Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2016, 05:08 AM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If money is important then it might be best to stay with APS-C.

If I were purchasing a (relatively) low cost line up for full frame, I would get a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, keep the FA 31 and DA *55 and add either a 20-ish mm legacy prime or Samyang 14mm/Irix 15mm lens. Auto focus is certainly not really important on your wide angle and I think that would cover things pretty well. The only question is telephoto, but unfortunately, that starts to get pricey. Cheapest option there is the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, which is a very nice lens, but even that is pretty expensive.
If weight was to go with no weight constraint I'd go sigma 24-70 and tamron 70-200. That would be 1300. Or otherwise keeping primes, try to pray somebody into selling his FA20 and give it a go with FA31, FA77 and F135.

08-01-2016, 05:09 AM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I shoot a lot of landscapes and my wife shoots weddings. For us, it ended up being clear that the K-1 was worth it -- more from a wedding stand point than a landscape standpoint.
There no constest for weddings or action/sport to me that FF is a better compromize
08-01-2016, 06:06 AM   #63
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
I've seen regrets that it doesn't reach 24mm and/or that it isn't a constant aperture. But I'm convinced that either of those would have greatly increased the size, weight, and cost. And/or would have reduced the image quality.

That's really beside the issue if you need a 24mm lens. I for one would not be without one....
08-01-2016, 06:36 AM - 1 Like   #64
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
My point was simply that you can construct a kit not too far off the kit that was mentioned. Also the comments about 900g were misleading in that they left out the k-3 weight and made the weight savings seem larger than it was.

I agree with many of the criticisms of the kit I proposed - but find no deficiency relative to the kit proposed by the originator except for the lack of 24mm field of view. That can be rectified but the weight begins to creep back up.
The lightweight kits I have tried are all over the map, and this exercise was interesting to me. I personally don't need a 300mm in my daily carry kit but I understand the appeal of being ready for anything. I have the k-3, da 15, the da 20-50, and the da 55-300. Typically this isn't my first choice kit but the appeal isn't lost on me. I'm more inclined to carry the da 20-40, and the da* 50-135 plus the HD da 1.4x tc. Then if wider perspectives are needed I will shoot vertical shots and stitch.

08-01-2016, 07:23 AM   #65
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
That's really beside the issue if you need a 24mm lens. I for one would not be without one....
I have both the new 15-30mm f/2.8 and the new 24-70mm f/2.8. They both have high FF quality at 24mm.

I'm making the point that Ricoh (which presumably has limited development resources for lens) should be initially going for lenses that are as different as possible from the current ones. And one of the new lenses I suggested was something like an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture lightish, smallish, "affordable" lens, which obviously also covers 24mm. These are the sorts of lenses that will increase the customer base for the K-1.

Only once they have the maximum spread of lenses, especially lightish, smallish, "affordable" lenses with high image quality, and (probably) new prime lenses as on the FF roadmap, should they they develop and release lenses that are near competitors.

There will always be a desire for a lens that is close to what they have but with perhaps just one parameter different. And when development resources become available, those small gaps can be filled. But what they currently lack to a massive degree are smallish, lightish, "affordable" zooms that are either side of the 28-105mm lens, (which exists and therefore need not be duplicated), and until they have these the Pentax FF lens range will be open to valid criticism.
08-01-2016, 07:26 AM   #66
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,095
I'll add one opinion to the mix that hasn't been addressed. I would classify myself as mostly a hobbyist but I do shoot sporting events locally and have shot events and a few weddings in the past couple of years (although I do it for relatives or very close friends). Most of us who are serious about our photography have 2 camera bodies. If you're doing sports or events or plan to move into doing that sort of thing, having 2 camera bodies is an absolute necessity. My combination right now is a K5, which I use mostly, and a K10D which is a backup or will have much different lens than the K5 so I don't have to change lenses.

Why not hold on to the K3 and add a K1? It's something I'm considering in the future. As for considering cost, other hobbies consume far more money than my photography. Accessories for my Harley would pay for a pair of K1's and what I spend on fishing tackle would easily cover a lens or two. I never sell my gear. I still have my Spotmatic I bought back in the early 70's. My lenses still get used from time to time although I have purchased a lot of newer AF glass in recent years.
08-01-2016, 08:25 AM   #67
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,118
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
My point was simply that you can construct a kit not too far off the kit that was mentioned. Also the comments about 900g were misleading in that they left out the k-3 weight and made the weight savings seem larger than it was.

I agree with many of the criticisms of the kit I proposed - but find no deficiency relative to the kit proposed by the originator except for the lack of 24mm field of view. That can be rectified but the weight begins to creep back up.
There wasn't a 450mm (300mm X 1,5) either in that FF kit.

---------- Post added 08-01-16 at 05:27 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
There will always be a desire for a lens that is close to what they have but with perhaps just one parameter different. And when development resources become available, those small gaps can be filled. But what they currently lack to a massive degree are smallish, lightish, "affordable" zooms that are either side of the 28-105mm lens, (which exists and therefore need not be duplicated), and until they have these the Pentax FF lens range will be open to valid criticism.
The point remains that you cannot find anything even close to a set of lenses that covers 23.5-450mm, with almost no holes, at only 900g in FF land...
Two of those three lenses are high-end optics as well...
08-01-2016, 08:57 AM   #68
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
There wasn't a 450mm (300mm X 1,5) either in that FF kit.

---------- Post added 08-01-16 at 05:27 PM ----------



The point remains that you cannot find anything even close to a set of lenses that covers 23.5-450mm, with almost no holes, at only 900g in FF land...
Two of those three lenses are high-end optics as well...
Sure there was. The 300mm shot on crop. DA 55-300. Exactly the same as the way you would use it.

As for high end optics? The 28-105 has gotten very very good reviews. Sure it is slightly slower than the 20-40 but your kit relied on the 55-300 for everything over 40mm, I don't consider the 55-300 to be a premium lens but it is a good one. The 28-105 is expected to outperform it in my opinion.

08-01-2016, 09:49 AM - 1 Like   #69
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,118
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Sure there was. The 300mm shot on crop. DA 55-300. Exactly the same as the way you would use it.
...then it isn't FF anymore. I'm not going to buy a FF over an APS camera in order to crop it and get lower image quality than the K-3...
There's no way around it; if you want the FF advantage you're going to pay in money, size and weight.....
08-01-2016, 10:12 AM   #70
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
...then it isn't FF anymore. I'm not going to buy a FF over an APS camera in order to crop it and get lower image quality than the K-3...
There's no way around it; if you want the FF advantage you're going to pay in money, size and weight.....
Much of the range seems to be FF per some people but I don't have a K-1 so I can't comment in detail. I think the point that it was an APSC choice was clearly articulated in my response originally and if you missed that I'm sorry.

What I'm struggling with is the moving away from the legendary 200mm f/4 Macro. I don't see any macro in the new kit. Raynox? I was surprised not to see at least one macro lens but perhaps you aren't using the 200 that way?
08-01-2016, 12:41 PM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Much of the range seems to be FF per some people but I don't have a K-1 so I can't comment in detail. I think the point that it was an APSC choice was clearly articulated in my response originally and if you missed that I'm sorry.

What I'm struggling with is the moving away from the legendary 200mm f/4 Macro. I don't see any macro in the new kit. Raynox? I was surprised not to see at least one macro lens but perhaps you aren't using the 200 that way?
Honestly it is not FF I don't get the point of speaking of wonderfull picture quality of the FF if you use lenses not designed for it and 28mm is not 22 (what the DA15 provide) or 24. While I am not after UWA, I think covering 15-16mm at least on APSC so 22-24mm on FF to be damn conveniant for many of the shoot I take.

My 2 most used lenses are FA77 and DA15, And there no prime to replace the FA77 framing now (115-120mm without a macro rendering) or the DA15 framing. As zoom there an heavy an expensive UWA aznd a heavy and expensive transtandard.
08-01-2016, 12:55 PM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
I have both the new 15-30mm f/2.8 and the new 24-70mm f/2.8. They both have high FF quality at 24mm.

I'm making the point that Ricoh (which presumably has limited development resources for lens) should be initially going for lenses that are as different as possible from the current ones. And one of the new lenses I suggested was something like an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture lightish, smallish, "affordable" lens, which obviously also covers 24mm. These are the sorts of lenses that will increase the customer base for the K-1.

Only once they have the maximum spread of lenses, especially lightish, smallish, "affordable" lenses with high image quality, and (probably) new prime lenses as on the FF roadmap, should they they develop and release lenses that are near competitors.

There will always be a desire for a lens that is close to what they have but with perhaps just one parameter different. And when development resources become available, those small gaps can be filled. But what they currently lack to a massive degree are smallish, lightish, "affordable" zooms that are either side of the 28-105mm lens, (which exists and therefore need not be duplicated), and until they have these the Pentax FF lens range will be open to valid criticism.
All is in what you consider similar or different. For me a 18-36 with variable apperture is basically a poor man 15-30 so that very similar. Arguably 24-105 f/4 very similar to 28-105 but one is constant apperture, start 24mm and can be considered really as an all in one lens while the 28-105 f/3.5-5.6 will show issue for low light at the long end and issues to get the scene inside the frame at the short end and that would be one less lens to buy and take with me so a huge difference

Ricoh as covered everything from 15mm to 450mm already with the DFA zooms so any other zoom they'll release will be by definition quite similar to what already exist. They need to check what are the lenses the customer are more likely to want and buy. On APSC for example the 16-85 was a tremendous success... I'am sure equivalent 24-105 f/4 would be also a huge success.

See the main different is the preference we show over one or another lens than anything else...
08-01-2016, 01:04 PM   #73
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,118
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote

What I'm struggling with is the moving away from the legendary 200mm f/4 Macro. I don't see any macro in the new kit. Raynox? I was surprised not to see at least one macro lens but perhaps you aren't using the 200 that way?
I'm not moving away from it. I'm just leaving it at home at times...
08-01-2016, 01:35 PM   #74
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I'm not moving away from it. I'm just leaving it at home at times...
That is one thing we agree on! I leave many lenses at home because they are too heavy to take everywhere. That lens has such an awesome reputation I am glad to know it will still be in your toolkit for when you need it.

---------- Post added 08-01-16 at 04:53 PM ----------

Wide angle prime - new and available now:
Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Lens Reviews - Samyang Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

FA 77 FOV similar on crop:
Samyang 135mm F2.0 ED UMC Lens Reviews - Samyang Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

That's not including the many many many legacy lenses available.

Do you want AF - then the FA 135, and the FA 20.
08-01-2016, 02:10 PM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
That is one thing we agree on! I leave many lenses at home because they are too heavy to take everywhere. That lens has such an awesome reputation I am glad to know it will still be in your toolkit for when you need it.

---------- Post added 08-01-16 at 04:53 PM ----------

Wide angle prime - new and available now:
Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Lens Reviews - Samyang Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

FA 77 FOV similar on crop:
Samyang 135mm F2.0 ED UMC Lens Reviews - Samyang Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

That's not including the many many many legacy lenses available.

Do you want AF - then the FA 135, and the FA 20.
Man this is always the same. People explain why they'll not do it. And everybody provide whatever at a replacement that doesn't match one bit what one want.

- If I wanted MF, I'd not buy K1, you can't even replace the viewfinder! I'd take an A7 for 1000$ and buy many MF lenses for dirty cheap. For the price difference I'd be fully geared in old MF lenses and I'd get much better MF experience out of the camera thanks to the EVF. Let's be clear about it. I see no point to buy a DSLR that doesn't even support OVF replacement for proper MF and spend all my time in LV.
- If I wanted huge/heavy on top of MF I'd not say I want something small light. that may look obvious but apparently not.
- FA20 is hard to find and expensive and while good has not espacially good FF borders. But that could be a choice. I have one F135 and while it work well for portraiture, I can say it to you. It not BY FAR matching the quality of the FA77. I might get more quality staying APSC and with the FA77. You know I even tried FA*24 for my WA needs but overall DA21 is a better all around choice and times smaller.

The things are not there yet. There no ways around that. I don't feel going MF an upgrade. I don't feel having to spend month on ebay an ideal neither. I don't think I am alone there.

While i fully understand the one that want to upgrade, it is stupid to think this has to be for everybody and we cover all the cases. We do not cover all the cases. Pentax FF better than Sony FE for choice but far far far from Canikon. And what had arguably made the strength of the Pentax system: small & light is not yet available on the FF body.

Why should I buy right now, spend more and miss what I need while it may come by itself in 2-3 years?

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-01-2016 at 02:28 PM.
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, car, da18-55, details, dslr, experience, fa31, ff, gear, home, k1, k3, k3 to k1, kit, lack, lens, lenses, ltd, pentax, people, photography, post, review, shots, upgrade, weight, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is upgrade worth it to Pentax 16-85 lens for K-3. Themdragons Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-18-2016 05:03 PM
Is it worth going from my K5 to the K3? VoiceOfReason Pentax DSLR Discussion 26 08-11-2014 12:49 PM
Is it worth it to upgrade from kit lens to DA16-45 ? Ben E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 05-26-2013 12:36 PM
Is it worth trying to fix a kr or upgrade? Kricket Pentax K-r 13 07-15-2011 10:29 PM
k10D Is an upgrade worth it? emptydam Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-11-2007 04:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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