Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2010, 07:34 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I'll gladly trade some advise or the A 35F2 also the super tak 105

seriously though, I see you keeping the M85F2 when you don;t like it, I have to question that?

otherwise, the 100 is of less use in my opinion than the 135 but I would try for the F2.5 not the F3.5
The 135/2 vs/135/3.5 debate is a good one. I have the 135/3.5 and borrowed the 135/2.5 for comparison.

Funny you bring up those excellent lenses. The 2.5 is...as expected...noticeably softer at 2.5. It just is. At 3.5 it is very, very good bordering on excellent. By f/4 it's terrific.

The 3.5 is very, very good at 3.5. Same as the 2.5 at f/4. It's also usually 30% the price and weighs 55% of the K series 2.5.

You're getting 1.3 stops faster with the versatility that brings (identical bokeh between the 2, BTW, but that's common at long FL) from the K 135/2.5, but at 3x the cost and almost 2x the weight, plus the 2.5 is visibly softer.

I have a copy of the 3.5, and my neighbour, a pro shooter, a very early 2.5, as in the serial # must be from the first production run. She would like the lighter weight of mine, and at times I would like the extra stop of hers. As with everything, there's trade-offs. As someone with an economics background, I know where the best bang for the buck lies. Side-by-side, the photos from each look no different between them.

07-15-2010, 04:28 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I'll gladly trade some advise or the A 35F2 also the super tak 105

seriously though, I see you keeping the M85F2 when you don;t like it, I have to question that?

otherwise, the 100 is of less use in my opinion than the 135 but I would try for the F2.5 not the F3.5

I would think for digital, the 16, 21, 28, 50, a better 85 (perhaps the samyang F1.4) and 135 would be the kit to go for.
Just a second, I'm not saying I'm keeping the 85, but as this yeatzee guy is so excited about it I figured I could give it a proper chance.
Concerning the 100 vs 135, I find the 135 /always/ too long for portraits, whereas I don't feel the 100 is too short for my tele needs. I'm just not that much of a tele guy

I think a 28 would be too close to the 21 for me, I wouldn't change lenses for that. Except for when the 28 would be a good low-light performer, that would make it useful for different occasions. But I once had a Kiron 28/2 and wasn't impressed by it's IQ wide open...

So I think I fit in Aristophanes' school of thought, I like fast lenses, but not at every price. I also want them small, light, affordable, and usable wide open. And I think there are only a few of those. I've been tempted by the samyang when it first came out, but although sometimes fun, I think it's not one that could be part of my 'go anywhere' kit. And I'd first like to get that one figured out, before I indulge in the 85/1.4s, 50/1.2s, 10mm fisheyes, and other specialty lenses.
07-15-2010, 04:50 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The 135/2 vs/135/3.5 debate is a good one. I have the 135/3.5 and borrowed the 135/2.5 for comparison.

Funny you bring up those excellent lenses. The 2.5 is...as expected...noticeably softer at 2.5. It just is. At 3.5 it is very, very good bordering on excellent. By f/4 it's terrific.

The 3.5 is very, very good at 3.5. Same as the 2.5 at f/4. It's also usually 30% the price and weighs 55% of the K series 2.5.

You're getting 1.3 stops faster with the versatility that brings (identical bokeh between the 2, BTW, but that's common at long FL) from the K 135/2.5, but at 3x the cost and almost 2x the weight, plus the 2.5 is visibly softer.

I have a copy of the 3.5, and my neighbour, a pro shooter, a very early 2.5, as in the serial # must be from the first production run. She would like the lighter weight of mine, and at times I would like the extra stop of hers. As with everything, there's trade-offs. As someone with an economics background, I know where the best bang for the buck lies. Side-by-side, the photos from each look no different between them.
I don't know abouot this, I do not have the K135F3.5 but I do have the SMC tak, I find the K135F2.5 better than the smc tak across the board, and it is sharp even wide open. you have to remember not to confuse narrow dof with being soft.

QuoteOriginally posted by urje Quote
Just a second, I'm not saying I'm keeping the 85, but as this yeatzee guy is so excited about it I figured I could give it a proper chance.
Concerning the 100 vs 135, I find the 135 /always/ too long for portraits, whereas I don't feel the 100 is too short for my tele needs. I'm just not that much of a tele guy
I would find the 100 too close to the 85 and at a stop slower I don't understand the usefulness of the lens, I would think a 135 is better, especially for outdoor portraits.
QuoteQuote:
I think a 28 would be too close to the 21 for me, I wouldn't change lenses for that. Except for when the 28 would be a good low-light performer, that would make it useful for different occasions. But I once had a Kiron 28/2 and wasn't impressed by it's IQ wide open...

So I think I fit in Aristophanes' school of thought, I like fast lenses, but not at every price. I also want them small, light, affordable, and usable wide open. And I think there are only a few of those. I've been tempted by the samyang when it first came out, but although sometimes fun, I think it's not one that could be part of my 'go anywhere' kit. And I'd first like to get that one figured out, before I indulge in the 85/1.4s, 50/1.2s, 10mm fisheyes, and other specialty lenses.
I got the vivitar 85 F1.4 because I gave up waiting for either the K1.8 or any of the tak 1.8's or 1.9s. I have taken it as part of a 3 lens kit (10-20, 28-75 and the 85) plus the 1.7x AF TC to paris and found that both on its own and when used with the AF TC it offers great shots. I have also travelled with the same two zooms and my 135F2.5 and would after travelling with both options take the vivitar 85 plus the TC as it offers more flexibility,

I think on the wide end you have to remember there is a big difference in FOV between a 21 and a 28mm, 21 to 35mm would be too big a gap in my opinion.

at the ultra wide end, an 8mm fisheye is interesting. My next trip, which will be all city bound will be 4 lenses only

8mm Samyang 180 degree fisheye, sigma 10-20, tamron 28-75 F2.8 and the vivitar 85mmF1.4 plus the 1.7x AF TC to get me out to 145mm when I need it.
07-15-2010, 05:59 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by urje Quote
Just a second, I'm not saying I'm keeping the 85, but as this yeatzee guy is so excited about it I figured I could give it a proper chance.
Concerning the 100 vs 135, I find the 135 /always/ too long for portraits, whereas I don't feel the 100 is too short for my tele needs. I'm just not that much of a tele guy

I think a 28 would be too close to the 21 for me, I wouldn't change lenses for that. Except for when the 28 would be a good low-light performer, that would make it useful for different occasions. But I once had a Kiron 28/2 and wasn't impressed by it's IQ wide open...

So I think I fit in Aristophanes' school of thought, I like fast lenses, but not at every price. I also want them small, light, affordable, and usable wide open. And I think there are only a few of those. I've been tempted by the samyang when it first came out, but although sometimes fun, I think it's not one that could be part of my 'go anywhere' kit. And I'd first like to get that one figured out, before I indulge in the 85/1.4s, 50/1.2s, 10mm fisheyes, and other specialty lenses.
The pros I know very rarely (less than 1%) shoot below 2.8 because their paymasters want sharp. As can be seen from MTF tests, the vast majority of lenses can become demonstrably, visibly less sharp, even at centre, sub-2.8. But nearly every lens looks to hit the Excellent section of the curve by 2.8, certainly by 3.5, and by f/4 you'd need a 2'x3' print to see the difference between f/4 and f/11.

There's a reason why most pro glass starts at 2.8. The manufacturers are not stupid. Furthermore, the shallower the DOF, the less accurate AF is, but also, framing becomes an issue. If you're getting paid for sharp, and you're shooting a shallow DOF, all your framing is spot on centre. It has to be. The lens constricts your framing. So the Golden Rule goes out the window as do a lot of other creative opportunities. Too shallow a DOF and you're into a stylistic dead end, a cliche.

The Pentax 85/2 looks to be an excellent piece of glass as is my Rokkor of the exact same range. They are both slightly, visibly compromised at f/2. Stop down once and you're in a long sweet spot all the way up to f/11.

There must be 100 threads a year on PF with the same issue: buy a fast lens, feel some disappointment about its performance wide open (noticable softness, even a little bit at centre), followed by an acceptance of the limitations of fast glass. I remember this exact same discussion in a camera club in 1979 (I was 14)!

07-16-2010, 09:16 AM   #20
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
For wide-open sharpness across the entire frame, use an enlarger lens. For maximum sharpness cheaply, use a slow lens. For maximum speed without maximum expense, learn to live with edge softness. A now-famous shot of Al Gore in 2000 taken with a Holga exemplefies this -- the edge and corner crappiness draws the eye in towards the dramatic gesture.

As for my 75-odd Pentax-mountable lenses (is that too many?), I don't use them all simultaneously. I've narrowed down my carry-kit: Zenitar 16/2.8, DA18-250, M28/2.8, FA50/1.4, Vivitar 90/2.8 macro, TeleTak 200/5.6. Others I'm most likely to toss in are the DA10-17, Tak 35/3.5, Industar 50/3.5 on tubes, Nikkor 85/2, Tak 135/2.5, and Sakar 500/8 mirror. (If I ever get my Vivitar 24/2 fixed, it joins the club.) And sometimes the Meyers: 50/1.8 Oreston, 100/2.8 Trioplan, 180/5.5 Telemegor; and the Enna 240/4.5 Tele-Ennalyt. And my other 28s and 35s and 50-58s and 135s and 200s get their turns, especially the Germans and Russians. And the DA18-55, which handily mounts many different filters and distorters. And the Schneider Betavaron 50-125 enarger zoom. Et cetera.

Unhappy with your kit? Force yourself to use each lens exclusively for a week. Old pros often got by for decades with just a 28 or 35, a fast 50, and a 135 -- the equivalent now would be 18 or 24, and 35, and 90. Toss in your Zenitar, and a fast 50-58, and a 135, and you're 95% covered.

So get more old cheap manual lenses. Those I mention above all deliver distinct images, as well as just feeling different to use -- varying weight, balance, etc. For example, as short teles, I expect and get varying qualities from my Nikkor and Jupiter 85/2's, the Vivitar 90/2.8 macro, the Meyer 100/2.8, the Apos 90/4.5 and Novoflex 105/3.5 enlarger lenses on bellows -- and they all handle differently. My Tak-A 70-200/4 and Sears-Ricoh 70-210/4 and Vivitar S1.V1 70-210/3.5 are also quite distinct, as are each of my dozen+ 50-55-58's.

Just because you don't use a lens now, doesn't mean you won't want it in the future.
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!
camera, ds, dslr, fov, k-x, kit, lens, lenses, light, photography, resolution, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cleaning/overhauling old lens awo425 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 06-04-2010 10:18 AM
Help! Dilemma in choosing my new lenses setup aaronius Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 05-02-2010 11:41 PM
Any Tips for fewer duds? cupic Photographic Technique 13 08-17-2009 12:00 AM
Best 4-5 Lense Setup/Your Dream Setup 68wSteve Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 65 02-11-2009 04:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K110D Setup: Body and Three Lenses & Free Shipping Buddha Jones Sold Items 8 03-16-2008 07:31 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 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