Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-05-2016, 07:19 AM - 1 Like   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
The biggest problem that Pentaxians face right now with regard to full frame is size.

This is primarily an issue because there aren't any slow-ish lenses available. I would perfectly happy with some f4 zooms and f2.8 primes, but it seems that Pentax is going to make all of the lenses for the K-1, at least in the beginning, have fast apertures (except for one variable aperture zoom). So, the size advantage of APS-C seems more pronounced because there aren't any equivalents to lenses like the DA 15, 21 and 70, or for that matter, the DA *16-50/50-135. A 70-200 f4 would be a sweet lens when combined with the K-1, but I doubt we will see that lens any time soon.

07-05-2016, 07:29 AM - 1 Like   #17
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,120
QuoteOriginally posted by talkskiwon Quote
I just ordered 16-85! But, the Sigma 17-50 on special sale for 399 at the moment seemed very nice, too. It's not WR, but smaller than 16-85. Do you think it would be a good option for indoor use as alternative to 16-85 which fits more for outdoor use? Or is it too redundant?
I owned the 16-85 but had bad luck with two brand new copies, so in the end I decided on the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 as a walk-around lens. I really do like it a lot, thought it's not perfect... At the wide end it's prone to purple fringing in the borders / corners (I find this most noticeable with foliage against a bright sky). Border performance isn't great wide open, but stopped down to f/4 it's decent enough - though it tends to get worse gradually as you stop down further still. It is always remarkably sharp in the centre of the frame at any aperture including wide open. AF is quite fast and usually accurate, though it can get a little hit and miss in failing light. Not without its quirks, but overall a very nice lens and extremely versatile...
07-05-2016, 07:32 AM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,734
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest problem that Pentaxians face right now with regard to full frame is size.

This is primarily an issue because there aren't any slow-ish lenses available. I would perfectly happy with some f4 zooms and f2.8 primes, but it seems that Pentax is going to make all of the lenses for the K-1, at least in the beginning, have fast apertures (except for one variable aperture zoom). So, the size advantage of APS-C seems more pronounced because there aren't any equivalents to lenses like the DA 15, 21 and 70, or for that matter, the DA *16-50/50-135. A 70-200 f4 would be a sweet lens when combined with the K-1, but I doubt we will see that lens any time soon.
Apparently it's a very easy to do thing to convert a DA*60-250 to FF.
07-05-2016, 07:57 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Apparently it's a very easy to do thing to convert a DA*60-250 to FF.
Maybe so, but the 60-250 is still bigger than a 50-135 f2.8 or a 70-200 f4 lens (which are both about the same size). Beyond which, a lot of folks aren't going to feel comfortable doing even minor surgery on their lenses and perhaps void their warranty in the process.

07-05-2016, 08:04 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,734
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe so, but the 60-250 is still bigger than a 50-135 f2.8 or a 70-200 f4 lens (which are both about the same size). Beyond which, a lot of folks aren't going to feel comfortable doing even minor surgery on their lenses and perhaps void their warranty in the process.
Good points, although I tend to look at the 60-250 as the largest lens I'll carry on the camera supported by a neck strap. But lighter would definitely be better. If Pentax pushes their next APS-c to 28 MP like the NX1, and make it capable of (like the NX1 of 3000 lw/ph), it's going to make it hard for a lot of us to look at the 3450 lw/ph of a K-1 as big bonus, especially those of us who don't already look at it as a big bonus.

Last edited by normhead; 07-05-2016 at 08:30 AM.
07-05-2016, 09:11 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest problem that Pentaxians face right now with regard to full frame is size.

This is primarily an issue because there aren't any slow-ish lenses available. I would perfectly happy with some f4 zooms and f2.8 primes, but it seems that Pentax is going to make all of the lenses for the K-1, at least in the beginning, have fast apertures (except for one variable aperture zoom). So, the size advantage of APS-C seems more pronounced because there aren't any equivalents to lenses like the DA 15, 21 and 70, or for that matter, the DA *16-50/50-135. A 70-200 f4 would be a sweet lens when combined with the K-1, but I doubt we will see that lens any time soon.
The 8 smaller, lighter, lenses in the June-2016 official Pentax full-frame 15-lens line-up are:
D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 (which is the zoom you mention; I have it and it is very good indeed)
D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro (which I have, and is well-respected at FF)
D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro
FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited
FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited
FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited
FA 50mm f/1.4
FA 35mm f/2

Then there are some non-official lens that cover the full frame, including (but possibly not limited to):
DA* 55mm f/1.4 (which I own, and have tested at FF)
DA 70mm f/2.4 HD Limited (which I own, and have tested at FF)
(I expect I will convert my DA* 60-250mm f/4 to better FF by removing the baffle which vignettes).

I agree that we need more smaller, lighter, zooms, and some of the above primes need upgrading or replacing. Ricoh appears to know this too, because they have 5 extra lenses on the 2017-and-beyond roadmap, one or two of which may be smallish, and there are hints that there will be more than this.

I think we need a smallish zoom that is wider than the (lovely) 28-105mm, and another that is longer than that lens. I have no inside knowledge that these are on the way! (Except for the Fisheye zoom in the roadmap).

Needless to say, true APS-C cameras and lenses will on average be smaller and lighter than true FF equipment. Also, it appears to be easier to make zooms with a wide range when the sensor is smaller. Instead of small-sensor super-zooms, we get large zooms with a multiplication of (say) 3 or 4.

Last edited by Barry Pearson; 07-05-2016 at 09:17 AM.
07-05-2016, 09:35 AM - 1 Like   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Homesick Canadian in New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
QuoteOriginally posted by talkskiwon Quote
I just ordered 16-85! But, the Sigma 17-50 on special sale for 399 at the moment seemed very nice, too. It's not WR, but smaller than 16-85. Do you think it would be a good option for indoor use as alternative to 16-85 which fits more for outdoor use? Or is it too redundant?
I have the 16-85, the 18-135 and the Sigma 17-50. I had found the 18-135 to be a useful walkaround lens but decided to try the 16-85 for the extra reach on the wider end and because it was reputed to have better IQ. To be honest, I haven't been particularly knocked out by the image quality of the 16-85 vs the 18-135. I do value both for their WR, but I don't shoot a lot at the wide end so I mainly let Mr frogoutofwater use it while I continue to use the 18-135 outdoors.

I quite like the Sigma 17-50 but mainly use it indoors when I need a fairly fast lens to photograph in low light without flash.
07-05-2016, 09:56 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest problem that Pentaxians face right now with regard to full frame is size.
This is an addition to my previous reply.

I bought my biggest heaviest lenses for use on APS-C cameras initially. So when I'm shooting instead with the K-1 using those lenses, (which happen to be FF lenses), the weight isn't much greater.

I pre-ordered the D FA 150-450mm and D FA 70-200mm lenses to use on K-3-series cameras, before I knew whether I would buy an FF camera. I used the 150-450mm on K-3-series for 14 months before my K-1 arrived. And the 70-200mm on the K-3II a month before my K-1 arrived.

And some of the bigger FF primes on the latest official FF lens-line up were released for APS-C long before Ricoh had committed to releasing an FF camera.(DA 560mm, DA* 300mm, DA* 200mm). So, for many people, APS-C systems were already large, heavy, and expensive!

07-05-2016, 10:02 AM - 1 Like   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,396
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
A shooter who shoots no long glass and never needs more magnification than what they have provides, , shoots in low light every time they go out, outputs huge files to somewhere for some reason, and shoots largely stills with no need for a fast burst rate, can just use their K-1. There's absolutley no reason for such a person to keep an APS-c body. If you are such a person sell your APS-c
They make a good back-up, but if you have a K1, long glass, and shoot in the Crop Mode, you are not likely to need an APS-C, as the K1 Crop Mode is superb. Sure, if you want more MP then the APS-C makes sense, but if not the K1 is fully adequate for wildlife shooting. I can't recall the last wildlife shot I had printed for a highway billboard...but I think it was a sure 'nuff long time ago!

Don't forget, the better ISO and superb AF also translates to the K1 Crop Mode shots.....and both of those are many more times likely to be needed than more MP.

These arguments for APS-C look good on paper, and there is some validity to some of the points made, but once you use a K1 most of them evaporate quickly. I have a K5IIs for back-up, but haven't touched it since the K1 arrived....with plenty of good reason.

Regards!
07-05-2016, 10:12 AM - 1 Like   #25
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,482
Much of the "need" for APS-C will reside in what specs Pentax puts in the camera.
Since we have a ton of lenses for APS-C, it makes sense that we will continue to have APS-C cameras. Video in APS-C will be the deciding factor for keeping the format around given the excellent K1 and FF. If we can have m4/3 cameras doing cinema quality work, APS-C is the better choice if Pentax decides upon it. The small size and other factors of APS-C warrant the APS-C to stick around, video would be able to drive demand.
07-05-2016, 10:33 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,396
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
Much of the "need" for APS-C will reside in what specs Pentax puts in the camera.
I agree with that completely...and video, if it is important to some, is most likely better in APS-C.

However, as Norm pointed out...for still shooters I believe the K1 is still the best bet.

Case in point.....Just moments ago this Jay landed on my Cheater Branch and, being finicky and nervous birds, I knew he might only be there 5-6 seconds. The K1 and Bigma 50-500 is on my desk and ready to go...just turn it on...aim, and focus is instant. On my K5IIs focus could take a while and most often did.....in particular in low light. I would not have even bother to give it a try.

So you aim. fire and get a shot...in less than a very few seconds from the time you see him. SR is also superb, so you are covered for the hand-holding you are doing. Did you get a shot?...which was your goal after all.

1/160 handheld f6.3 (wide open) ISO 4000 @ 500mm No noise reduction applied in or out of camera.


Is it a masterpiece.....Nope, but it is plenty good enough to post here. Do not sell the importance of fast and accurate AF short...if you shoot wildlife it is one of your most valued assets.....in particular in low light. The K1 is not picky about AF in low light, it just nails the shot.

You might think I am a huge K1 fan......and you would be right!

Regards!
07-05-2016, 10:39 AM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Homesick Canadian in New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
I am planning to get a K-1 sometime in the next year, but I expect to continue using my K-1 in some circumstances and K-3 in others.

1. Most of my photography is animal portraiture (especially rescued animals). I can foresee that in some settings, the K-1 will be very useful (e.g., indoors, at the farm sanctuary when the animals are fairly close to me, etc). I have run up against some image quality limits with my K-3, and I'd like to be able to produce some higher quality images that I can print at much larger sizes than what I'm doing now.
2. I have a really bad back, so lugging around a heavy zoom in some settings just won't be manageable for me - even if I'm using a Cotton Carrier system to take some of the load off. When I shoot, I'm often moving around a lot - standing up, then crouching down, etc. I can manage that with a heavier load for a while - but not for hours at a time.
3. If I'm travelling, I'd probably rather take the K-3 and smaller lenses with me if I'll be on the move. For example, on our recent trip to the Galapagos Islands, we were climbing in and out of boats, going up and downstairs, and walking on rocky paths sometimes for a couple of hours at a time. In those situations, I'd rather have a more portable system. But I might take a full-frame body (and lenses) to Africa (as well as the K-3 as back-up) if we were going to be photographing from inside a vehicle.
07-05-2016, 12:28 PM - 2 Likes   #28
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
Much of the "need" for APS-C will reside in what specs Pentax puts in the camera.
Since we have a ton of lenses for APS-C, it makes sense that we will continue to have APS-C cameras. Video in APS-C will be the deciding factor for keeping the format around given the excellent K1 and FF. If we can have m4/3 cameras doing cinema quality work, APS-C is the better choice if Pentax decides upon it. The small size and other factors of APS-C warrant the APS-C to stick around, video would be able to drive demand.
We need to avoid thinking that the FF range and the APS-C range are competing with one-another. And we shouldn't think that the FF range is what users of the APS-C range should aspire to.We don't (for example) think that K-mount users should aspire to the 645-mount system.

They are different systems, with different characteristics for people with different needs. But plenty of opportunities for mix-n-match.

The majority (probably vast majority) of K-mount equipment that Ricoh sells over the sells few years will be APS-C equipment. Ricoh knows this, and are acting accordingly.
07-05-2016, 12:35 PM - 1 Like   #29
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,120
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
We need to avoid thinking that the FF range and the APS-C range are competing with one-another. And we shouldn't think that the FF range is what users of the APS-C range should aspire to.We don't (for example) think that K-mount users should aspire to the 645-mount system.

They are different systems, with different characteristics for people with different needs. But plenty of opportunities for mix-n-match.
I agree completely. Full frame isn't better than APS-C - just different, and depending on your requirements one may be more suitable than the other in a certain situations...
07-05-2016, 01:22 PM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by talkskiwon Quote
I just ordered 16-85! But, the Sigma 17-50 on special sale for 399 at the moment seemed very nice, too. It's not WR, but smaller than 16-85. Do you think it would be a good option for indoor use as alternative to 16-85 which fits more for outdoor use? Or is it too redundant?
Do you have any wide-to-mid primes, f/2.8 or faster? If not, and if you often shoot indoors or at night, the Sigma 17-50 may be useful. Personally, I'm happy enough to rely on my primes and/or flash.

I think you'll be very happy with the 16-85.
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!
af, aps-c camera, camera, canon, crop, dslr, f2.8, f4, ff, fullframe, k-1, k-3, k-3ii, k3, lens, lot, mp, pentax, pentax k-3, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What happens when you put an aps-c lens on full frame(K-1)? fstop18 Pentax Full Frame 8 04-13-2016 08:34 AM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C? lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 03-27-2015 07:45 PM
Comparing lenses using a glassless adapter (Minolta to Pentax): Does it make sense? Boris_Akunin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 01-17-2014 09:36 AM
Does it make sense to add a DA* 300mm to my 70-200mm? HenrikDK Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 37 03-28-2012 05:37 AM
If I have the 16-50, does it make sense to get the 15mm 4? Sperdynamite Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 10-24-2011 11:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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