[UncleVanya]

As I noted above, I've used it for landscapes. It's a nice lens but it does come with drawbacks. It won't communicate to the camera the focal length you're using, so using IBIS becomes a bit more complicated. It also has a push-pull zooming which sometimes can be quite lose, which can be a problem if you're shooting on a tripod and pointing up at something. Here are a couple images, I would guess ~100mm and ~200mm:





And another one at maybe 135mm?

The F version should communicate focal length and aperture just fine. I think you mean the A version?

I’ve used the less stellar FA version on both apsc and on my Sony A7RIII. stopped down to f8 it’s not at great but a fun toy. The F version is more respected.

[northcoastgreg]

I think you mean the A version?

Yes, that's right. I've only used the F version on APS-C. The F version, like so many of the variable aperture telephoto zooms from the film era, is better at the wide end than at the longer end.

[UncleVanya]

I have the SMC-A 70-200, and the SMC-F 300mm. Just wondering if there's something out there that might make my kit more compact.

The F 70-210 is a little lighter (555g bs 680g) and smaller than the A version. It’s also a stop slower on the long end. For landscape work that may not matter.

[Bugwalks]

I use my 150-450mm constantly for landscape shots. Sometimes the details are more interesting than the broad view.
This was shot at 220mm on my K1ii.

[Mikesul]

Amazing!

[gatorguy]

I use my 150-450mm constantly for landscape shots. Sometimes the details are more interesting than the broad view.
This was shot at 220mm on my K1ii.

I use mine almost as a walkaround. I've shot landscapes with it, macros, BiF, black and white cityscapes, even a couple of model shots. It's sharp and fast-focusing from 6 feet to infinity. In my entire collection, and I have a lot of highly regarded glass, it's the one lens I will always have a copy of.

It's a multi-faceted marvel.

[mikesbike]

Anyone using the SMC-f 70-210 lens with the K1 for landscapes?

Sample photos?

Something to keep in mind- zoom lenses tend to invariably diminish in quality as they are zoomed into their limit at the long end. This is even more true of the slower aperture variety, as with one of the bigger, faster f/4 or even f/2.8 monsters, you have more aperture range to stop down, which improves quality. If you are going to be shooting at around 200mm, it would therefore make sense to consider one of the best of the 70-300mm models so you'd be shooting zoomed into its mid-range where its capability is better.

[bilybianca]

I'm not a pixelpeeper. Focal length is more important to me than miniscular differences in sharpness or what might be adjusted in pp. And I tend to prefer long FL for landscapes.
The smc F 70-210 f4-5.6 is the best el cheapo lens I have. Compared to other film era zooms I have it stands out.
My best landscapes were shot with the A*85 mm f1.4 and A* 200mm f2.8, probably not thanks to the lense's high qualities but because that was the right focal length and what I had at hand in that moment.
I wouldn't hesitate to use the FA77mm 1.8 Limited or the F300mm f 4.5 if any of them were in my bag when my eye was caught by the view. But as said, I'd not hesitate to use the F70-210 either.

A* 85mm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/601010...-85mm-copy.jpg

A*200mm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/601012...200mm-copy.jpg

F* 300mm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/601011...300mm-copy.jpg

F70-210mm @ 118mm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/601013...18-mm-copy.jpg

Kjell

[kayasaman]

Something to keep in mind- zoom lenses tend to invariably diminish in quality as they are zoomed into their limit at the long end. This is even more true of the slower aperture variety, as with one of the bigger, faster f/4 or even f/2.8 monsters, you have more aperture range to stop down, which improves quality. If you are going to be shooting at around 200mm, it would therefore make sense to consider one of the best of the 70-300mm models so you'd be shooting zoomed into its mid-range where its capability is better.

This is a good point, though some zooms are better then others. I can't talk about the Pentax lineup as I only have the 28-105mm which is for me so-so.... lens. It's one that I really dislike using and avoid the best I can.

Recently I took a few landscape shots using my Irix 150mm. It's the sharpest lens in my itinerary outside of the Samyang 24mm.


Here's a sample for the OP on the Irix for landscape and the K1 mkII:




Though for landscape I would really be looking at something like the Venus Lens Laowa 12mm, Irix 15mm or DFA 15-30mm


Right now, personally I am seriously considering the DFA15-30, 24-70mm and 70-200mm for travel. My situation is a little different because I also have a Nikon system and would like to bring along an astro mount too, so that means taking 2-3 tripods plus laptop and whole other bunch of accessories. Virtually two crates full that I'll need to see if I can stuff into an overhead bin in an aircraft :-(

[mikesbike]

This is a good point, though some zooms are better then others. I can't talk about the Pentax lineup as I only have the 28-105mm which is for me so-so.... lens. It's one that I really dislike using and avoid the best I can.

Well what you are doing is comparing a good zoom lens against high-quality prime lenses. Not a fair comparison. If zoom lenses could provide all of the quality high-level prime lenses are capable of, and at near or below the weight and size, prime lenses would soon become antiques. There are, however some zoom lenses that are regarded as being a "bunch of primes" in a single lens compact form, but these are in the minority. When it comes to the best zoom lenses, which are mostly fast lenses, large and heavy, they are no longer wide open at apertures where more compact slower zoom lenses are at or near wide open, and thus are at a disadvantage.

[kayasaman]

Well what you are doing is comparing a good zoom lens against high-quality prime lenses. Not a fair comparison. If zoom lenses could provide all of the quality high-level prime lenses are capable of, and at near or below the weight and size, prime lenses would soon become antiques. There are, however some zoom lenses that are regarded as being a "bunch of primes" in a single lens compact form, but these are in the minority. When it comes to the best zoom lenses, which are mostly fast lenses, large and heavy, they are no longer wide open at apertures where more compact slower zoom lenses are at or near wide open, and thus are at a disadvantage.

I know it's not exactly a fair comparison. There are many different lenses out there.... the best way to compare lenses as usually suggested over in the astro group is to use them for astrophotography. This is a total torture and stress test for any lens. In fact member "Mossy Rocks" started a whole thread on the subject.

But it is true that it depends on what you're looking for too.

Some zooms will be "good enough" but this is really subjective. I am really fussy and enjoy clinical detail. I guess you could say that I'm a little strange because out-of-focus areas don't bother me as I never pay attention to those... probably the point of my condition, ASD, where I seem to automatically filter out stuff I don't like until it starts becoming annoying.


It's odd that you say the fast zoom lenses are large and heavy?? I handheld my K1 with 28-105mm a few times the other day and just simply thought, this is waaaaay too light and I don't like the feel of it. The Irix 150mm I have is a little heavier but feels more solid in my hands. It just feels more meaty and better for me....


Mind you, my Nikon system is around 3.5kg/8 pounds and that's fine for me... I can walk around with it all day. I haven't got access to the faster 500mm/600mm f/4 primes or the 800mm f/5.6 but they are around 4.5kg/10 pounds for the lens only but are said to have exceptional image quality and AF speed.


Though out of the primes I have, I don't think I could fault any one of them, even my 50mm 1977 Nikon f/1.8 that I took over from my parents with an FM mk1 SLR body. For macro where you want *sharp*, my Irix 150mm and Sigma 105mm do a fantastic job.


Slime mold shot wit the Irix:




Hover fly shot with the Irix (MF only lens lol):




Honey Bee comparison -

K1 II and Irix 150mm:



Nikon D500 and Sigma 105mm:




Of course the original subject was about landscape and I have gone off on a slight tangent here but I am only trying to focus on lens sharpness as example ;-)


Here's a landscape done with the Samyang 24mm wide open at f/1.4 ISO 100 and 10s shutter:



The only problem with this particular lens is that it does vignette quite heavily wide open. It's also a lens that get sharper as you stop down too I feel, but at f/1.4 it's highly usable still. I mean from such a short exposure and the Orion nebula is visible, mars is in frame and you have M45 Pleiades also in frame.

Ps. for anyone interested in doing this type of astro scapey stuff... 10s is too long for a 24mm!! You have star trailing.... either use the 200 rule as a good starting point - eg. 200/24 = ~8s
or use a 60s Astro Tracer shot and blend it with a foreground :-)

[mikesbike]

It's odd that you say the fast zoom lenses are large and heavy?? I handheld my K1 with 28-105mm a few times the other day and just simply thought, this is waaaaay too light and I don't like the feel of it. The Irix 150mm I have is a little heavier but feels more solid in my hands. It just feels more meaty and better for me...

Then I could understand how it is that you are unhappy using this lens. But fast-aperture zoom lenses are indeed much heavier than slower zoom lenses, and the way I operate I prefer to avoid having to go about the way I do with weighty gear in a backpack, let alone with a tripod too. I do have some fast zoom lenses, but these are not too tele nor are they ultra-wides like the DFA 15-30mm f/2.8 lens. Avoiding weighty gear is not at all odd, since many people do prefer going with lighter carrying. For lightest kits with quality, I go with my KP, and a number of options. The most compact being some Limited primes, or often the HD DA 20-40mm Ltd and always the HD DA 15mm Ltd, and perhaps the HD DA 70mm Ltd or HD DA77mm Ltd, or maybe the HD DA 55-300mm WR. For compact quality fast lenses, the KP with Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM, and Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and/or some fast primes. Also some longer tele lenses if needed.

On my K-1 II I have many other choices aside from my DFA 28-105mm lens, including my great old Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 Pro II which is fairly heavy, but not as much as the Pentax DFA 24-70mm, a Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 which is a very good performer, and a number of other lenses which are of moderate size, including FA and DFA Limiteds. As you can see, my longer tele needs are relegated to my KP to keep size and weight down.

Very nice images, BTW, including your landscape shot above! I've found my FA 77mm lens has given me some very good bug and flower results also. With this lens, I prefer even more using it with my KP APS-C camera, which will put me at longer distances from the little critters to get such a shot, together with the small size of lens and camera to make for a less obtrusive presentation. But you apparently got great results, and a testiment to your MF skills!

For my early years, there was only MF cameras and lenses. I had no problem learning accurate MF technique. Much later came AF, which required some learning to take advantage of advancements it could offer. AF has since improved, but I still prefer for most of my needs, to use AF set to center-only spot focus. Then I use the shutter button half press to lock onto a certain part of the scene, a particular area having a well-defined edge and other detail for AF to grab onto, then hold down that focus while recomposing to take my shot. Due to years of MF, my eye is trained to monitor AF so I'll usually recognize if I need to employ MF override. Of course, such matters become more critical when dealing with longer tele or closeups, due to shallow DOF.

As to the DFA 28-105mm lens's performance, like any lens, for best possible results, one has to take into consideration the lens's best operating parameters of both aperture and FL. The apertures will have a narrower optimum range than is the case with faster lenses, which have more apertures available. However, this is not always the case at every point. While it is true, for example, the DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 is generally a sharper lens than is the DFA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 lens- yet this is not always true. The DFA 24-70mm has been shown as being not as sharp at its longest FL of 70mm, compared to the DFA 28-105mm set to 70mm and at favorable apertures. This is because 70mm is the former lens's zoom limit, while 70mm is within the latter's middle FL zoom area. Most all zoom lenses will generally be best-performing at the short-to-middle FL area of the zoom range, while some diminishment will occur when zoomed to the long end of the range.

---------- Post added 04-17-23 at 09:11 PM ----------

One prominent reason for using significant telephoto for landscapes is to compress distant scenery with less distant factors. If even the foreground elements of importance are somewhat distant, it should not be difficult to achive hyperlocal so the scene will be overall sharp. Otherwise, stopping down will be more important.

Take the sample images posted by bilybianca above, for instance. Nice shots, mostly. The first three were taken with primes, the last with a zoom lens. He lists the second shot as being taken with his A* 200mm but that was actually his 3rd shot. His second shot was actually with his F* 300mm. 300mm and f/9 is not adequate to deal with the reduced DOF 300mm brings, so not much is sharp here. Much more stopping down would have brought a better result. The last shot, OTOH, taken with a more ordinary slower F 70-210 f/4-5.6 lens turned out to be quite good. Why? Because it was shot at 118mm, in the middle FL area of this lesser class of lens, and a zoom lens at that. The aperture used of f/8 was adequate for 118mm with everything of importance at that distance looking good. Maybe it could have looked even sharper if objects were not back-lit, being shot at a different time of day- but one has to grab what is there and when. The kind of effect from this lighting could also be what one is after, and it does look good.

[kayasaman]

Then I could understand how it is that you are unhappy using this lens. But fast-aperture zoom lenses are indeed much heavier than slower zoom lenses, and the way I operate I prefer to avoid having to go about the way I do with weighty gear in a backpack, let alone with a tripod too. I do have some fast zoom lenses, but these are not too tele nor are they ultra-wides like the DFA 15-30mm f/2.8 lens. Avoiding weighty gear is not at all odd, since many people do prefer going with lighter carrying. For lightest kits with quality, I go with my KP, and a number of options. The most compact being some Limited primes, or often the HD DA 20-40mm Ltd and always the HD DA 15mm Ltd, and perhaps the HD DA 70mm Ltd or HD DA77mm Ltd, or maybe the HD DA 55-300mm WR. For compact quality fast lenses, the KP with Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM, and Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and/or some fast primes. Also some longer tele lenses if needed.

On my K-1 II I have many other choices aside from my DFA 28-105mm lens, including my great old Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 Pro II which is fairly heavy, but not as much as the Pentax DFA 24-70mm, a Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 which is a very good performer, and a number of other lenses which are of moderate size, including FA and DFA Limiteds. As you can see, my longer tele needs are relegated to my KP to keep size and weight down.

Very nice images, BTW, including your landscape shot above! I've found my FA 77mm lens has given me some very good bug and flower results also. With this lens, I prefer even more using it with my KP APS-C camera, which will put me at longer distances from the little critters to get such a shot, together with the small size of lens and camera to make for a less obtrusive presentation. But you apparently got great results, and a testiment to your MF skills!

For my early years, there was only MF cameras and lenses. I had no problem learning accurate MF technique. Much later came AF, which required some learning to take advantage of advancements it could offer. AF has since improved, but I still prefer for most of my needs, to use AF set to center-only spot focus. Then I use the shutter button half press to lock onto a certain part of the scene, a particular area having a well-defined edge and other detail for AF to grab onto, then hold down that focus while recomposing to take my shot. Due to years of MF, my eye is trained to monitor AF so I'll usually recognize if I need to employ MF override. Of course, such matters become more critical when dealing with longer tele or closeups, due to shallow DOF.

As to the DFA 28-105mm lens's performance, like any lens, for best possible results, one has to take into consideration the lens's best operating parameters of both aperture and FL. The apertures will have a narrower optimum range than is the case with faster lenses, which have more apertures available. However, this is not always the case at every point. While it is true, for example, the DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 is generally a sharper lens than is the DFA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 lens- yet this is not always true. The DFA 24-70mm has been shown as being not as sharp at its longest FL of 70mm, compared to the DFA 28-105mm set to 70mm and at favorable apertures. This is because 70mm is the former lens's zoom limit, while 70mm is within the latter's middle FL zoom area. Most all zoom lenses will generally be best-performing at the short-to-middle FL area of the zoom range, while some diminishment will occur when zoomed to the long end of the range.

---------- Post added 04-17-23 at 09:11 PM ----------

One prominent reason for using significant telephoto for landscapes is to compress distant scenery with less distant factors. If even the foreground elements of importance are somewhat distant, it should not be difficult to achive hyperlocal so the scene will be overall sharp. Otherwise, stopping down will be more important.

Take the sample images posted by bilybianca above, for instance. Nice shots, mostly. The first three were taken with primes, the last with a zoom lens. He lists the second shot as being taken with his A* 200mm but that was actually his 3rd shot. His second shot was actually with his F* 300mm. 300mm and f/9 is not adequate to deal with the reduced DOF 300mm brings, so not much is sharp here. Much more stopping down would have brought a better result. The last shot, OTOH, taken with a more ordinary slower F 70-210 f/4-5.6 lens turned out to be quite good. Why? Because it was shot at 118mm, in the middle FL area of this lesser class of lens, and a zoom lens at that. The aperture used of f/8 was adequate for 118mm with everything of importance at that distance looking good. Maybe it could have looked even sharper if objects were not back-lit, being shot at a different time of day- but one has to grab what is there and when. The kind of effect from this lighting could also be what one is after, and it does look good.

You've just put things in a fantastic way! The points you cover and valid and excellent :-)

I am quite envious of the above text in fact. The problem with having ASD (autism spectrum) is that communication is always difficult.. so I either misunderstand or cannot communicate what I mean across properly leaving frustration everywhere.


Thanks for praise in my images. I am actually not used to it so am blushing quite a bit now. Normally I feel that my own images lack any kind of interesting quality whatsoever.


It's true that many people seek lighter. I have been a lot to nature reserves recently as it helps with my condition which would otherwise leave me stuck at home or worse, and so many people are carrying Olympus mirrorless systems.

The first time I went to one of the reserves I met an older couple in one of the bird hides and the lady was telling me that she bought her camera system because it was light but then couldn't understand why the quality of shot was so poor as in completely blurry. It was a Fuji T-H3 camera with 70-300mm lens if I'm not mistaken.
The first problem she had was the distance to the subject, then lens focal length being too small, and of course after everything was technique and knowing which targets to pick and choose to get a better shot.
I worked with the couple for about an hour or hour and half and finally the shot quality started to improve.

As I never know what lens I need, I tend to carry all of them in my backpack so am often carting around a 10kg/20 pound load for long distances.


But still, I definitely agree with your point about compressing surroundings or zoning into specific portions. It depends heavily on location and time of day, since at night one will need to lug a tripod around for long exposure shots.

Going through my stuff I'm always at 24mm but then I haven't really been to any location that would need a longer focal length as we have no mountains or a lot of distant scenery either.

Some of the landscape albums I have got are these:

Marlow Henley Warburg 12_16 - Google Photos

Cobstone Swyncombe Warburg 12/17 - Google Photos

Swyncombe 12/25 - Google Photos

The windmill below, I shot using my 150mm and 300mm as tests. I probably prefer the 300mm version (FA*300 f/4.5):

Cobstone Turville 12/5 - Google Photos


There's also some landscape here shot with my Irix 150mm:

College Lake 03/15 - Google Photos

ps. the Nikon on the tripod was just for posing purposes only as I usually handhold the system since it gives me better freedom to move around when shooting wildlife.


More landscape stuff with wildlife, again a mixture of cameras:

College Lake 03/11 - Google Photos


Finally just popped this onto the astro group, from last night. I was attempting the Leo galaxy triplet in the Leo constellation which went totally wrong:

Warburg 04/18 - Google Photos


Though lastly I will definitely say to watch out of "focus breathing" in zooms. My Nikon 18-300mm is a really poor lens for that so wildlife photography is definitely going to struggle. These are the first time I went to a reserve and had no idea what I was expecting so I used the 'do it all' lens. It's not very sharp and more often then not it is completely blurry and focus breathes heavily which is why the raptors you see, though shot at 300mm are most likely around 100-1500mm due to focus breathing:

Warburg 12/7 - Google Photos


Thanks @mikesbike :-)

[Digitalis]

For a short tele lens, I strongly recommend the FA77mm f1.8 Ltd. Although the FA77mm is renown and sublime for portrait, I have been astonished by its ability and IQ for landscape and scenery.

Can confirm:


Pentax K-1 SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/11 ISO 100 1/125th

The FA77 is also pretty damn good at closer up work as it has a floating rear element to keep aberrations under control.


Pentax K-1 SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/1.8 ISO 100 1/320th

[gatorguy]

Can confirm:


Pentax K-1 SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/11 ISO 100 1/125th

The FA77 is also pretty damn good at closer up work as it has a floating rear element to keep aberrations under control.


Pentax K-1 SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/1.8 ISO 100 1/320th

I had the 77 for a few years and sold it. I realize the OP is using the lens with FF, but the other day I decided to look for a nice compact Limited to use with the K3 monochrome and occasionally with the K3III, and decided on the DA70 Limited. Then you go and post this image.

Dang it, now you have me second-guessing.

Oh, and I've also seen some claims the 70 is in fact usable with the K1? Mine will be here in a few days and I can check, but... ?