Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-03-2010, 01:07 PM   #1
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
FF and Wide Angles

Hey everyone

Sorry for another full frame thread, I understand it must be frustrating when no one has any good reason to believe they are on their way.

But I hear alot of interesting chatter about why full frame is not worth it for a lot of users. Right now I would agree, they are expensive. Quad core computers were also very expensive a few years ago.

In general I have no problems with the APS-C sensor quality EXCEPT for wide angles!

Wide angle old glass is hard to find, because wide used to be 20 something. Now 20 something is near normal. In order to get a wide angle shot, I need to buy a brand new EXPENSIVE lens. In Canada I'm talking about 800 dollars! Thats a far cry from the 28mm 2.8 I picked up for 100 bucks.

Furthermore when you get into the teens of the focal length, it's very hard to get a fast f stop. Hard and EXPENSVE. 800 dollar lenses are running at f4.

I don't know about you guys, but wouldn't you rather spend that extra 800 dollars on a camera body that will make old wide angle glass wide again?

I don't care about the mega pixels, give me a cheaper FF body with only 15 MP if you can. I just want my FOV!

Is anyone with me on this?

08-03-2010, 01:13 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
If you really want new, warranted lenses, wide angles in Canada are really expensive indeed. The cheapest one was the Tamron 12-24 at Aden several moons ago, and that was 429CAD before taxes, not counting the time you'll spend playing Tamron Roulette.

Imho the solution right now to go wider than the kit lens on the cheap is to buy the either the Zen 16, DA15, DA16-45 (if those are enough for you), or the Sigma 10-20mm used.

I used to think that I'll want full frame for the WA, but after owning the 10-20, my only reason to want FF other than to use takumars (and fa lims) is the 17mm/24mm TS lenses that Canon has, and Pentax doesn't have that lens anyway.
08-03-2010, 01:14 PM   #3
Pentaxian
Pablom's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 1,940
I hear you brother (better low light capability, field of view control, resolution and bigger viewfinder would be nice too)
08-03-2010, 01:16 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Pablom Quote
I hear you brother (better low light capability, field of view control, resolution and bigger viewfinder would be nice too)
Well, those would be really nice too (esp. viewfinder!), but I can do without them for now...

08-03-2010, 01:19 PM   #5
Senior Member
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 221
That's why I bought a Canon 5D : low Mpix sensor (so light RAW files, lenses don't need to be very sharp), which allows me to use my 15/3.5, and all my 85mm lenses, with a great viewfinder (you can use a Sigma 10-20 on the Pentax for ~$400, you will get the same fov as the 15, but you won't have the viewfinder). Of course I can also use my long lenses, I have what I need (300/2.8, 400/4, 500/4.5...). For the same picture, with the same lens, the FF gives you a shallower dof and a more important bokeh
08-03-2010, 01:22 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
While I use wider focal lengths a lot more, I think you'll find at least as many people appreciate the APS-C sensor at the tele end - especially because of the limited long Pentax glass. Be interested to see some feedback on your question.

That seems to be pricey for wide angles? One of the benefits of APS-C is that lenses dedicated to APS-C can be made smaller and cheaper (in some cases this seems to occur). I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 which was reasonably priced where I am.
08-03-2010, 01:54 PM   #7
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
It might be a Canada thing, and the used market will help, but most lenses run between 800-1000 new at henry's, so used we are talking between 400 - 600 if I'm lucky (used). Now compare that to a good old SMC-A or SMC-M prime.

Besides which, something rubs me the wrong way about buying a cheap lens that works on full frame or crop, or spending 8 - 10 times as much on something that won't work on full frame.

Glad to hear I'm not alone. I'm sure it will happen one day, but what worries me so much is that the DA lens line is huge... they would need to release a lot of new optics if they were to launch a full frame digital.
08-03-2010, 02:02 PM   #8
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,584
I got shot at, last time I dared mention this here (luv my SMC Pentax-A 15mm F3.5)

08-03-2010, 02:24 PM - 1 Like   #9
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
while it is true that wide angle is "seemingly" expensive on a digital, your reference of a 28mm is not the best either, as they were cheap on film,

Go to a 24mm and it gets different and 20mm is worse still.

I never ever fould 24mm wide enough on film, but the options to go wider were too expensive, and the older lenses (available at the time) were in excess of $400 new, and that was 20 years ago.

I paid $550 in 2006 for the sigma 10-20 and while it is F4-5.6 it equates to a 15mm - 30 film lens, and, although it is only APS-C rated it is full frame from 13mm on my PZ-1. Now 13mm on full frame is really really wide.

The point is, yes things are expensive, but in terms of comparing purchase price new $ from the 1970's and 1980's to today, lenses and cameras are a bargin today.

and just try to get an SMC 15mm today for < 400

also, if you thing we have it bad, look at the 4/3 bodies where the equivelent to the sigma 10-20 from Olympus (a 7-14mm) costs $1500 or more.

and who says a fast 15mm from canon is cheap, let alone the extra you pay just to have the FF body,

everything is a trade off.
08-03-2010, 03:51 PM   #10
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I paid $550 in 2006 for the sigma 10-20 and while it is F4-5.6 it equates to a 15mm - 30 film lens, and, although it is only APS-C rated it is full frame from 13mm on my PZ-1. Now 13mm on full frame is really really wide.
Even though I have yet to see this lens for anything close to 550 around these parts, that sounds promising to me.

Even if your zoom was only usable on film at 20mm, well that's still pretty good! The fact that it goes down to 13 on film sounds fantastic.

I also see your point about the trade offs - heck, I'm teaching myself photography SOLELY because digital takes all the cost out of developing photos. If it wasn't for that, there is no way I would be able to do anything I'm able to do.

You are right, I'm comparing apples to oranges because 28mm is not that wide on film... but its wide enough. Let's put it this way - my kit lens goes down to 18mm, and I find that nice and wide for landscapes. That is the equivalent of 27mm. You can find tonnes of 24-28 primes in the sub 300 dollar mark. Really wide stuff looks like a different story.

I've replaced the 28mm and 55mm mark on the kit with older primes, and the IQ difference is night and day. I'd love to replace the wide end, but my vintage options are extremely limited. That said, I would already have the wide end, if my camera was FF!

So the normal-wide I'm talking about was pretty obtainable on old cameras... not so much today. Photography is much more accessible, no question. I just really hope that one day, Pentax will allow me the option to sink my money into a FF body, instead of a super-expensive lens, in order to be able to take the pictures I want to take. (My kit works, but after seeing the world through an older prime, it's not really doing it for me, ESPECIALLY at 18mm).
08-03-2010, 04:39 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
In order to get a wide angle shot, I need to buy a brand new EXPENSIVE lens.
What about the DA18/3.5? A fabulous deal at around $100, and they'll even throw in 19-55mm for free!
08-03-2010, 05:01 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I just really hope that one day, Pentax will allow me the option to sink my money into a FF body, instead of a super-expensive lens, in order to be able to take the pictures I want to take. (My kit works, but after seeing the world through an older prime, it's not really doing it for me, ESPECIALLY at 18mm).
just go out and get a PZ-1. they're cheap and you can always check your exposure with a digital, then make the shot on film with the PZ-1

When I went digital, my *istD came with an 18-35mm full frame lens (from the *ist film days)

It was not wide enough on digital so I went the two bdoy approach, digital for normal to tele and film for wide angle.
08-03-2010, 06:32 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
What about the DA18/3.5? A fabulous deal at around $100, and they'll even throw in 19-55mm for free!
Not sure about the later versions but my mark i DA18-55mm was pretty ugly at 18mm at any f-stop, let alone at f/3.5.

Heck of a lot better than nothing at 18m though.
08-03-2010, 09:11 PM   #14
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Fishy but fixable: one of my most-used, the Zenitar 16/2.8 for under US$200.
Tokina-made 21/3.8, branded as Vivitar or Soligor or Lentar for under US$100.
I think I saw a Nikkor-AI 20/3.6 sell on eBay a couple days ago for under US$100.
The Nikkor base (bottom of the aperture ring, actually) may need some dremeling.

All manual, of course. Used, of course. Who really needs (new) AF under 18mm?
I have just one under-18mm lens with AF, the trusty DA10-17, fishier than Zen.
It generally doesn't do much autofocusing. It generally doesn't need to. Ahh...

But maybe no (or few) cheap manual primes make it across the USA-CAN border.
Maybe anything sent from elsewhere is held hostage by suspicious officialdom.
Maybe a friend is needed in Beefalo, Detroit, I-Falls, Bellingham, a border burg.
08-03-2010, 09:45 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Life is tough and then you die.
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!
angle, angles, body, camera, dollars, dslr, ff, frame, glass, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weather resistant wide angles...DA 18-55 WR, or DA* 16-50? Black Magic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-14-2009 06:01 PM
Cheap Wide angles? mikengstrom Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 06-05-2009 08:45 AM
Extreme Wide Angles wildman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 01-25-2009 10:20 AM
polarizers and wide angles ryno Photographic Technique 6 02-25-2008 12:19 PM
Help on wide angles! Jfax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-20-2007 12:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. | 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