[biz-engineer]

i don't know what you were looking at, but it must have been shot by someone who doesn't know how to use a camera Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8: Digital Photography Review

Thanks for the link, interesting.... I think my expectations are too high in terms of uwa....

[northcoastgreg]

Lenses like the Tamron f/2.8 zooms (in-spec), most modern, well-coated fast 50s and even some older 50s and 35s and 28s - these are inexpensive lenses that can give you incredible results on FF.

But I'm already getting incredible results on APS-C with Pentax glass. At a bi-monthly local photo critique, I have twice been approached by a local professional photographer who has asked me, with some measure of incredulity, whether my images shown in the critique session really were taken with an APS-C camera. There seems to be a myth going around that APS-C is, at best, only "good enough." But that isn't true in the least. APS-C is way better than good enough. And you don't have to move to FF to get incredible results.

If you're looking at a consumer-zoom shot, you might be looking at a lower-resolving or higher-distortion lens that's being shot at an aperture well within the range that aps-c is capable of - because the consumer zooms are variable aperture and don't open up very much, especially at the long end.

No, what I'm seeing is primarily the lens contrast (which affects the colors as well). The one thing I have never liked about FF advocacy is the over-emphasis on numerical specs. With FF-ophiles, arguments and judgments are often based largely on numbers, and only haphazardly on the aesthetic values of actual images. I don't happen to believe that image quality is determined by measured resolution or the equations of equivalence. I'm more interested in what Mike Johnston has called the "tonality" of the image -- the colors, the contrast, the rendering of detail and transitions. And lenses play a far greater role in the tonality of an image than does sensor size (particularly when comparing APS-C and FF).

So for those who believe that FF is so much better than APS-C that it will enable a lens like the old F 35-70 to out perform even mid-range zooms on APS-C, they may be in for a rude awakening. While the 35-70 is a reasonably sharp lens, it just does not have the contrast or the color rendition of any the DA standard zooms (with the exception of the DA 18-55). The last thing a rational person wants to do is buy a ~$2,500 camera only to discover that images from their expensive FF camera just don't look as good as what they were getting out of their APS-C camera.

The 'pro glass' zooms are nice to own, but are huge, expensive, and honestly - in my opinion - not necessary. I know Pentax sales dept (and Nikon, Canon etc) want you to feel that they are necessary for FF - but they're not.

No lens is absolutely necessary on any platform. But if I'm going to buy a $2,500 camera, I want the upgrade to be as significant as possible. And that means using lenses that are at least as good (and preferably even better), in terms of tonal response, as what I'm currently shooting on APS-C.

Another issue involves whether a given system fits one's shooting style. A 50mm prime might work for some; a 28-70 f2.8 (or even a 24-70 f2.8) might work for others. But none of these fit my own shooting style. I don't need or want fast glass. I want high quality slow glass (which is often hard to find, as there's a tendency to reserve the best quality for the fast lenses). I need a 4x or 5x standard zoom lens starting at 24mm. Something like the Canon 24-105 f4 or the Nikon 24-120 f4. If Pentax would release a DFA* 24-105 f4 with aerobright II coatings, a Pentax FF would begin looking far more enticing in my eyes than it does presently. Otherwise, since I'm pretty much getting everything I want out of Pentax APS-C, I'll stick to that.

[osv]

Thanks for the link, interesting.... I think my expectations are too high in terms of uwa....

100% agree, i really don't like the uwa look that much myself, anything wider than 28mm on ff just doesn't look natural, and imho, usually doesn't fully deliver in the corners, esp wide open.

there are rare exceptions, look at the corners on this batis 25/2 on the a7rii: Sony A7RII/ Batis 25mm , Batis 85mm and Sony 35mm 1.4 System Tests
Sony A7RII/ Batis 25mm , Batis 85mm and Sony 35mm 1.4 System Tests - FM Forums

notice how guy mancuso has a standard test scene/routine that he uses for lens testing... i ended up doing something similar at landscape distances; you need a lens testing routine, even with budget glass.

in that thread you can see how guy was able to find defects in those other expensive brand-new lenses.

this pricy batis lens is way offtopic for the thread, and i don't know that there is a pq-equivalent prime in k-mount, i just posted it up to provide an idea of what to look for in a wide angle lens.

---------- Post added 09-30-15 at 12:23 PM ----------

But I'm already getting incredible results on APS-C with Pentax glass.

you also shoot landscapes with zoom lenses, even with m4/3 cameras do you have any ff experience at all?

the iso/dr/latitude/color depth on those small sensors just doesn't compare to what ff sensors deliver, and there is no way that your zooms will ever compare to primes.

No, what I'm seeing is primarily the lens contrast (which affects the colors as well). The one thing I have never liked about FF advocacy is the over-emphasis on numerical specs. With FF-ophiles, arguments and judgments are often based largely on numbers, and only haphazardly on the aesthetic values of actual images. I don't happen to believe that image quality is determined by measured resolution or the equations of equivalence. I'm more interested in what Mike Johnston has called the "tonality" of the image -- the colors, the contrast, the rendering of detail and transitions. And lenses play a far greater role in the tonality of an image than does sensor size (particularly when comparing APS-C and FF).

you are trying to compare camera sensor size to various random unspecified lenses.

there is no logic in that, it's a major fail, but you do that sort of thing all the time, lol

So for those who believe that FF is so much better than APS-C that it will enable a lens like the old F 35-70 to out perform even mid-range zooms on APS-C, they may be in for a rude awakening.

probably not, because unlike you, people who own ff cameras have experience shooting and editing both ff and crop.

[stevebrot]

but I'm disappointed by the so called field curvature

20mm is still very wide on FF and I think you may find that field curvature (a legitimate term) will be characteristic of most vintage FF lenses at that focal length and probably even on modern examples. The tests on photozone for Nikon FF may provide some examples of what to expect.

Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8

Sigma 20/1.8

On both of the above, vignette and softer edge/corner performance are the rule. The same is true for the Nikkor primes and zooms in that range. How soft is too soft is an individual thing.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 Sigma 20/1.8 On both of the above, vignette and softer edge/corner performance are the rule. The same is true for the Nikkor primes and zooms in that range. How soft is too soft is an individual thing.

Thanks Steve, for point that out, I have to study this to make up my mind about this category of lenses... and the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 is not a cheap one...

[Rondec]

I agree with Greg quite a bit. The FA 50 is not a great lens and I wouldn't get one for the full frame camera. It can get decently sharp, but it tends to look washed out and the contrast and micro contrast aren't great. A lens like the DA 15 is not the sharpest lens out there by any means but it's contrast and flare resistance mean that it tends to give pleasing images.

As to whether or not you can add contrast in post, you can a little bit, but it isn't the same.

In the end, it really is more about the glass. Primes will be decent but may not give uniformly great results.

[mee]

But two other issues largely forgotten with FF is size and weight.

There's a lot of trade-offs for using smaller sensors too. And at the other end of the scale, there are trade-offs involved in using even bigger sensors like medium format. Everything is a matter of trade-off's. Size and weight are just one dimension of trade-off.

Obviously everything is currently a trade off in the camera world. However, the point I was attempting to make is size and weight are not things seen in diagrams and charts. We read, online, of image quality, dynamic resolution, and low light/high ISO capability. But it is hard to understand the cost of weight or size of the system just by reading.

And if your FF prime is the size of an APS-C zoom then you are not in the same ballpark.. rather you are a whole 'degree' larger because the APS-C prime is (generally) tiny in comparison to both.

[RobA_Oz]

Thanks Steve, for point that out, I have to study this to make up my mind about this category of lenses... and the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 is not a cheap one...

I have seen some visually stunning photographs from that Zeiss 21/2.8, and I still regret not buying a copy when it was new and cheaper than a used one is now, but there you go.

I must say I have to disagree strongly over the view that 28mm is as wide as you want to go on 35FF. I bought a SMC24/3.5 as the second prime lens for my K2DMD in 1991, simply because I felt 28mm wasn't wide enough. Obviously, this is all subjective, but that little gem impressed me enough to get me to buy a good secondhand FA*24/2 for my K-5 around three years ago, in anticipation of using it on the 35FF body when it appears.

As Capa said: "If your pictures aren't good enough, then you're not close enough", or words to that effect, and this holds for a lot of wide FoV work. The challenge with ultra-wides is usually to find something that leads the viewer into the picture, which is the opposite of the ultra-long FLs, where the viewer is deliberately excluded from all but the main point of interest, but the wider the FoV, the greater the challenge.

[Fenwoodian]

20mm is still very wide on FF and I think you may find that field curvature (a legitimate term) will be characteristic of most vintage FF lenses at that focal length and probably even on modern examples. The tests on photozone for Nikon FF may provide some examples of what to expect.

Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8

Sigma 20/1.8

On both of the above, vignette and softer edge/corner performance are the rule. The same is true for the Nikkor primes and zooms in that range. How soft is too soft is an individual thing.


Steve

That's why I purchased the Zeiss ZK 25mm f/2.8 lens. It's actually a 25.7mm (call it 26mm) lens.

For me on full frame, 28mm is not quite wide enough. 25.7mm is just about perfect. While 20/21mm may push things a bit too far and interject some imperfections on FF that don't appear on crop frame sensors.

[tuco]

I shoot a Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon in ZF frequently and really like it on FF. I don't like the long, tubular design though. It's just about right. Any wider and things in the distance start to be too small if you want them seen.

I also have a Zeiss 18/3.5 Distagon in ZF too. And that lens is okay on a 16MP camera but pretty soft away from the center on a 36MP camera. And you really need to hold that lens pretty level. That one may not be around much longer. And for my mirrorless I have a Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon in a ZM mount and Zeiss 35/2 Biogon also in ZM.

[stevebrot]

And for my mirrorless I have a Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon in a ZM mount and Zeiss 35/2 Biogon also in ZM.

I want your Biogon 35/2 and I want it now. The Voigtlander came today and it is hungry for lenses.


Steve

(...alas the Jupiter-12 will not fit...butt too big...)

[RobA_Oz]

I want your Biogon 35/2 and I want it now. The Voigtlander came today and it is hungry for lenses.


Steve

(...alas the Jupiter-12 will not fit...butt too big...)

Congratulations! I take it you've purchased one of the last Voigtlanders, seeing that Cosina isn't making them any more.

[tuco]

I want your Biogon 35/2 and I want it now. The Voigtlander came today and it is hungry for lenses.

Steve

Congrats on the new gear. Is that the one being discontinued? Even though I purchased all those Zeiss lenses used, they still command a pretty high price for a second-hand lens. Especially the ZM versions it seems.

[bjolester]

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.

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.

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

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

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

Thank you Pinholecam for a very interesting demonstration of the potensial of some excellent legacy wide angle primes. The images from the K28/3.5 on fullframe DSLR are quite exceptional, and hopefully Pentax design the future fullframe so that these legacy lenses function in a best possible way. The K28/3.5 has for a long time been a favourite lens on my K5, and recently also on my KX film camera. IMHO an outstanding lens.

[stevebrot]

Congratulations! I take it you've purchased one of the last Voigtlanders

Congrats on the new gear. Is that the one being discontinued?

(warning...thread hijack...)

Yes, panic purchase. I have a V/C Nokton 40/1.4 coming so have not been able to use it yet., but my overall impression is positive. The viewfinder is to die for. Well, maybe not that good, but it is very nice. IMHO, the perfect camera would be the R3M's finder on my Canon P.


Steve