Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2020, 08:48 AM   #61
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,238
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
Not nearly enough.
Sounds like "Too many notes" from Amadeus.

---------- Post added 12-23-20 at 10:53 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by someasiancameraguy Quote
Macro shots, astro shots, anything requiring shallow DOF or better. Zooms have their place when flexibility is wanted, but there are times where I would pay for the portability and IQ of one good normal lens. Most days I leave the house with the K-1 or MX/MZ-3 with the 43mm, (28mm aps-c equiv) and I'd like the option of getting a similar setup in aps-c.
Macro shots require smooth out of focus areas, which most macro lenses suck at, but they don't require narrow DoF, unless you plan to for some unfathomable reason decide to take lots of images and stack them. Macro shots usually need as much DoF as you can squeeze out of the lens.

You leave the house with a 43 and that's it? Lord have mercy. The shots you are missing simply boggles the mind. Do you own a * quality zoom?

I went through 10 pages of your posts and found one image. You must not leave the house much. The first thing I look at in this kind of discussion is, "does this guy produce compelling images that would justify me listening to his opinion?" Just saying, bad info about macros, no 43mm images posted.....hmmmm.

I have always noted that low light images are rarely good. It leaves me thinking, maybe people are thinking the lack of contrast and definition in their low light images is a function of the lens used, as opposed to the physical limitations of low light images.

The 31 ltd. is stellar, I honestly think anyone who need 28 type image is unlikely to do better. I've seen ton of comparison, Zeiss, Sigma Art whatever. I you want that type of image, you won't lose with the 31, but will it overcome the disadvantages of low light images in general? No I won't. I'd be happy to hear someone say, "I'm happy with my 31, I might like a 28 as well." That comment is strangely missing from the conversation. After all, wanting a 28 assumes he 31 isn't good enough to do the job.... what do 31 ltd. owners think?

After all, we have people saying you don't need a zoom, zoom when you're feet. The saying we have the 31 we need a 28. You can zoom with your feet as a reason to avoid buying a zom, but you can't zoom with your feet to make up for 3mm on a prime. The inconsistencies are endless.

I have my Sigma 24 macro 2.8 and it fills in really well, because my DFA 28-105 doesn't do 24mm. That will do anything a 28 would do... with a bit of cropping.


Last edited by normhead; 12-23-2020 at 09:32 AM.
12-23-2020, 09:39 AM - 3 Likes   #62
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 7,347
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
So how many images do you have that couldn't have been taken with an 18-135, 16-85, 20-40, 28-105, 16-50- 17-50, 17-70, or 15-30?

I'm reading that you like 28mm, I'm wondering what the uses for 28mm that can't be handled by current zooms are. I currently own 4 zooms that cover that range. I'd like to see a few images that are wider apertures than the prime, just to see what I'm missing.
I think if you're going to argue that zooms are always as good as primes, as you seem to be doing here, you're in a losing argument, especially for a brand much more renowned for it's primes than it's zooms.

Currently I shoot more at apertures wider than f/2.8 than I do at smaller apertures, that would really limit my zoom options. I'd probably have to fork out several thousand for that monstrous f/2 zoom Canon have brought out for their mirrorless system.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Every company has a huge gap around 1.2 lenses. You can draw an arbitrary line in the sand but it means little.
The DA 50 1.8 is good enough. the 43 1.8 and 31 1.8 are also in the realm of "an important focal length." that are sub 2.

Me thinks thou dost protest to much.

If you're going to complain that the 31 and 43 are oversized because they aren't made for APS-c you haven't been paying attention.
Me thinks thou dost apologise for Pentax too much.

Who mentioned f/1.2? I have both the 50/1.8 and 43/1.9 and they're good enough if you want to shoot at f/2.5 or smaller but they're mostly disappointing below that, plus they're too long on APS-C to be standard primes. The 43mm is smaller than most of my APS-C lenses but that's largely because it's at the sweet spot for size of 40 to 50mm. The further you go from that range the harder it is to keep things compact while maintaining high speed (as a general rule). I know the 31mm is far from being huge but it's not just about size: a new DA Limited prime would be no bigger than the 31mm, it would have WR & have an in-lens focus motor, which none of the lenses you mention have, and I'm confident could be produced for a maximum of $800/800. That would make it probably a better performer, with more features and at a lower price point than the 31mm.

QuoteOriginally posted by pepperberry farm Quote
I'd much rather shoot at 24mm than at 28mm...
Perhaps Pentax could take a leaf out of Fujifilm's book and create a 23mm lens as a traditional 35mm FF equivalent. I've found a fast 23mm to be indispensable indoors since I had kids. It's also pretty handy in other situations.
12-23-2020, 12:31 PM - 1 Like   #63
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of America
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,858
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I was aware of reported AF problems before I bought mine, but got it at such a great price that I was prepared to live with Live View or manual focusing if all else failed. I use it on my K-3, mostly with the single centre AF point, and it has been reliably consistent. @ChristianRock has the same lens, and I don't believe he's experienced any significant AF issues either. It leads me to wonder if the firmware in later examples was improved...
I have limited internet access these days as I'm away from home. So sorry for the late reply.
My Sigma 30 1.4 Art is basically the perfect APSC prime, I think... 1.4 and the images are stunning when I am up to the task...and I haven't had a lot of AF issues. I use center point. Every once in a while it totally misses focus but when it does it's quite obvious so I just focus again...

I do think a 23mm f2 lens would be super cool...
03-01-2021, 06:29 AM   #64
New Member




Join Date: May 2020
Location: Maine
Posts: 7
Heck, I'd take an HD update of the FA 28mm 2.8...
While the 31 Ltd is no doubt great, having something that retails for significantly less than $1000 would be pretty nice.


Last edited by thebitterfig; 03-01-2021 at 06:41 AM.
03-01-2021, 07:40 AM   #65
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,238
QuoteOriginally posted by EnglishBob Quote
I find that the more I use my primes the more I use my feet and the less I use my battery or shutter finger.
That's a bad thing right? After all, if you have a camera in your hand, the goal is to take pictures.
I paid for 200,000 images up front, I'm going to use them.
I go for walks all the time. I don't need a camera in my hand to go for a walk.
I might have said, the more I use primes, the more I miss photo opportunities messing around with lens changes.

I'e been engaged with primes vs zooms for 50 years.... it doesn't take much thought to spit out some arguments, either way. I've heard them all.

But it 1990 a independent survey found 3 of the top 10 lenses ever made at that time were zooms. Since that time, anyone saying a zoom gives poorer results has been wrong, and wilfully so. Everyone who read Pop photography should know better. Where the rest get their information I get no idea. In my "find that prime" exercise an 82% of forum users couldn't even tell the difference. Which based on a sample of 7 is darn close to a random selection.

"I prefer primes" has becomes a line in the sand issue not at all practical unless were are using sub 2.8 aperture stettings. In which case I prefer ƒ2 or wider images would be a more accurate way to frame your bias.

I just ran what I think will work best for the situation I'm in. Primes or zoom, they are all lenses. They all do the job.

Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2021 at 08:02 AM.
03-02-2021, 12:02 PM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,414
A D-FA 28 would be better than a DA 28, because it could be used on both apsc and ff cameras.
I prefer 28mm over 31. Having 35mm already, and looking forward to the D-FA 21mm, 28mm would be right between the 35 and the 21. FA 31 is too close to the 35.
Perfect prime kit for me: D-FA 21, D-FA 28, HD FA 35 , D-FA 50 2.8 macro, D-FA 100 2.8 macro.
03-03-2021, 07:30 AM   #67
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 7,347
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's a bad thing right?
Nope. Limitations breed creativity. I take better photos with primes than I do with zooms, as a rule, though some of what I learn using primes then passes over to what I take using zooms.

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
A D-FA 28 would be better than a DA 28, because it could be used on both apsc and ff cameras.
Nope, a DA Limited would be better as it would not incur any extra size, cost or weight needed to make the image circle big enough for FF, or instead of increasing the image circle they could add extra speed for the APS-C users, which would be much appreciated.

I think there's a wide-angle DFA* on the way which will no doubt be massive, fast and expensive. I think 28mm would be a good choice but I it's much more likely that Pentax will follow the crowd with their DFA* line, which is what they've done so far, and produce a 35/1.4.
03-03-2021, 08:52 AM   #68
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,449
I think "hunting perfection" with the Star lenses is exactly what the Star lens should do, with less regard to weight, size, and cost. It's not really what I personally want but I think the K-mount ecosystem is better off having those options available as well as the Limited's and the "normal" glass.

I also think it makes sense to have the Star lens in the high-20's, with the Ltd 21 and 31 on either side as far as focal lengths are concerned. It's unfortunate knowing it won't get a stop-down lever and aperture ring for folks still wanting those things. But that's how it goes.

03-03-2021, 11:47 AM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,414
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Nope, a DA Limited would be better as it would not incur any extra size, cost or weight needed to make the image circle big enough for FF, or instead of increasing the image circle they could add extra speed for the APS-C users, which would be much appreciated.
Size can be a concern. The think for Pentax is, hard to make money out of prime lenses. Wouldn't it be better for Pentax to stop making dedicated lenses for apsc and full frame , instead of making prime lenses for use with both apsc and full frame, they'd sell more quantities.
03-03-2021, 12:35 PM - 1 Like   #70
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,449
I'd like to see some supporting evidence that Pentax isn't making money on prime lenses.

Actually it would be interesting to see which of their products are net positives to the bottom line and which are net negatives.
03-04-2021, 09:08 AM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Photos: Albums
Posts: 389
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
I'd like to see some supporting evidence that Pentax isn't making money on prime lenses.

Actually it would be interesting to see which of their products are net positives to the bottom line and which are net negatives.
From a manufacturing standpoint basically all high R&D electronic products today have very high gross margins to offset their R&D budgets. It would be extremely hard from an accounting standpoint to amortize these R&D costs onto specific products when their market competitiveness is bundled together.
03-04-2021, 09:47 AM   #72
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,969
For a long while I wanted a 20-something mm DA Limited lens that was WR, preferably with an in-lens motor. I think that would be a great, small, weather-sealed pancake, walk-around prime on APS-C. I think I'd use it all the time.

But after the new FA21 was announced I caved and bought a second hand 20-40 LTD. Looking at Pentax' pace and priorities I just don't see updating the DA Limiteds to WR and in-lens motors with the 20-40 already being available. The 20-40 isn't a pancake, but it's a good lens, even if mine has some focusing problems (it could really use about a +13 micro adjust on my K-3ii, when +10 is the max).
03-05-2021, 03:31 AM - 1 Like   #73
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
3by2's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Wirral
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 352
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
(it could really use about a +13 micro adjust on my K-3ii, when +10 is the max).
As a complete aside; I had similar issues with my K5 but all the lenses were close to the AF adjustment limit with one beyond it. I put the K5 into debug mode using PK tether and applied a universal adjustment to the AF, independent of the menu setting, effectively a new AF zero, bringing most of my lenses clustered around zero with one outlier at about +7. I've since sold that lens and it depends really on where your own lenses are on the AF adjustment scale.
03-05-2021, 06:51 AM   #74
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,969
QuoteOriginally posted by 3by2 Quote
As a complete aside; I had similar issues with my K5 but all the lenses were close to the AF adjustment limit with one beyond it. I put the K5 into debug mode using PK tether and applied a universal adjustment to the AF, independent of the menu setting, effectively a new AF zero, bringing most of my lenses clustered around zero with one outlier at about +7. I've since sold that lens and it depends really on where your own lenses are on the AF adjustment scale.
You may not know this, but is the PK tether universal adjustment something that's available on other cameras, say the K-3ii or the K-30? I'll go searching for PK tether threads...
03-05-2021, 07:09 AM   #75
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
3by2's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Wirral
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 352
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
You may not know this, but is the PK tether universal adjustment something that's available on other cameras, say the K-3ii or the K-30? I'll go searching for PK tether threads...
Debug mode will be, how you get there varies from camera to camera. I'd have included the K5 link but I'm afraid I've lost it now, I'm ashamed to say I found it on dpreview but it's probably here as well.

You move in 100um units which if I recall are equivalent to plus/minus 10 on the af scale. If I find something I'll pm it to you as I don't want to derail the thread further.
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!
28mm, 31mm, af, aps-c, customer service, da, dof, fa, focus, gear, house, k-3, kp, lens, lenses, macro, party, pentax, post, reviews, ricoh imaging, shots, suggestion, third
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quantaray 28mm f/2.8 vs Rokinon 28mm f/2.8 vs Quantaray 28mm f/2.8 (with A mode) Gorgarath Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 12-28-2019 08:15 PM
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 11-10-2016 06:50 PM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C? lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 03-27-2015 07:45 PM
Sigma 28mm 1.8 vs F 28mm 2.8 vs DA 35 limited wich is suited for me nirVaan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 03-05-2012 05:21 AM
Much point for the SMC 28mm SHIFT with APS-C for architecture? JayR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 06-07-2010 05:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 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