[Kunzite]

If the 70-210/4 is good enough for the Pentax label, then reviewers should be allowed to use it for AF tests.

There's no entity allowing (or denying) lenses to use for AF tests
But if the micro-flutter issue is real (and I have no reason to doubt Carl on this), this lens is a poor choice for testing AF-C. It seems, poorer than slow focusing lenses like the DA* 60-250.
It makes me wonder if this wasn't why the K-3iii didn't reach the D500's hit rate, for DPReviewTV.

OTOH I have no experience with the Tamron-made D FA (nor with the Tamron-branded versions); and only now I hear about this issue.
To avoid useless theories, Carl mentioned it before we knew it's what DPReviewTV used.

P.S. This micro-flutter issue isn't a favorable thing to say about Pentax. Lens choices are few, and modern lens choices are fewer.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-10-2021 at 02:06 PM.

[luftfluss]

There's no entity allowing lenses to use for AF tests
But if the micro-flutter issue is real (and I have no reason to doubt Carl on this), this lens is a poor choice for testing AF-C. It seems, poorer than slow focusing lenses like the DA* 60-250.
It makes me wonder if this wasn't why the K-3iii didn't reach the D500's hit rate, for DPReviewTV.

OTOH I have no experience with the Tamron-made D FA (nor with the Tamron-branded versions); and only now I hear about this issue.
To avoid useless theories, Carl mentioned it before we knew it's what DPReviewTV used.

I don't know why there seems to be a lack of cooperation between DPR and Chris & Jordan. DPR should be able to get their guys the most appropriate setups for reviews and comparisons. IMO this should have been K-3 III + DFA 150-450 vs D500 + 200-500.

But while we're grousing about methodology and all that, we should be happy that the K-3 III's AF-C performance is quite good.

[Rush2112]

There's no entity allowing (or denying) lenses to use for AF tests
But if the micro-flutter issue is real (and I have no reason to doubt Carl on this), this lens is a poor choice for testing AF-C. It seems, poorer than slow focusing lenses like the DA* 60-250.
It makes me wonder if this wasn't why the K-3iii didn't reach the D500's hit rate, for DPReviewTV.

OTOH I have no experience with the Tamron-made D FA (nor with the Tamron-branded versions); and only now I hear about this issue.
To avoid useless theories, Carl mentioned it before we knew it's what DPReviewTV used.

P.S. This micro-flutter issue isn't a favorable thing to say about Pentax. Lens choices are few, and modern lens choices are fewer.

I've thus seen (looking at other Tamron 70-210mm f/4 reviews) others mention that the Tamron seems to have a mind of its own when focusing. That is another way of describing the phenomenon. I haven't spent the time looking at user reviews from Nikon owners using this lens, but It would not surprise me if others found the same issue I did when I used it for the D500.

It's a great lens though, optically, build, price, features, you name it. I like it. But I'd rather use in on the K1 bodies as a general zoom lens, or for basic duty with AF. Single AF is fine.

---------- Post added 05-10-2021 at 02:14 PM ----------

I don't know why there seems to be a lack of cooperation between DPR and Chris & Jordan. DPR should be able to get their guys the most appropriate setups for reviews and comparisons. IMO this should have been K-3 III + DFA 150-450 vs D500 + 200-500.

But while we're grousing about methodology and all that, we should be happy that the K-3 III's AF-C performance is quite good.

DPR are supposed to be an "authority" with camera reviews. They know better but don't seem to care when it comes to Pentax, and then, when you point that out they maintain they are fair no matter what.

And yeah, we should all be happy about the K3 Mk III, there is a lot to celebrate here. I would have liked to see a 70-300mm f/4 PLM or 100-400mm F/5.6 PLM/SDM lens introduced with the K3 Mk III at the same time.

Guess we'll see what happens!

Carl

[mlt]

For those interested, direct linking not allowed by an author.

Carl

Excellent article - glad to see someone doing this kind of work.

[Rush2112]

Excellent article - glad to see someone doing this kind of work.

Thanks MLT

[RobA_Oz]

As I understand it the 70-210 has the slower SDM focus motor. So a test with DFA*70-200 or DFA150-450 with the faster DC motor compared to the D500 with 200-500 lens would be more of a true test.

The 70-210 has a ring-type AF drive motor, not the older SDM motor:

[RobA_Oz]

It's not as fast as the PLM's pulse motor, but its fast. The issue isn't speed as I pointed out, it is the decision making of the lens CPU.

I wouldn’t have thought that “decision-making” was the job of the motor drive electronics within the lens, but, having said that, I don’t actually know what’s in this lens, aside from what Ricoh has told us in their description of it.

What you describe as “micro-flutter” (a good term, from the sound of it) sounds more like inadequate damping in the motor drive system, which would possibly have components in the body, as well as the lens. If so, a firmware update for the K-3iii body should be able to address it to some extent. It’s not something I’ve encountered with the K-3 or the K-1, so I will keep an eye on it in future.

PS: I don’t recall reading in your article, whether or not you tried the 70-210’s focus limiter.

[Rush2112]

I wouldn’t have thought that “decision-making” was the job of the motor drive electronics within the lens, but, having said that, I don’t actually know what’s in this lens, aside from what Ricoh has told us in their description of it.

What you describe as “micro-flutter” (a good term, from the sound of it) sounds more like inadequate damping in the motor drive system, which would possibly have components in the body, as well as the lens. If so, a firmware update for the K-3iii body should be able to address it to some extent. It’s not something I’ve encountered with the K-3 or the K-1, so I will keep an eye on it in future.

PS: I don’t recall reading in your article, whether or not you tried the 70-210’s focus limiter.

Tamron has a dock that can update the FW of the lens (like many of their newer lenses), so it's my assumption that the lens has its own CPU. Since the Pentax version is the same internally, that's how I came to the conclusion that its the CPU in addition to having the exact same issues on my D500 with the Tamron version.

I don't think it's the motor, its more like the lens is having a very difficult time making a decision on what to stay locked onto. If the problem wasn't identical to the Tamron version, I'd be willing to hear any ideas as to what it may be, or even consider the camera at fault. However that isn't the case.

I think Ricoh should take a look at it and see if the FW of the lens can be changed through a K3 Mk III firmware update. If they can fix this CAF issue, it would be one hell of a great option for K3 Mk III users who want a better BIF or action lens. Might want to take a peek at Part II of the review I published today, I went into all of this pretty deeply.

Doing what I can!

Carl

[RobA_Oz]

Tamron has a dock that can update the FW of the lens (like many of their newer lenses), so it's my assumption that the lens has its own CPU. Since the Pentax version is the same internally, that's how I came to the conclusion that its the CPU in addition to having the exact same issues on my D500 with the Tamron version.

I don't think it's the motor, its more like the lens is having a very difficult time making a decision on what to stay locked onto. If the problem wasn't identical to the Tamron version, I'd be willing to hear any ideas as to what it may be, or even consider the camera at fault. However that isn't the case.

I think Ricoh should take a look at it and see if the FW of the lens can be changed through a K3 Mk III firmware update. If they can fix this CAF issue, it would be one hell of a great option for K3 Mk III users who want a better BIF or action lens. Might want to take a peek at Part II of the review I published today, I went into all of this pretty deeply.

Doing what I can!

Carl

Previous Pentax lenses could have their firmware amended through the body (most people here would be familiar with the change to body AF drive from some of the older SDM drives, for instance), so perhaps this is possible with the 70-210 as well.

I did read your Part II article before I posted, and thanks for doing what you can. Detailed reviews like this are very helpful, especially as I’m still a little on the fence about buying the K-3iii, but inclining that way at the moment.

[Rush2112]

Previous Pentax lenses could have their firmware amended through the body (most people here would be familiar with the change to body AF drive from some of the older SDM drives, for instance), so perhaps this is possible with the 70-210 as well.

I did read your Part II article before I posted, and thanks for doing what you can. Detailed reviews like this are very helpful, especially as I’m still a little on the fence about buying the K-3iii, but inclining that way at the moment.

My pleasure! Appreciate you reading and your feedback. Makes it all worthwhile...

-C

---------- Post added 05-10-2021 at 05:32 PM ----------

Part III of the review will be about Build/Handling/IQ. Part IV likely will cover weather sealing, leveraging features- such as raw HDR, PSR (even hand held), trap focus, etc. may even do some video with it, we'll see. Haven't decided on part V yet, but I will complete it!

[caliscouser]

Part III of the review will be about Build/Handling/IQ. Part IV likely will cover weather sealing, leveraging features- such as raw HDR, PSR (even hand held), trap focus, etc. may even do some video with it, we'll see. Haven't decided on part V yet, but I will complete it!

I don't believe you had it for your testing but it will be interesting to see how the lenses do with the HD DA 1.4x in terms of focusing. I'm assuming the signal pass through would not be any kind of bottleneck, but more the loss of light.

[mtkeller]

I don't believe you had it for your testing but it will be interesting to see how the lenses do with the HD DA 1.4x in terms of focusing. I'm assuming the signal pass through would not be any kind of bottleneck, but more the loss of light.

I’ve used the HD DA 1.4x with both the 55–300 PLM and the Tamron 70–200 f/2.8. It works wonderfully on both. I was shooting baseball on a sunny day, which undoubtedly helped with how slow the 55–300PLM is when combined with the HD DA 1.4x, but the focusing speed was always very zippy and accurate.

[caliscouser]

I’ve used the HD DA 1.4x with both the 55–300 PLM and the Tamron 70–200 f/2.8. It works wonderfully on both

Excellent, thanks for sharing.

[mlt]

My pleasure! Appreciate you reading and your feedback. Makes it all worthwhile...

-C

---------- Post added 05-10-2021 at 05:32 PM ----------

Part III of the review will be about Build/Handling/IQ. Part IV likely will cover weather sealing, leveraging features- such as raw HDR, PSR (even hand held), trap focus, etc. may even do some video with it, we'll see. Haven't decided on part V yet, but I will complete it!

Looking forward to those sections. You’re now bookmarked right below my pentaxforums.com bookmark

[Rush2112]

Looking forward to those sections. You’re now bookmarked right below my pentaxforums.com bookmark

Much appreciated!