Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-08-2012, 06:56 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 164
90 f2.8 thread

I figured I would start up a thread about this upcoming lens. Personally I am excited about it. Right now my 2 goto lenses for portraits have been the 120mm f4 and 150mm f2.8. 90% of the time I use the 120 at about f11-16. I use the 150mm usually at f2.8 for that really shallow dof. The issue with the 150 is how long it is. The issue with the 120mm is that its a macro....so if you miss focus it's a pain (slowwwww). I think the 90 will fill the gap.

I really hope this lens is nice and sharp.

I also hope its affordable. Anyone have any guesses as to what the price will be?

Anyone else excited about this lens?

02-08-2012, 07:11 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,958
My price guess: $2999. I'm sure it'll do well as a portrait lens, though I would opt for something a little longer.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-08-2012, 07:25 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
... though I would opt for something a little longer.
The mock up I saw at the Pentax Photo Salon was really long for a 90mm--significantly bigger than my 120mm. I will probably stick with my 120 and 67 105...
02-08-2012, 10:30 PM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
I don't understand why anyone would want this focal length for portraits. Come on, 60mm equivalent??? WTF are they smoking.
It's not freaking rocket science to figure out they need the crop sensor eqivalent of the fabulous 135mm LS.

02-09-2012, 08:04 AM   #5
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by NotaxPen Quote
I don't understand why anyone would want this focal length for portraits. Come on, 60mm equivalent??? WTF are they smoking.
It's not freaking rocket science to figure out they need the crop sensor eqivalent of the fabulous 135mm LS.
Because it's meant for the 645D. 55mm is a normal there, this is a (90/55 = 1.63x normal) ~81mm equivalent lens on crop sensor. Just a bit shorter than 135mm on film (~90mm equivalent).

I wonder how well it'll sell considering it fills a role similar to the 120mm Macro, which is offered in a FA version and is only a small fraction of what the 90/2.8 is speculated above to cost. There's also a 90mm f/2.8 leaf shutter lens for P67, which while manual focus will work fine on the 645. Come to think of it, there's a P67 non-LS 90/2.8 as well. It just seems redundant given the existing/adaptable glass. I'm a 67 guy though, not 645, so maybe everyone has been crying out for an autofocus option between 75 and 120mm and I just don't know it.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 02-09-2012 at 08:14 AM.
02-09-2012, 09:26 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
And the lens can be optimized for the sensor giving better resolution. It also communicates with the body and so exif and corrections can be attached/made to the file. I have a 67 105mm and I expect this to be a finer lens.

Actually, this will be a great lens for portraiture. The 120mm is a little too long and compresses features too much IMHO. I think they are also billing this for copy work, where this is also a great focal length.
02-09-2012, 09:58 AM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 164
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
My price guess: $2999. I'm sure it'll do well as a portrait lens, though I would opt for something a little longer.
Man I hope your guess is wrong. I was thinking $1999. $2999 is a little steep IMO. I don't think I would pay $2999 for that lens
02-09-2012, 10:29 AM   #8
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Yamanobori Quote
And the lens can be optimized for the sensor giving better resolution. It also communicates with the body and so exif and corrections can be attached/made to the file. I have a 67 105mm and I expect this to be a finer lens.

Actually, this will be a great lens for portraiture. The 120mm is a little too long and compresses features too much IMHO. I think they are also billing this for copy work, where this is also a great focal length.
"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses. My P67 lenses are quite sharp. If there's something to optimize, then there's a difference in the way film and a sensor receive light. Not just spectral sensitivities, but an actual physical difference in ability to collect light. An example would be if sensors received light coming in at an oblique angle more poorly or something, and that caused color fringing or vignetting at the edges. Since all SLR lenses have the rear element quite far from the film, that seems unlikely. It could be a point with rangefinders, where the rear elements are often much closer to the film/sensor, and I believe Leica does use microlenses and such to try and counter this. They're still known for a bit of a red tint to the edge of their images.

I agree body communication could be a thing, autofocus will be nice, but I doubt it will perform *that much* better than an adapted P67 90/2.8. It's a really good lens with a lot of fans, seems like moreso than the 105/2.4. I'm not saying the new 90/2.8 isn't a good purchase for anyone, only that it seems like it's trying to fulfill a very specific niche (covers 645, 75 is too wide, 120 is too long, zooms are too slow, must have autofocus) and the number of people who both fit in that niche and have $2000-3000 to blow on a lens seems small to me. And yet people tell me there's no market for a FF DLSR body


Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 02-09-2012 at 01:14 PM.
02-09-2012, 12:52 PM   #9
Senior Member
klaus123's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 205
Hello

I would be curious whether this lens in section view is similar to the old 6x7-90/2,8LS.
Honetly I am a little bit disappointed that Pentax does do not exceed the 2.8 to 2,4 or 2.0. With the sensor significantly smaller than full 645 that should have been feasable
02-09-2012, 01:39 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses. My P67 lenses are quite sharp. If there's something to optimize, then there's a difference in the way film and a sensor receive light. Not just spectral sensitivities, but an actual physical difference in ability to collect light. An example would be if sensors received light coming in at an oblique angle more poorly or something, and that caused color fringing or vignetting at the edges. Since all SLR lenses have the rear element quite far from the film, that seems unlikely. It could be a point with rangefinders, where the rear elements are often much closer to the film/sensor, and I believe Leica does use microlenses and such to try and counter this. They're still known for a bit of a red tint to the edge of their images.

I agree body communication could be a thing, autofocus will be nice, but I doubt it will perform *that much* better than an adapted P67 90/2.8. It's a really good lens with a lot of fans, seems like moreso than the 105/2.4. I'm not saying the new 90/2.8 isn't a good purchase for anyone, only that it seems like it's trying to fulfill a very specific niche (covers 645, 75 is too wide, 120 is too long, zooms are too slow, must have autofocus) and the number of people who both fit in that niche and have $2000-3000 to blow on a lens seems small to me. And yet people tell me there's no market for a FF DLSR body
They can give it more of a telecentric design, which is important with DSLRs, not just rangefinders, and they can also emphasize resolving power over contrast. None of that is marketing but practical changes to the optical formula.

I hope the new lens works better than a P67 90mm. The P67 105mm is OK on the 645D; I have not heard the 90mm is much better.

The number of people who blow $10K on a camera are small too.
02-09-2012, 06:20 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses.
Actually Leica range finder lenses aren't optimised at all for digital sensors* - Leica continues to make their lenses the way they have since the 1950's. However Pentax adds ghostless coatings to counteract ghosting that can be an issue with faster lenses** Also there are other coatings and optical design principles that have to be used to make the most of a CCD sensor - but those optimisations are more important on wide angle rather than short telephoto lenses.


*apart from the lens coding barcodes on the lens mounts, but they only provide rudimentary amount of information on the lens that was used.

**have Have seen it with my SMC-K 50mm f/1.2, which curiously produces ghosts that are nearly always red.
02-09-2012, 07:34 PM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 123
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
Because it's meant for the 645D. 55mm is a normal there, this is a (90/55 = 1.63x normal) ~81mm equivalent lens on crop sensor. Just a bit shorter than 135mm on film (~90mm equivalent).

I wonder how well it'll sell considering it fills a role similar to the 120mm Macro, which is offered in a FA version and is only a small fraction of what the 90/2.8 is speculated above to cost. There's also a 90mm f/2.8 leaf shutter lens for P67, which while manual focus will work fine on the 645. Come to think of it, there's a P67 non-LS 90/2.8 as well. It just seems redundant given the existing/adaptable glass. I'm a 67 guy though, not 645, so maybe everyone has been crying out for an autofocus option between 75 and 120mm and I just don't know it.

The 135 LS I speak of is NOT a 35mm lens. It is a 645 Leaf Shutter lens which is the equivalent of a 35mm 85mm.

If the 645D crop factor is indeed 1.27, a direct comparison would be 135/1.27=106.3.
106.3mm would be the same FOV on the smaller sensor.
Now of course I'm not expecting exactly 106.3mm, but how about getting in the same ballpark.

The 645 135LS was already a slightly wide-ish portrait lens. Most 645 systems used 150mm, Double the focal length of the "Normal" 75mm.

What am I missing here?
02-09-2012, 08:37 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 164
Original Poster
i think the term "portrait lens" is very subjective. Back when I was using MF Film everyone pretty much said 120mm -150mm...anything longer would flatten things. When I moved to my first DSLR everyone was saying 50mm (35mm film equiv). I personally hated using a 50mm so I opted for a canon 85mm and shot it around f8. For me this worked well....no noticeable distortion. I know most people in the portrait professional would laugh at the idea of a 50mm (35 equiv) as a portrait lens.

Now my studio is not as large as I wish it would be. If I had more room a 150mm would be perfect but for now the 120mm works perfectly for me. Going down to a 90mm will work fine for me. I do professional portraits but not on a large scale. Most of my stuff is a mix. Yes I would of rather seen something a little longer
02-09-2012, 09:16 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
90mm on a 645D (44x33) has an equivalent angle of view to:

135: 71mm
APS: 46mm
645: 115mm
02-10-2012, 09:32 AM   #15
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
I think for the current sensor this would make a nice portraitlens. I did expect something like 105mm or so. For a real size next 645D it would be a little short for portrait I guess.
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!
120mm, 150mm, camera, f2.8, hope, issue, lens, medium format, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I started a K-5 Praise thread, now the Complaint thread imtheguy Pentax K-5 46 11-01-2010 09:20 AM
Suggestion Add Previous/Next Thread links at the top of each thread indytax Site Suggestions and Help 3 03-17-2009 05:40 PM
News New Feature: Thread start date in thread listing Adam Site Suggestions and Help 10 10-28-2008 12:33 PM
Typical lens line-up thread mk07138 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 04-13-2008 09:02 PM
DFA50mm f2.8 1:1 Macro - LBA Thread Asad_Masede Post Your Photos! 30 01-03-2007 01:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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