pitted it against the FF RX1 and it came on top wrt the shots presented.

I certainly have no issues with all the FA limiteds on FF.

09-28-2015, 12:11 AM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,156
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
But, the thing with Pentax DA glass and limited, is that focal length below 35mm do not cover the image circle: DA15, DA21, DA12-24, and 16-17 -> 50/70 zooms. .... However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF.

The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.
09-28-2015, 12:20 AM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,831
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.
Thanks for the info. For me, a 12-24 that works only from 16mm is not a 12-24. I don't know how to express it, but , if we have to resort to this kind of tradeoff because we have Pentax mount, then it is just sad.
09-28-2015, 12:22 AM   #52
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,249
Have patience Grasshopper. The camera is a few months away still....
09-28-2015, 12:24 AM   #53
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,831
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
So even a cheap Samyang 14/2.8 goes toe to toe with a Zeiss 15 and Nikon 14-24 and certainly beats any Canikontax legacy wide in the 15mm to 18mm range. Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8
All are doing pretty well when stopped down to f5.6 or more. The Zeiss wins.

09-28-2015, 12:38 AM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,777
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.
There is usually this psychological thing when this is the case.
It eventually eats into the user, that 'something is lacking' or 'make do'.

This was the case too when the Sony A7 series was launched w/o a proper native UWA option.
Their E-mount (apsc) 11-16mm worked too from 14mm-16mm.
But eventually, users all moved to other options and the new 16-35.


I'd just wait for the new UWA or just use a Samyang 14 or M20/4 anyway.
09-28-2015, 12:55 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,156
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
There is usually this psychological thing when this is the case.
It eventually eats into the user, that 'something is lacking' or 'make do'.

Obviously. It's just a Workaround. But it does provide an autofocussing 17mm F4 Option on FF for free for owners today.
Nobody can claim there "is no" option. It's just luxury to prefer others.


Depending on personal funds for another $1,500 lens and frequency of use of UWA lenses there is a decision to be made then.


Let's not forget this thread is all about "APSC Budget".
09-28-2015, 01:16 AM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,777
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Obviously. It's just a Workaround. But it does provide an autofocussing 17mm F4 Option on FF for free for owners today.
Nobody can claim there "is no" option. It's just luxury to prefer others.


Depending on personal funds for another $1,500 lens and frequency of use of UWA lenses there is a decision to be made then.


Let's not forget this thread is all about "APSC Budget".
Indeed so.
In fact, I would consider 16-18mm very adequate in FOV on FF for a lens the size of a DA12-24 (ie. not big).
Especially so if one already has the lens.


As for the claim by some regarding 'no option', the 'psychological' part I mentioned upsets some folks more than others. (and thats personal pref).
09-28-2015, 03:17 AM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,956
A lot of lenses are very usable on a full frame. I currently own the FA 31, DA 40, DA *55, FA77, DFA 100, DA *200, all of which should be OK on full frame. I think that I would probably get a 24-70 and a 20-ish mm prime and be done with that.

I know that older lenses are usable on full frame, but honestly for wide angles, I really do want borders that are sharp. Some lenses are better with regard to that. I also do want auto focus and auto metering.

On the other hand, I have no desire to shoot at 14mm on full frame either -- too wide for me.
09-28-2015, 09:55 AM   #58
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
I wrote an article about budgetting for a nice aps-c set for the Dutch forum a few years ago. I was already some years into photography and when you are smart you could see it as an investement making over a long period. When you start ofcourse it is expensive, but over time you can Add more stuff when time comes and needs are going up.

Different things.....
  • camera body (or more)
  • lenses
  • battery and sd cards
  • camera bagage and camera support
  • printing
  • extra's for PC, laptop or storage
  • Costa for hosting a website
  • Costa to make for making images like Driving your car
  • course to take or symposia to visit
  • flashes and rand other stuff
  • studio equipement or rent

So not all are for everyone. But basicly in the long run with 200 euro each month you can do a lot.

http://www.pentaxforum.nl/smf/index.php?topic=20288.0

Ofcourse you car and studio rent are not in this budget.
09-28-2015, 10:16 AM - 1 Like   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,832
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
Now, would it make sense to buy a FF DSLR to use inexpensive lenses on, or an APS-c body with higher end lenses? That remains to be seen.
I'd much rather shoot higher end lenses on APS-C than cheap lenses on FF. Most of the FF images I see are taken with expensive Canon and Nikon pro glass. When I've see an FF image taken with consumer grade zoom glass, I'm not all that impressed. And so when people talk about the FF look, I'm inclined to assume that what they're really seeing (especially if you're talking about landscape images) is the FF pro glass look. That's not suggest there aren't real advantages to FF. Undoubtedly, that the old F 35-70 will perform "better" on a FF camera than on an APS-C camera. It will be sharper, provide a wider FOV, provide a stop more of DOF control, etc. etc. But the critical question is not how the lens performs against itself on FF, but how it performs on FF against higher quality APS-C glass. I have no doubt that if you compared images taken with the F 35-70 on FF to images taken, say, with the DA 16-85 on APS-C, the DA 16-85 would produce the best looking image. And the reason for this is that the DA 16-85 has better lens contrast (and therefore better overall tonality) than the F 35-70. Mike Johnston has argued that "lens contrast of fairly large image structures is a primary determinant of subjective optical quality in a camera lens" and that "resolution of very fine structures seldom helps pictorial photographs much, and, in my opinion, is an overrated property where lens quality is concerned." Contrast, particularly "local" contrast (which is hard to mimic in post) is what gives images snap and bite. It also enriches and brightens colors. It improves image quality, regardless of the size by which the image is viewed (whereas sharpness only comes into play at large print sizes and/or big crops).

Since higher end lenses normally feature better lens contrast than lower end lenses, higher end lenses shot on APS-C should provide better looking images than lower contrast consumer grade lenses shot on FF. This is true even when the consumer grade lenses on FF yield better resolution (due to the larger FF sensor).
09-28-2015, 10:35 AM   #60
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,831
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
So not all are for everyone. But basicly in the long run with 200 euro each month you can do a lot.
Ok, I see. It is realistic since technology evolves so we can't consider the spending is forever.
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 01:17 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