[revdocjim]

I had a look at the 25mm today at Fujiya Camera. That's a pretty sweet looking piece of glass, but wow is it ever long! I expected it to be short and fat.
The price is 349,800 yen, which comes to just over $4,500. All of sudden that 35/3.5 that I passed on last week is looking ridiculously cheap, costing about one tenth of this 25mm!

[Yamanobori]

Wait to your feel how heavy it is. Go to the Pentax Photo Salon in Shinjuku and check it out.

[lnorton]

It's a beast - but in the right conditions, it shines!

My only gripe is that my custom made filter holder was too flimsy.....

[aeros]

If we are talking about the same lens, it has an in barrel filter holder with rotation wheel for a polarising filter.

---

Last edited by aeros; 04-16-2012 at 10:41 AM. Reason: typo

[Ryan Tischer]

If we are talking about the same lens, it has an in barrel filter holder with rotation wheel for a polarising filter

Yes, but that only works for circular polarizer and ND fitlers designed for the drop in on the lens, and those shooting landscapes often like to use Graduated Neutral Density filters, in which case, a filter holder is preferable.

[Bigvern1263]

Have seen some sweet shots with the 25mm, by Hark lee, hes a member on here. I find the 35mm A lens also does a great job, as you say for a fraction of the cost.

just another aside, re Ryans comment, why do we spend a small fortune on Lens/Glass then stick a $100US or pounds/Yen, Lee or other cheap glass filter in front ?? Kinda defeats the purpose, do you not think?

I have found the DR of the 645D has negated my use of filters to some degree, dont get me wrong i still use them, but the issues they throw up when shooting seascapes and out in stormy/foggy/cool/humid conditions, seem to outweigh the benefits , especially when software is now so good . I know get it right in camera etc etc, but it still is a cheap piece of glass/plastic in front of your $5000 lens !

Anyway sorry to go off topic, gotta go take some shots

[Ryan Tischer]

IMHO, I'd rather get the image right in camera and make a small sacrifice in overall image quality due to the filter. Of course, if the DR of the scene can be handled by the camera, then I don't use them. Then I'll just process the same RAW file two or three times for shadows, highlights, and maybe midtones. I think a lot of other folks do that as well.

The other way is to brackett and HDR later...which I do sometimes as well, but find it harder to get a natural looking scene than just getting it right in camera, or reprocessing the same RAW file. I think HDR is overdone by a lot of amateurs, and in my humble opinion (and in my practice) the goal of HDR is to get an image closer to the original scene than is normally possible with a single exposure...but that's just my take on it and personal style. I've seen some really good 'extreme' HDR's done as well, but IMHO it's mostly a fad that's been overdone to some extent. HDR is easy to do, but hard to do well!

Getting to Bigvern1263's comment, I don't think it's defeating the purpose to use a $100 filter on a $5000 lens, as long as the results you are getting are good. After all, it's not just the clarity of the 25mm (as I think the 35mm is probably just as sharp and I got mine for $700 vs. the 25mm at $5000)...it's also the unique wide angle perspective that the 25mm offers.

Let's say you captured a GREAT image using the 25mm lens and used a 'cheap' $100 graduated ND filter...I doubt anyone will look at the image and say "Ohh, wow that image looks great with a proper exposure but I can tell that you used a cheap filter on it, and because of that the image is ruined." I just don't see that happening.

[Yamanobori]

The "cheap" filter in front of an "expensive" lens argument is a bit of a myth. Optical blanks are easier to make than a lens element. That does not mean you don't buy good multicoated filters rather than the cheapest available, but a negative impact of a good filter will never be seen.

[DandA]

The "cheap" filter in front of an "expensive" lens argument is a bit of a myth. Optical blanks are easier to make than a lens element. That does not mean you don't buy good multicoated filters rather than the cheapest available, but a negative impact of a good filter will never be seen.

For the most part, I completely agree with this statement!

Dave (DandA)

[aeros]

Some very good opinions stated here. I come away much better informed.

[Zygonyx]

Speaking of ND filters with the D-FA 25mm f/4, i have tried two "ND 8" types :
- Pixco : very good results with fine color rendering
- Haïda : pretty underexposed results albeit with longer exposure in Av mode, with green washing

Just in case

[Newmoon]

Well they may be inexpensive compared to $4500 for the lens, but Lee resin filters aren't cheap at around $100-$130 a piece of 100mm x 150mm resin!
By the time you've got a holder and three filters, and the polariser, you are up to around $600-$700, more if you have the hood, and lot more if you have a set of both soft and hard edge filters.
UK photographer Joe Cornish uses these most of the time with a Phase One IQ180 back (80MP) and I presume he wouldn't do so if it degraded image quality (although he may possibly be sponsored by Lee Filters).

[Bigvern1263]

No, dont get me wrong i was more curious as to what others did in this respect, as i also have the Lee filter kit and filters and use on my 645D, but with software being so good and the ability to multiple expose and blend etc, sometimes the hassles involved with keeping clean in particular salt spray/rain etc , streaking down the front. Recently conditions/sun/sky dependent, i have shot without them and the 645D is handling it very well. I can always darken a tad in PS/ACR/NIK etc if need be. Then all i have to worry about is keeping front glass clean/clear.
Each to there own of course.
Thanks for comments and insights.