Lenses for K-3 Nitty Gritty

jeff knight · 10-13-2013, 11:24 AM

24 Megapixels. What will you need lenswise to take full advantage of that?

I've got a 35mm f2 that I am fully confidant will do the job. The 43mm limited at f4 will definitely do the trick no doubt.

Detail-wise. Any speculations or predictions? Are you into details? What lens?

Vylen · 10-13-2013, 11:26 AM

The 100mm macro will be able to take advantage of it...

DogLover · 10-13-2013, 11:39 AM

Honestly, the only lens I've got that gives me pause is the DA15/4. I'm quite confident of everything else and can't wait to use the Zeiss'!

jeff knight · 10-15-2013, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Honestly, the only lens I've got that gives me pause is the DA15/4. I'm quite confident of everything else and can't wait to use the Zeiss'!

I also worry about the DA14mm and the DA15 edges and sides at 24 megapixels. DA15 will probably hold up well at f8 though.

Going from 10 to 16 brought out flaws in lenses I previously thought were great. The Sigma 10-20 for one. 24 will probably create surprises for some they aren't prepared for!

(PS. I like to make big prints.)

lytrytyr · 10-15-2013, 12:58 PM

The pixel pitch of the K-3 is around 3.8 to 3.9 microns.

Zeiss publish a table including minimum pixel pitch for their lenses:

F-Mount Lenses | ZEISS United States

(scroll down to the end of the page).

Looks like the 50/1.4 Planar, Distagon 28/2,
and, surprisingly, the new 35/1.4 Distagon, could all be critical.

Again surprisingly, the old 25/2.8 Distagon,
often considered to be the runt of the litter
when tested with charts at short range,
should still be good for 3.4 microns.

Quicksand · 10-15-2013, 01:00 PM

I'm sure the DA15 will be totally fine on the K-3. Just don't pixel-peep at the edges. For that matter, don't do it now!

normhead · 10-15-2013, 01:23 PM

I guess no one really tells us that stuff. I notice it comes with a DA 18-135 kit... so I'm guessing the 18-55 is even less stellar than it was before on it.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 10-15-2013, 02:29 PM

The 15 f4 will be no more or less sharp with 24 MP than it is now with 16, given that one prints to the same size. The difference will only be visible to pixel-peepers and people who print even bigger than they do now.

lytrytyr · 10-15-2013, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

The difference will only be visible to . . . people who print even bigger than they do now.

OP said he likes to make big prints.

lytrytyr · 10-15-2013, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I guess no one really tells us that stuff..

Zeiss does.

But we can't expect P-Ricoh to do it.

normhead · 10-15-2013, 07:10 PM

Despite all my wondering about sensor out-resolving lenses, it would appear that the limit hasn't been reached yet. Lenses that have been tested on 16 MP and 24 Mp APS-c sensors are still experiencing a 300 to 400 lw/ph resolution increase, and that will be visible on large prints. You're adding 1000 pixels for an increase of 400 lw/ph, so the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. The jump from the D7000 to the D7100 was from to about 2100 lw/ph 2600 lw/ph. Printing at 100 lines per inch that increases your functional height from 21 inches to 26 inches. I would suggest that you probably don't want to go any lower than that. It really is pretty much rock bottom in terms of any kind of quality print. I've seen 72 dpi, but it better be a really good picture because the resolution isn't going to sell it.

I guess the max print size would be somewhere around 26 x 40, and that would still be really impressive. Mind you 13x 20 at 200 lines would probably look a lot crisper close up.

Winder · 10-16-2013, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by jeff knight

24 Megapixels. What will you need lenswise to take full advantage of that?

I've got a 35mm f2 that I am fully confidant will do the job. The 43mm limited at f4 will definitely do the trick no doubt.

Detail-wise. Any speculations or predictions? Are you into details? What lens?

I don't want to speculate which lens or get into the mindlessness of sensor out resolving the lens debate, but here are the DxO test results which I think are relative to your question since this compares the 16MP Nikon to the 24MP Nikon.

Nikon D7100 results: ultra high performance - DxOMark

Using DxO's test of the D7000 (16MP) to the D71000 (24MP):
...."In the best case, sharpness increased by as much as 50-percent over the Nikon D7000." Referring to High End Glass.

"It’s not just the expensive high–grade lenses that benefit from the high-resolution sensor of the D7100, the results for the more accessibly priced models was also impressively high. We measured improvements in sharpness of over 30-percent with some basic kit zoom models and super-zooms."

"A number of zooms see an increase of over 30-percent in overall (averaged) sharpness when used with the Nikon D7100 over its forerunner, the 16Mpix D7000."

"Sigma’s 18-250mm models and the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 also perform well on the D7100, all three achieving a similar 60-percent gain in sharpness"

All of your lenses will appear sharper. Some of them significantly sharper. You will hear people mumble something about "a 50% increase in MPs only results in 25% increase in linear resolution, so you wont see a significant difference".... As soon as you hear that, just walk away.

normhead · 10-17-2013, 05:42 AM

Now that's just fascinating... a 50% increase in MP a 20% increase in width in pixels, but a 60% increase in resolution. It makes you wonder if 24 MP is some kind of sweet spot. I don't see any theories out there that explain that. I have a Sigma 18-250, so that's awesome news since that lens is great edge to edge, but maybe not the best centre sharpness. (It's not going to cure that rough bokeh though, and that was the lenses main weakness.) This could get it back in the ballpark. I've often wondered how much resolution was related to the characteristics of the lens matching up with the characteristics of the sensor. To my knowledge, no one predicted this... which really shows how many who theorize that they have great knowledge and understanding of optics, are talking through their hats a lot of the time.

10-13-2013, 11:24 AM	#1
jeff knight Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Pacific Northwest USA Posts: 261	Lenses for K-3 Nitty Gritty 24 Megapixels. What will you need lenswise to take full advantage of that? I've got a 35mm f2 that I am fully confidant will do the job. The 43mm limited at f4 will definitely do the trick no doubt. Detail-wise. Any speculations or predictions? Are you into details? What lens?

10-16-2013, 10:12 PM	#12
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by jeff knight 24 Megapixels. What will you need lenswise to take full advantage of that? I've got a 35mm f2 that I am fully confidant will do the job. The 43mm limited at f4 will definitely do the trick no doubt. Detail-wise. Any speculations or predictions? Are you into details? What lens? I don't want to speculate which lens or get into the mindlessness of sensor out resolving the lens debate, but here are the DxO test results which I think are relative to your question since this compares the 16MP Nikon to the 24MP Nikon. Nikon D7100 results: ultra high performance - DxOMark Using DxO's test of the D7000 (16MP) to the D71000 (24MP): ...."In the best case, sharpness increased by as much as 50-percent over the Nikon D7000." Referring to High End Glass. "It’s not just the expensive high–grade lenses that benefit from the high-resolution sensor of the D7100, the results for the more accessibly priced models was also impressively high. We measured improvements in sharpness of over 30-percent with some basic kit zoom models and super-zooms." "A number of zooms see an increase of over 30-percent in overall (averaged) sharpness when used with the Nikon D7100 over its forerunner, the 16Mpix D7000." "Sigma’s 18-250mm models and the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 also perform well on the D7100, all three achieving a similar 60-percent gain in sharpness" All of your lenses will appear sharper. Some of them significantly sharper. You will hear people mumble something about "a 50% increase in MPs only results in 25% increase in linear resolution, so you wont see a significant difference".... As soon as you hear that, just walk away. Last edited by Winder; 10-16-2013 at 10:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-3: the missing lenses?	Jeff Charles	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	10-17-2013 11:30 AM
micro 4/3 adapter for K-mount lenses	jolepp	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	11	11-15-2012 12:11 AM
Pentax K-5 + several lenses converted in LR 3.3	ogl	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	3	12-12-2010 12:46 AM
Vivitar 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lenses for Pentax K-x	lacta345	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	12-11-2010 01:52 AM

10-13-2013, 11:26 AM	#2
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	The 100mm macro will be able to take advantage of it...

10-13-2013, 11:39 AM	#3
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Honestly, the only lens I've got that gives me pause is the DA15/4. I'm quite confident of everything else and can't wait to use the Zeiss'!

10-15-2013, 12:42 PM	#4
jeff knight Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Pacific Northwest USA Posts: 261 Original Poster	Originally posted by DogLover Honestly, the only lens I've got that gives me pause is the DA15/4. I'm quite confident of everything else and can't wait to use the Zeiss'! I also worry about the DA14mm and the DA15 edges and sides at 24 megapixels. DA15 will probably hold up well at f8 though. Going from 10 to 16 brought out flaws in lenses I previously thought were great. The Sigma 10-20 for one. 24 will probably create surprises for some they aren't prepared for! (PS. I like to make big prints.)

10-15-2013, 12:58 PM	#5
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	The pixel pitch of the K-3 is around 3.8 to 3.9 microns. Zeiss publish a table including minimum pixel pitch for their lenses: F-Mount Lenses \| ZEISS United States (scroll down to the end of the page). Looks like the 50/1.4 Planar, Distagon 28/2, and, surprisingly, the new 35/1.4 Distagon, could all be critical. Again surprisingly, the old 25/2.8 Distagon, often considered to be the runt of the litter when tested with charts at short range, should still be good for 3.4 microns.

10-15-2013, 01:00 PM	#6
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	I'm sure the DA15 will be totally fine on the K-3. Just don't pixel-peep at the edges. For that matter, don't do it now!

10-15-2013, 01:23 PM	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I guess no one really tells us that stuff. I notice it comes with a DA 18-135 kit... so I'm guessing the 18-55 is even less stellar than it was before on it.

10-15-2013, 02:29 PM	#8
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	The 15 f4 will be no more or less sharp with 24 MP than it is now with 16, given that one prints to the same size. The difference will only be visible to pixel-peepers and people who print even bigger than they do now.

10-15-2013, 06:49 PM	#9
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan The difference will only be visible to . . . people who print even bigger than they do now. OP said he likes to make big prints.

10-15-2013, 06:54 PM	#10
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by normhead I guess no one really tells us that stuff.. Zeiss does. But we can't expect P-Ricoh to do it.

10-15-2013, 07:10 PM	#11
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Despite all my wondering about sensor out-resolving lenses, it would appear that the limit hasn't been reached yet. Lenses that have been tested on 16 MP and 24 Mp APS-c sensors are still experiencing a 300 to 400 lw/ph resolution increase, and that will be visible on large prints. You're adding 1000 pixels for an increase of 400 lw/ph, so the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. The jump from the D7000 to the D7100 was from to about 2100 lw/ph 2600 lw/ph. Printing at 100 lines per inch that increases your functional height from 21 inches to 26 inches. I would suggest that you probably don't want to go any lower than that. It really is pretty much rock bottom in terms of any kind of quality print. I've seen 72 dpi, but it better be a really good picture because the resolution isn't going to sell it. I guess the max print size would be somewhere around 26 x 40, and that would still be really impressive. Mind you 13x 20 at 200 lines would probably look a lot crisper close up.

10-17-2013, 05:42 AM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Now that's just fascinating... a 50% increase in MP a 20% increase in width in pixels, but a 60% increase in resolution. It makes you wonder if 24 MP is some kind of sweet spot. I don't see any theories out there that explain that. I have a Sigma 18-250, so that's awesome news since that lens is great edge to edge, but maybe not the best centre sharpness. (It's not going to cure that rough bokeh though, and that was the lenses main weakness.) This could get it back in the ballpark. I've often wondered how much resolution was related to the characteristics of the lens matching up with the characteristics of the sensor. To my knowledge, no one predicted this... which really shows how many who theorize that they have great knowledge and understanding of optics, are talking through their hats a lot of the time.