[Dan James]

Just uploaded some more K10D pictures to Flickr, and clicked through to the stats for Pentax cameras. Guess what the camera with most uploaded picture is (with 17,701,779)? Yep, the Pentax K10D. If you look at Samsung, you can add another 1.4M taken with the Pentax K10D clone, the GX10... Pentax really struck gold, and a chord with so many...

Pentax K10D with SMC Pentax-A Zoom 35-105mm f/3.5 - a weighty but winning combo...

[BigMackCam]

Just uploaded some more K10D pictures to Flickr, and clicked through to the stats for Pentax cameras. Guess what the camera with most uploaded picture is (with 17,701,779)? Yep, the Pentax K10D.

Is that in total, Dan, or just the ones you've uploaded??

[Dan James]

Is that in total, Dan, or just the ones you've uploaded??

Well I've only had my K10D about six months now, so my uploads must only account for about 10% of that... Seriously, I have uploaded 141, which is more than I have with any film SLR. But to be fair I've never used any film camera consistently in the way I've used the K10D, before trying something else. Even my beloved Contax 139 Quartz, probably my favourite film camera I've ever had, I only have 95 shots with on Flickr. Which in itself shows how much I rate the K10D...

[Orbus]

Is that in total, Dan, or just the ones you've uploaded??

I like to think I've helped a wee bit in that department!

[ChristianRock]

So while I was out for a photo walk during lunch time, I took shots from a house with 4 lenses to compare and see how they fare against one another... all in the wide/normal range: I decided to shoot with the Tokina 24 2.8, the Pentax-M 28 3.5, the Rikenon 28 2.8 and the Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5, all at f8. The Tokina being use at 24 and 28mm (but 24 ended up being 26, I think the marking on the lens is wrong, or maybe I moved the lens after I set it at 24mm...

In the end, dust bunnies showed up and I was pretty mad at that. I only saw them after I got back... I did take a shot at 19mm (camera always says it's 20mm) with the 19-35 and the dust bunnies aren't quite apparent, so I thought I'd post it here, so at least not all is lost...



Anyway, the conclusion is that they are all sharp enough the zoom renders warmer than the primes, which render very, very similarly even though they're 3 different brands. I was a bit surprised by that.

And with the same lens (Tokina 19-35), at the park...



---------- Post added 10-05-17 at 04:49 PM ----------

K10D and Plastic Fantastic DA 35 2.4 can be a sharp and colorful combo...

[goatsNdonkey]

Dulcimer player.



Sigma UC (af) f4-5.6 24-50mm
K10D

[Dartmoor Dave]

Dulcimer player.

The painterly effect of the blur to the face and hands is really beautiful, and gives it a sense of other-worldliness that goes so well with the ancient instrument he's playing.

[goatsNdonkey]

The painterly effect of the blur to the face and hands is really beautiful, and gives it a sense of other-worldliness that goes so well with the ancient instrument he's playing.

It might have all been painterly blur, as I was hand-holding the shot at a very marginal shutter speed for that! The young fellow's father makes dulcimers, and he's been playing them since the age of eight, and now is also helping make them I hear.

[Dartmoor Dave]

It might have all been painterly blur, as I was hand-holding the shot at a very marginal shutter speed for that! The young fellow's father makes dulcimers, and he's been playing them since the age of eight, and now is also helping make them I hear.

Looking at it again I've suddenly realised why I sat here enjoying it for ten minutes this morning and like it even more now. Sorry if saying this sounds horribly arty-farty and pretentious, but the effect of the colours (especially the blue in the background), and particularly the effect of the blur on the man's face, reminds me of paintings by Vermeer.

[goatsNdonkey]

Looking at it again I've suddenly realised why I sat here enjoying it for ten minutes this morning and like it even more now. Sorry if saying this sounds horribly arty-farty and pretentious, but the effect of the colours (especially the blue in the background), and particularly the effect of the blur on the man's face, reminds me of paintings by Vermeer.

I didn't take it as a snide remark. The blue background is from the blue tarps hung moments earlier to keep the rain, that had just started, from blowing in on the instruments.



.

[Bhuey55]

First photo K10D with K30 f2.8 @f8, the rest are with A 70-210 f4

[Dan James]

So while I was out for a photo walk during lunch time, I took shots from a house with 4 lenses to compare and see how they fare against one another... all in the wide/normal range: I decided to shoot with the Tokina 24 2.8, the Pentax-M 28 3.5, the Rikenon 28 2.8 and the Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5, all at f8. The Tokina being use at 24 and 28mm (but 24 ended up being 26, I think the marking on the lens is wrong, or maybe I moved the lens after I set it at 24mm...

In the end, dust bunnies showed up and I was pretty mad at that. I only saw them after I got back... I did take a shot at 19mm (camera always says it's 20mm) with the 19-35 and the dust bunnies aren't quite apparent, so I thought I'd post it here, so at least not all is lost...



Anyway, the conclusion is that they are all sharp enough the zoom renders warmer than the primes, which render very, very similarly even though they're 3 different brands. I was a bit surprised by that.

And with the same lens (Tokina 19-35), at the park...



---------- Post added 10-05-17 at 04:49 PM ----------

K10D and Plastic Fantastic DA 35 2.4 can be a sharp and colorful combo...

Interesting doing these tests for lenses that cover a similar focal length. I've done a number in the past, usually in trying to decide whether a zoom can replace a prime for one particular focal length, or a number of primes of different focal lengths.


Sometimes I've found that a zoom covers a focal length I don't have as a prime anyway, plus another two or three I do have, but the zoom is good enough to use at these also.


My conclusions are nearly always like yours, "sharp enough" for my needs.


I have noticed more of a difference in aspects such as bokeh and closeness of focus, which are both pretty important for my kind of photography.


The SMC Pentax-A 35-105/3.5 has almost single-handedly reprogrammed my attitude to zooms. Before I thought they were slow, cumbersome, heavy, awkward, don't focus close enough, produce ugly bokeh and overly soft images. But the 35-105, whilst it is quite heavy, performs excellently, focuses very close, and can be very sharp. Great colours too. Bokeh at longer focal lengths is more than acceptable if not as smooth and creamy as a slightly faster prime. Being f/3.5 max aperture it also allows enough light in for focusing to be fine on the K10D/GX10, and in very low light conditions I just trust the focus confirm hexagon in the VF.


The A series 24-50/4 has not been quite such a success. It performs very well, and is light and compact considering it covers in effect a set of 24, 28, 35, 40 and 50mm lenses in one package. But f/4 can be a bit slow in lower light where you're forced to shoot wide open, or can't at all. Worse, the close focus of 0.4m is fine at 50mm, but at 24mm (the main reason I bought the lens) it's just not close enough for my needs. So I ended up getting a Miranda (Cosina made) 24/2.8 prime which goes down to less than 0.2m. I can't decide whether to keep the 24-50 as it does perform well. I just have better and faster prime options at 24, 28, 35 and 50mm, and at 35 and above the 35-105 is more practical and usable option...

[ChristianRock]

Interesting doing these tests for lenses that cover a similar focal length. I've done a number in the past, usually in trying to decide whether a zoom can replace a prime for one particular focal length, or a number of primes of different focal lengths.


Sometimes I've found that a zoom covers a focal length I don't have as a prime anyway, plus another two or three I do have, but the zoom is good enough to use at these also.


My conclusions are nearly always like yours, "sharp enough" for my needs.


I have noticed more of a difference in aspects such as bokeh and closeness of focus, which are both pretty important for my kind of photography.


The SMC Pentax-A 35-105/3.5 has almost single-handedly reprogrammed my attitude to zooms. Before I thought they were slow, cumbersome, heavy, awkward, don't focus close enough, produce ugly bokeh and overly soft images. But the 35-105, whilst it is quite heavy, performs excellently, focuses very close, and can be very sharp. Great colours too. Bokeh at longer focal lengths is more than acceptable if not as smooth and creamy as a slightly faster prime. Being f/3.5 max aperture it also allows enough light in for focusing to be fine on the K10D/GX10, and in very low light conditions I just trust the focus confirm hexagon in the VF.


The A series 24-50/4 has not been quite such a success. It performs very well, and is light and compact considering it covers in effect a set of 24, 28, 35, 40 and 50mm lenses in one package. But f/4 can be a bit slow in lower light where you're forced to shoot wide open, or can't at all. Worse, the close focus of 0.4m is fine at 50mm, but at 24mm (the main reason I bought the lens) it's just not close enough for my needs. So I ended up getting a Miranda (Cosina made) 24/2.8 prime which goes down to less than 0.2m. I can't decide whether to keep the 24-50 as it does perform well. I just have better and faster prime options at 24, 28, 35 and 50mm, and at 35 and above the 35-105 is more practical and usable option...

I understand very well where you're coming from...

To me the lens that changed my attitude towards zooms was the SMC-A 70-210mm f4 macro. It's sharp (my copy is) at the ends of the range, and very sharp in the middle. The colors are great, the bokeh is always pleasing to me, and even the built-in hood is a very nice touch. I find the 70mm f4 end is perfect for portraits, it gives them a very flattering look while being just sharp enough (not as sharp as to be clinically sharp yet). It kind of makes me want the DA 70 2.4...

Another zoom that I am very pleased with is the aforementioned Tokina 19-35mm - for what it is. The two faults is that my copy at 19mm f/3.5 is useless, but at f/4.5 it is sharp in the center throughout the range! So I just treat it as a constant f/4.5 lens. I'll use f8 when I can as it always gives a great look to the pictures, very detailed, basically as good as anything I've seen from lenses like the DA 21mm.

However I wanted to go just a bit wider and had been looking for a Tokina 17 3.5 for a long time, never finding one I could afford - their price had just gone up quite a lot when I started looking as I think the demand really started being greater than the supply... the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm f2 was another lens I lusted after, but couldn't come up with the money for it... eventually I found the DA 16-45mm f4 for 120 dollars on Amazon and never looked back. I find that it perfectly fills that 16mm range and it is used a lot as the family general use lens now. I also usually use it in Av at f/4.5 throughout the range and it works great there. The only reason I keep the Tokina is in case I ever get the K-1... or if I start shooting film again.

Like you I also had a quest for a 24mm prime... and never really considered the 24-50mm from pictures I saw from it. I figured since it costs about the same as the DA 16-45 (and the DA 16-45 even covers full frame at 24-45mm!), I would always get the 16-45 if it came to getting an f4 zoom. Which I did. But I did also play around with 24mm f/2.8 lenses - first was a Rokinon, identical in all things to the RMC Tokina 24 2.8 (so I know that's what it is) but my copy had severe optical issues, as if one of the elements had been put in reversed or something... only acceptably sharp at f/2.8 and never pixel peep sharp. So I sold that even cheaper than I got it with full disclosure... and got the SMC K 24 2.8. Which is a wonderful lens, but I felt that sharpness at infinity wasn't great (a known issue with that design) but I was still happy with it... but an opportunity knocked where I could trade it for the SMC M 50 f4 macro (and I had no real macro lens) and the Vivitar Cosina 24 2.8 with A contacts. I figured, I get to keep a 24mm 2.8 lens and also get a macro prime - and help another forum member who had these lenses just gathering dust. The Vivitar 24 has the infinity sharpness that I wanted, although the magic of the SMC 24 2.8 with medium and close range objects can't be replicated... One day I'll get another Pentax 24 2.8 because that lens is just incredible in its own quirky ways...

After I was happy with the Vivitar 24 2.8 I came across a Tokina 24 2.8 (with A contacts) for 14 dollars shipped. Couldn't say no to that Upon receiving it, I see that it is the *exact* same lens as the Vivitar 24 2.8 except for the markings. Everything else is identical down to the reflections of the coatings. So either it's a Vivitar Tokina starting with a 9 (which is the Cosina number...) or Tokina rebadged a Cosina lens. I believe it's the latter. Either way, both lenses are just as good. I'm keeping the Tokina as well as the Vivitar because when taking the Ricoh pin off the Tokina, I messed up and lost the little ball bearings that provide the clicks for aperture and A positions... now it's a "video lens" with clickless aperture changes... A setting still works fine though

That's a little part of my story as compared to your own quest....

[paulh]

From June with the K10D & DA18-55:

[The Squirrel Mafia]

These are not from a K10D, but they were shot with a Sony A200 that shared the same exact 10MP CCD sensor. They're were all shot at ISO 800 with the Sony 50mm f/1.8 prime. I don't have the camera anymore, but when I was able to nail the shots, they came out amazing. These were taken at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA back in June of 2013.















Makes me want to pick up a K10D or even look for an old Sony A200 again. That 10MP CCD sensor was full of excellence & win!