[josepheller]

Thanks again everyone. I have gone ahead and purchased my first two lenses (the D FA 28-105 and FA 77 Limited) from fellow members Mee and HolyDukeNukem (thanks guys!). My wife and I are very excited to start this journey, and I'm sure more lenses will be in our future before too long

I am definitely intrigued by many of the lenses you all have mentioned and will be sure to read up on them in greater detail.

[Sandy Hancock]

Is the inconsistency separate from what you said in your more detailed description?

I don't consistently like the resulting image, even when I get everything right technically. It's subjective, and others' mileage definitely varies

[clackers]

Thanks again everyone. I have gone ahead and purchased my first two lenses (the D FA 28-105 and FA 77 Limited) from fellow members Mee and HolyDukeNukem (thanks guys!). .

Pretty sensational start, JH, have fun!

[Rondec]

Thanks again everyone. I have gone ahead and purchased my first two lenses (the D FA 28-105 and FA 77 Limited) from fellow members Mee and HolyDukeNukem (thanks guys!). My wife and I are very excited to start this journey, and I'm sure more lenses will be in our future before too long

I am definitely intrigued by many of the lenses you all have mentioned and will be sure to read up on them in greater detail.

I think that's a good start. In particular, as you use your zoom, if there are focal lengths that you really like or that you are missing (wider, longer) you can fill those in with primes or other lenses. I think you will have a great time shooting -- there's nothing like welcoming a new life into your home.

[pres589]

That's an excellent pair of lenses. I still think there's utility in getting a nice little DA 50 1.8 but that good zoom lens will help you figure out focal lengths that you might want to target with a high quality prime.

Hope that we get to see some of your photos and can keep overwhelming you with advice. From my own experience, this is a great forum to learn from.

[josepheller]

Thanks again for everyone's input.

That's an excellent pair of lenses. I still think there's utility in getting a nice little DA 50 1.8 but that good zoom lens will help you figure out focal lengths that you might want to target with a high quality prime.

Hope that we get to see some of your photos and can keep overwhelming you with advice. From my own experience, this is a great forum to learn from.

pres, I agree with your sentiment regarding the 50mm, my reasoning for ultimately getting the 77mm over those was that I could always pick one of those up later if needed/wanted as they are much cheaper than the two I ended up getting.

[aslyfox]

. . . pres, I agree with your sentiment regarding the 50mm, my reasoning for ultimately getting the 77mm over those was that I could always pick one of those up later if needed/wanted as they are much cheaper than the two I ended up getting.

just remember to check the market place at the forum when you are in the market for more equipment

[josepheller]

just remember to check the market place at the forum when you are in the market for more equipment

For sure...first and only place I had to look for the two I just bought, as well as future lens purchases.

[cyberjunkie]

For sure...first and only place I had to look for the two I just bought, as well as future lens purchases.

You already have two very good lenses, which will cover most (if not all) photographic needs.
For a newcomer to DSLR photography, your equipment is top notch!
Maybe in the future you will feel the need for an extreme wide, or a tele-zoom.
Some people extensively use their extreme wide angles, while others use them very, very rarely.
Maybe you'll never need an UWA, but with time you'll likely find that sometimes you need a lens to photograph distant subjects.
If/when it happens, please also consider cheap vintage lenses.
Even if you want AF, which of course is very welcome with longer focals, there are options that allow to save plenty of money, and are still competitive with modern solutions at medium diaphragms.
An example is the Pentax-F 70-210mm. If you search the forum for pictures taken with this lens, even if you consider only full frame shots, you'll see what i mean
It's not the easiest lens to find, but the cost is almost negligible, compared to any modern objective in the same focal range, 3rd party or Pentax.


As i already mentioned vintage AF lenses... i have a question for experienced K-1 owners who happen to be reading this thread:
I own a good number of F and FA zooms, and i am using mostly primes, so i'm rather hesitant to invest in a new D FA zoom for my K-1.
Let's take one lens as an example, apart from AF noise/speed, is the old Pentax-FA f4-5.6/28-105mm so inferior to the new D FA version?
Considering the very good high-ISO performance of the FF sensor, it's not difficult to shoot most pics at f8/f11. Stopped down, can you really see the difference?
I'm asking because a 28-105mm isn't the easiest zoom to design...
Longer focals should be more forgiving. I still have too few shots, though my first impression is that the Tamron 2.8/70-200mm should not trump the Pentax-F 70-210mm stopped down.

cheers

Paolo

[clackers]

Let's take one lens as an example, apart from AF noise/speed, is the old Pentax-FA f4-5.6/28-105mm so inferior to the new D FA version?

Yeah, IIRC Adam has explicitly said it is.

Those old zooms usually have a small number of straight aperture blades affecting the bokeh and lack aspherical elements, for starters.

[Rondec]

You already have two very good lenses, which will cover most (if not all) photographic needs.
For a newcomer to DSLR photography, your equipment is top notch!
Maybe in the future you will feel the need for an extreme wide, or a tele-zoom.
Some people extensively use their extreme wide angles, while others use them very, very rarely.
Maybe you'll never need an UWA, but with time you'll likely find that sometimes you need a lens to photograph distant subjects.
If/when it happens, please also consider cheap vintage lenses.
Even if you want AF, which of course is very welcome with longer focals, there are options that allow to save plenty of money, and are still competitive with modern solutions at medium diaphragms.
An example is the Pentax-F 70-210mm. If you search the forum for pictures taken with this lens, even if you consider only full frame shots, you'll see what i mean
It's not the easiest lens to find, but the cost is almost negligible, compared to any modern objective in the same focal range, 3rd party or Pentax.


As i already mentioned vintage AF lenses... i have a question for experienced K-1 owners who happen to be reading this thread:
I own a good number of F and FA zooms, and i am using mostly primes, so i'm rather hesitant to invest in a new D FA zoom for my K-1.
Let's take one lens as an example, apart from AF noise/speed, is the old Pentax-FA f4-5.6/28-105mm so inferior to the new D FA version?
Considering the very good high-ISO performance of the FF sensor, it's not difficult to shoot most pics at f8/f11. Stopped down, can you really see the difference?
I'm asking because a 28-105mm isn't the easiest zoom to design...
Longer focals should be more forgiving. I still have too few shots, though my first impression is that the Tamron 2.8/70-200mm should not trump the Pentax-F 70-210mm stopped down.

cheers

Paolo

I think zooms are the area where there have been the most improvements over time, whereas aside from some fringing issues, primes from the past definitely still keep up with modern lenses quite well. If you are shooting stopped down, it will be harder to see differences in lenses as well.

[Alex645]

is the old Pentax-FA f4-5.6/28-105mm so inferior to the new D FA version?
Paolo

Objectively, yes. I have friends that shoot FF. They had been shooting with older versions and were quite satisfied without the newer versions, but once I lent them some newer optics, they immediately saw a significant improvement.

Ricoh isn't doing R&D and retooling for D-FA as a cost saving measure. They are putting better tires on the sports car because it's the primary way a photographer will be able to appreciate the potential performance of the sensor....but keep in mind, subjectively if you're happy with the rendering you're getting out of an older lens, you may be less pleased with a newer lens that scores higher on bench tests.

[aslyfox]

You already have two very good lenses, which will cover most (if not all) photographic needs.
For a newcomer to DSLR photography, your equipment is top notch!
Maybe in the future you will feel the need for an extreme wide, or a tele-zoom.
Some people extensively use their extreme wide angles, while others use them very, very rarely.
Maybe you'll never need an UWA, but with time you'll likely find that sometimes you need a lens to photograph distant subjects.
If/when it happens, please also consider cheap vintage lenses.
Even if you want AF, which of course is very welcome with longer focals, there are options that allow to save plenty of money, and are still competitive with modern solutions at medium diaphragms. . . .

Paolo

I am always looking for bargains, just my nature, so I look for " experienced " lens and those which might be good " vintage " lenses which fit my needs

my decision to get the D FA 100mm macro as opposed to the newer D FA 100mm macro WR is an example. I can live without the advantages ( and there are some ) of the WR
" edition " for my purposes and the " glass " is the same;

another example was my choice to get an " experienced " DA 40 mm XS over other options.

It all depends on what you think is acceptable.

the reviews under " Lenses " here at the forum are very valuable to me and a great place to start to research options when looking for lenses.

[cyberjunkie]

Ricoh isn't doing R&D and retooling for D-FA as a cost saving measure.

Well, i wouldn't be so sure
What you write has some truth in it, but i doubt it's 100% true.
As i've already evidenced in another thread, if you check the evolution of the lenses that changed optical design in the past (best example is the transition from K to M and then to A), instead of having a larger number of optical elements, you'll see that most of the times they followed the opposite trend... even if the contemporary advancements in computer-aided lens design would have made possible an increasing complexity of optical layouts.
A similar consideration can be made about the famous Super Takumar 1.4/50mm with 8 elements, soon replaced by a 7-elements one.
In most of these cases the reason for change was not optical improvement, but production cost!
The IQ of the new models was often similar, but sometimes it was clearly inferior.
Am i wrong if i say that of all the 28mm's that Pentax has made, up to the FA 2.8/28mm, the best one is still the old 2/28mm series K?
Zooms are other beasts, especially wide-range "normal" zooms, though i'm still of the opinion that my question was everything but naive.
I just asked... and i'd be curious to get an answer from somebody who actually tested first-hand both versions (preferably on the K-1, and at mid diaphragms).

cheers

Paolo

[Rondec]

Well, i wouldn't be so sure
What you write has some truth in it, but i doubt it's 100% true.
As i've already evidenced in another thread, if you check the evolution of the lenses that changed optical design in the past (best example is the transition from K to M and then to A), instead of having a larger number of optical elements, you'll see that most of the times they followed the opposite trend... even if the contemporary advancements in computer-aided lens design would have made possible an increasing complexity of optical layouts.
A similar consideration can be made about the famous Super Takumar 1.4/50mm with 8 elements, soon replaced by a 7-elements one.
In most of these cases the reason for change was not optical improvement, but production cost!
The IQ of the new models was often similar, but sometimes it was clearly inferior.
Am i wrong if i say that of all the 28mm's that Pentax has made, up to the FA 2.8/28mm, the best one is still the old 2/28mm series K?
Zooms are other beasts, especially wide-range "normal" zooms, though i'm still of the opinion that my question was everything but naive.
I just asked... and i'd be curious to get an answer from somebody who actually tested first-hand both versions (preferably on the K-1, and at mid diaphragms).

cheers

Paolo

But primes are completely different from zooms. Primes in the past are going to be good, particularly if you are stopped down a little and don't mind dealing with manual focus. On the other hand, zooms have really improved a lot with computer design. No one in the 80s would have thought of making a 16-300 super zoom. No one was making anything resembling the 15-30 f2.8 zooms of today.

I do think coatings have improved some as well, but Pentax coatings have always been good and so an SMC lens of the past is going to out perform a lot of other brands lenses of a similar age.

But why not go to a shop and try out the newer zooms and see for yourself?