Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-26-2017, 08:28 AM   #31
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Scorpio71GR Quote
Back when I started photography in the early 1980's primes were considered essential for portrait work. Zooms were getting better but primes still held the higher status. By the end of the 1990's this gap had nearly closed. Now days the difference in IQ between primes and zooms is essentially gone. The 70-200 f2.8 zoom has become the full frame standard. The only advantage of a prime is to get below f2. Those primes are extremely expensive and the cost is just too much for most photographers. Why carry mutiple lenses and camera bodies when one body and lens can do it all?
It's not so much about IQ differences for me, though I still think the ultimate prime can be (but not necessarily is) better than the ultimate zoom. But if the 135mm on FF is someone's favorite walk around perspective (like me), then I'd have to lug around 1755g on my camera to use the DFA 70-200. I don't own that lens but I loved the DA 60-250's IQ. Hated carrying it.

Must photography be just for people who want zooms and massive primes? I don't think I'm alone in preferring primes that help me keep my kit as small and as lightweight as I possibly can. Pentax in the past has offered that option, which is one reason I chose them when got back into photography. I suppose I'm trying to cast a vote for Pentax not abandoning the Limited philosophy for FF.

03-26-2017, 08:56 AM - 1 Like   #32
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
It's not so much about IQ differences for me, though I still think the ultimate prime can be (but not necessarily is) better than the ultimate zoom. But if the 135mm on FF is someone's favorite walk around perspective (like me), then I'd have to lug around 1755g on my camera to use the DFA 70-200. I don't own that lens but I loved the DA 60-250's IQ. Hated carrying it.

Must photography be just for people who want zooms and massive primes? I don't think I'm alone in preferring primes that help me keep my kit as small and as lightweight as I possibly can. Pentax in the past has offered that option, which is one reason I chose them when got back into photography. I suppose I'm trying to cast a vote for Pentax not abandoning the Limited philosophy for FF.
My philosophy has always been cover everything with slow zooms. Then have a series of fast primes to cover your most used focal lengths. Some primes should be available for people, but obviously, Pentax being a much smaller player, the numbers probably don't add up for a production run.

They are clearly starting with the one's most likely to be popular, the 50 and 85. But who knows, maybe a 35 and 135 are coming. The difference to me between the 85 and 135, is the 85 can be an indoor/outdoor lens on both APS-c and FF, 135 is definitely not indoor on APS-c and barely on FF. I can't see a lens like this being introduced that is so well covered on APS-c (18-135, 50-135, 60-250, some of the absolute best Pentax lenses.). My guess is APS-c still pays a lot of the bills for the development of any lens.

Last edited by normhead; 03-26-2017 at 09:04 AM.
03-27-2017, 04:06 AM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,955
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
My philosophy has always been cover everything with slow zooms.
To repeat an observation I've posted before, perhaps several times:

Within and across manufacturers, if you look at SFL's with the same FL, or zooms that cover the same range, the wider the maximum aperture the more highly the lens is rated for IQ. Of course exceptions exist, but the pattern is ubiquitous. Intuitively I would expect that a zoom with a modest aperture, variable over the zoom range, would be easier to design than one with a constant f2.8, yet the latter almost always test out with better IQ. I would expect that SFL lenses of f2 or f1.4 would compromise IQ for aperture and therefore a lens of the same FL but only f2.8 or even f3.5 would have superior IQ, but not so. The majority of time the IQ of wider aperture optics out ranks that of lenses with more modest apertures.
03-27-2017, 03:09 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
When Ricoh were hinting that they would give us a high-quality fast short FF tele, part of me wanted it to be a 135. Then I realised "hang on a minute, if they give us a D-FA* 135mm, it is going to be so fiendishly expensive I will never be able to justify it". Now that we know their fast short * tele is something else, I can sort of hope for an affordable successor to my FA135. If we get a D-FA 135/3.5 limited, I will be well pleased given the superior abilities of the current crop of Pentax bodies to shoot at the higher ISO that a 3.5 (vs a 2.0 or 2.8) demands. A 135 which shot as well as the DA70 does would be awesome.

Of course it may well be that the FA135/2.8 shines on the K-1 and I will neither need nor want a successor. As things stand, 135mm is the longest practical focal length with which to pick out individual dancers or small groups thereof at my kids' dance recitals from the balcony seats, and I will be getting a little extra FOV when that magnificent beast of a camera arrives.

Which will be soon, weather permitting.

04-01-2017, 03:25 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Roi-et, Thailand
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
The article claims 135mm is "perfect". No; it works for portraits but so can many other focal lengths.

Pentax has a brand new 70-200 that covers that length. For photographers who prefer a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens, there's a 100mm prime (which would greatly benefit from a refresh that brings back the focus range limiter). Samyang sells a manual focus 135mm f2 if needed.
Agreed, since I got the D-FA* 70-200 I have no need for a portrait lens. This is a f/6.3, 200mm . . .

04-01-2017, 03:31 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,178
I don't think where this claim of no interest for 135mm is coming from. Many people shot portraits with 85mm on crop sensor. On FF, 135mm is the new 85mm, unless so few people are invested in FF. I've used the Samyang 135, it's excellent on the K1, it only lacks AF.
04-01-2017, 03:52 AM   #37
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I don't think where this claim of no interest for 135mm is coming from. Many people shot portraits with 85mm on crop sensor. On FF, 135mm is the new 85mm, unless so few people are invested in FF. I've used the Samyang 135, it's excellent on the K1, it only lacks AF.
D FA* 135 f1.8 plz

Would make the red ring junkies jealous.

04-01-2017, 09:21 AM   #38
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
The article claims 135mm is "perfect". No; it works for portraits but so can many other focal lengths.
I think he is speaking to photographers who prefer primes at key FL (like me). Among the reasons I like them is because they help me to be more engaged with each shot.


QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Pentax has a brand new 70-200 that covers that length. For photographers who prefer a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens, there's a 100mm prime (which would greatly benefit from a refresh that brings back the focus range limiter). Samyang sells a manual focus 135mm f2 if needed.
For me all those options are unsatisfying. I don't want to carry a huge (and expensive) zoom in order to get the 135 FL, the 100mm FL isn't a close substitute for 135mm (plus Pentax's 100mm lenses are macro which personally I dislike using for non-macro photography, especially portraits), and the Samyang's stiff focus ring (and lack of focus register) makes it hard to use for manual focus if one hopes to catch a moving subject, as Dustin Abbott notes in his review: "'The focus ring on the 135mm is fairly wide (about two inches), and has a ribbed, rubberized feel, but I find the damping a little heavy. I have been shooting in colder temperatures, but even indoors the resistance feels too much. You certainly will not be doing any 'finger focusing'."


QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Many people shot portraits with 85mm on crop sensor. On FF, 135mm is the new 85mm, unless so few people are invested in FF . . .
Right, that's pretty much why I was wondering where the interest is in 135mm FL on K-1 — because 85mm was/is so popular on a crop sensor.


QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
D FA* 135 f1.8 plz
That would do it for me. F2 would be good too.

Last edited by les3547; 04-01-2017 at 11:32 PM.
04-01-2017, 01:46 PM - 1 Like   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Si Chiang Mai. Nong Khai Province
Photos: Albums
Posts: 358
Hi I did actually write a letter to Ricoh/Pentax about 6 months ago asking about a 135mm F2 but never heard back. Maybe in the future, just wait and hope, regards Ian
04-11-2018, 05:21 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Si Chiang Mai. Nong Khai Province
Photos: Albums
Posts: 358
I bought a 135mm F2.8 A lens, paid double the asking price here in thailand rip off, never mind i really love the distance it puts between me and a subject but would really like a D FA 135, that would make my day, ian
04-11-2018, 05:41 AM   #41
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
I have owned mint copies of the K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8
I sold them both before the K-1 was released. Regret much.
04-11-2018, 05:41 AM   #42
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
I have owned mint copies of the K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8
I sold them both before the K-1 was released. Regret much.
04-11-2018, 05:38 PM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Bay Area California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
I've got the SMC Takumar 135mm 2.5 and it is superb. I haven't been using it enough on the K-3ii, but it should be the bomb on FF. I had a 135 as my only telephoto back in the day when I was doing film, and it just seemed like a wonderful FL.

I also have used a 60mm which is almost 135mm equivalent on M43. Even for landscapes; for my purposes it often works out great for framing distant peaks and such for use in panoramas, and seems to be a good length for shooting like flowers and stuff by the side of the trail.
04-11-2018, 06:05 PM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 568
I shoot with the Canon 135/2 L on my 6D. Portrait clients love it, though I always bring along the 85/1.8 as well for better working distance.

Also have a small variety of 135 manual lenses for K-mount; they are cheap, well made and have a nice look to them. Easiest to focus on a camera with outline focus peaking, such as the KP.
04-11-2018, 06:14 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,273
I have a Takumar 135mm F 3.5 that I bought new, back in the mid '70's. I used it on my S1a and ES ll screwmounts and it was a very good lens...also used it with an adapter on my K1000. Yout thread reminds me that I have it and I think I'll give it a go on my K-1.

At F 3.5 it is not the fastest lens around, but I will be interested to see how it does with portraits. I have checked out portraits (on the internet) from the Canon 135mm F2 and this Canon lens seems very sharp and has excellent bokeh . Hopefully my old Tak will rival it it at F stops from F 3.5 and on.
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!
distance, dslr, ff, fl, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, lens, offer, pentax k-1
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We have lenses, now we need a camera Julie B. Visitors' Center 20 02-07-2017 06:52 AM
Why is there so much interest in adapting large size lenses? CWRailman Pentax Q 30 08-06-2014 06:47 PM
Eleven years ago we were attacked so we get to do whatever we want forever! boriscleto General Talk 8 10-02-2012 07:07 AM
so people buying dslr usually have little interest in videography liukaitc General Talk 28 04-10-2011 09:14 AM
We have a White PENTAX K-M! Now we have the Computer Game Adrian Owerko Pentax News and Rumors 8 03-19-2009 05:23 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 AM. | 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