Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2018, 09:12 PM - 3 Likes   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,508
The DA 18-135mm has been lab-tested and user- proven to have excellent resolution in its central area throughout its zoom range, which is exceptional. Most zoom lenses will diminish in quality gradually towards the longer end of the zoom range. With this lens, that diminishment takes place at the edges of the frame, starting around 55mm or so. usually, however, the more tele being used, the less important the edges become as a general rule anyway. I have that lens, and am happy with its performance and versatility as a general-purpose lens, and when I need more zoom range without having to change lenses often. The 16-85mm lens represents an improvement in edge performance.

There is a good reason many of more modern lenses tend to have a shorter focus throw- not because of being for digital, but because AF can be achieved faster. The K-5 is a fine camera, but its AF performance is not one of its high points. When I got my K-5 IIs, I noticed an improvement in AF with some of my lenses. My KP's AF is better yet. The old film-era lenses you list that you are most fond of are MF lenses, and are specifically designed for MF, hence the greater focus throw.

If you should develop an interest in telephoto, do not get the newer Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 PLM lens (which is not usable on a K-5 anyway)- it will have a very short focus throw. Get the older DA HD 55-300mm f/4-5.6 instead, as it has a quite long focus throw, which is better for fine-tuning by using MF. Its optics are very good and comparable to the newer lens.

As to image quality, the DA 17-70mm was rated pretty high by lab tests, though I'm sure there are others still higher. The sensors of the K-3, K-70, and KP will all have yet more resolution capability than your K-5. The K-5 IIs will provide more detail because, like the affore-mentioned current models, it has omitted the AA filter. Even though it does not have much zoom range, the DA 20-40mm Limited is indeed a fine lens. I love it on my KP, which is capable of showing what it can do. I can recommend it for a very high-quality kit when teamed with the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens- another great lens, and it does have plenty of focus throw as well as a MF/AF switch right by your thumb where you hold it. It also does not change its size as you focus or zoom it. Very compact for what it is. To get the last bit of quality, and for low-light faster-aperture uses, it is usually necessary to break up the zoom range into smaller segments. You just have to accept giving up some versatility. As to wide angle- only you can decide your needs. You can operate your DA 17-70mm lens only from 20-40mm to get an idea. The reason for the 20-40mm Limited not being 16-40mm instead- it was designed with the goal of offering a very compact, higher quality lens, especially for compact camera bodies- specifically the KP. For wide angle, I also have a Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 which has a very high rating for resolution. I am very happy with it. 3.5 stars is a very good rating from photozone. Very few get 4 or above. But you can't always go by just that. They will sometimes downgrade a lens for things that are not that relevant- they sometimes exaggerate the importance of certain factors.

I often have my camera in a holster-style belt/shoulder-strap case. With the KP, it is most often the DA 20-40mm Limited on the camera, and the little DA 15mm LTD is so small it can fit into the accessory front pocket of the case. Then, in a lens belt case on the other side, resides my DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, or in a jacket pocket I have my 77mm LTD in its own case. This makes for an easy-carrying top-quality kit of pretty good range.

Otherwise, for a single lens having a wider angle, and a good zoom range along with very good performance, the DA 16-85mm is highly-rated if you get a good copy.


Last edited by mikesbike; 01-09-2018 at 09:52 PM.
01-09-2018, 09:22 PM - 5 Likes   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
I was going to post a helpful reply but upon reflection I think I will just enjoy the popcorn.
01-09-2018, 09:54 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,385
I have been a happy owner of the DA 12-24 since November 2007. An early shot at 12 mm on my K10 printed at 20x30 inches on metallic and hung on a real estate agencies wall. People looked at it from a foot or so away to show the neighbourhoods of Sparwood. With a 10 mpx sensor, the image was spectacular. This year's project is to climb back up that 2,000 ft and retake the shot with the K-3.

I am not much of a pixel peeper nor am I a fan of overly picky pixel peepers. Do not forget that a magazine cover requires only 6 mpx for printing. I do commonly print at 16x24 and up using most of the lenses in my arsenal.

I agree about the 50-135, by the way. I no longer have it. In a stupid snit I swapped it out, even though I knew it worked well with my AFA 1.7x.
01-09-2018, 11:19 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
microlight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,127
Another vote here for upgrading the K-5. Groundbreaking in its day, the K-5 AF was better than the *istDS but not as good as what's there now; and the presence of an AA filter means that the IQ doesn't match the filterless current bodies.

I got the HD20-40 when I was still using my K-5, and was pleased with the improvement from the 16-45. But when I got the K-3II the lens really showed what it was capable of. You'd probably find the same for any of the modern zooms. The 20-40 is my go-to walkaround on the K-3II, and haven't used the K-5 since I got it. There's no doubt for me that the Limited zoom outperforms any film-era prime that I own up to 50mm (including 1.4s and 1.2s) although as ever, YMMV.

01-10-2018, 02:43 AM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 93
Cant recommend upgrading from the K-5 enough.

Like you I got mine at a discount and had it for many happy years. I felt it was the perfect camera, bar the AF which I felt was always a bit hit and miss. After much delay, I finally took the plunge and picked up a KP (again discounted) and haven't looked back. For my needs (street and landscape) it is a superb and small package that hasboth increased my number of keepers (especially wide open and in low light) and allowed me to get closer to what my glass (DA + FA) is capable of.
01-10-2018, 03:16 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 496
Back in 2013 I chose a K30 over a K5 for my first DSLR. I've probably bought around 40+ lenses since and resold about 1/2 that number.

I found the Pentax-A 70-200 f4 to be a great lens, got some of my cycle racing photography published with it over competitors with Canon 70-200 f2.8 L lenses etc. which I much enjoyed beating them with a £50 manual focus f4. Eventually I sold it due to not using it and the bulk as I like small camera systems.

However I too own the HD DA 15mm f4 Ltd and the HD DA 20-40 Ltd. This is a fantastic pairing for mountain landscape photography when walking miles and miles also permitting no tripod or a lightweight tripod.

I only recently got the 20-40 and the I.Q blew me away, it seems to match the DA40 f2.8 Ltd, I can't tell the difference. At 31mm it at least matches the infamous FA31 f1.9 Ltd. It is better than my K24 f3.5, K28 f3.5, K35 f3.5 etc. Up until New Years SRS in the UK were selling it for £439.

I can't believe some reviewer gave it 7/10 for sharpness in the database here recently for this makes no sense whatsoever.
01-10-2018, 03:24 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
I think you would find any of the DA limiteds, DA *primes, or the DA *60-250 or DA *50-135 to be of excellent quality. Truthfully, the 18-135, while cheap is quite a capable lens. I know photozone gave it a hard review, but there are enough other folks who have decent copies here that I wouldn't judge it totally off that review. I certainly wouldn't say that Pentax isn't releasing new APS-C gear. They continue to turn out new cameras and have announced the DA *11-18. Clearly they aren't abandoning it.

If you watch the marketplace here, you can often find nice deals on lenses in good shape and that can save quite a bit off of new glass.

01-10-2018, 03:43 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by ChromaNoise Quote
What I found that literally all of the "digital" lenses don't provide enough quality the sensor otherwise would be capable of. Since I tried many film lenses, I know what the sensor can do, but the obvious caveat there is the lack of focal length on the wide end. Regarding "digital" lenses, another issue has surfaced and that is a ridiculously small focus throw. My Pentax 17-70 has ruined quite a few shots because of inaccurate AF and accurate MF is impossible with that short throw.
...
At this point I don't think there is a way to salvage my camera, since there won't be any normal zoom lens for it ever, that matches its sensor. I understand that people will say I wanted too much for too little, but I just wanted to share my experience.
The current lenses available for all the alternative APS-C camera systems have much the same good and bad points as those available for Pentax.

I wouldn't say you want too much, necessarily... rather, I think you want the wrong thing. IMHO, you should be looking at the overall rendering of a lens, rather than placing too much importance on razor sharpness at 1:1 pixel-peeping reproduction. Sadly, the pixel-peeping trap is one that many people seem to fall into, and they become obsessed with critical sharpness over rendering. I'm sure it's responsible for many fine lenses being relegated to dark cupboards, when they're more-than-capable of taking fantastic photographs if used skilfully.

That said, there are plenty of K-mount lenses that provide extremely sharp results, if that's your priority. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 mentioned by others here is one of those. I think I paid around £300 for mine here in the UK, which is something of a bargain for a fast, constant aperture zoom lens.

Long focus throw on modern AF lenses (except those designed for macro work) simply doesn't exist, because it negatively impacts AF speed. You can have long focus throw or fast AF, but rarely (if ever) both.

Of course, AF isn't perfect on any system, and there will be some misses - for a number of possible reasons. You say that your Pentax 17-70 has ruined some shots because of inaccurate AF... With respect, is it possible that you might be part of that equation, and that improved or modified techniques might have prevented those missed shots? It's always much easier to blame our equipment than to critique and challenge our own techniques (I think we've all done it).

There's also much you can achieve with careful post-processing of RAW images and re-sized exports to obtain the sharp results you're looking for (even with shots where you missed the focus ever-so-slightly). Consider whether you could be doing better or more with your post-processing... it can make or break a photograph.

There are people on these and other forums producing wonderful photography with very limited equipment, both digital and film, often with nothing more than inexpensive manual-focus glass. I don't think you need worry about having to salvage your camera... although a few years old now, it's a fantastic and highly capable body. And there's more than enough compatible glass around to enable you to take stunning photographs. You have some (probably enough) already. The rest is up to you

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-10-2018 at 04:21 AM.
01-10-2018, 04:01 AM - 3 Likes   #24
amateur dirt farmer
Loyal Site Supporter
pepperberry farm's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: probably out in a field somewhere...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I was going to post a helpful reply but upon reflection I think I will just enjoy the popcorn.

better than trying to convince a jumper to stay with Pentax - don't feed the troll, guys - he's convinced himself of the outcome without ever trying any of the lenses he's dismissed....

(tripping the 'ignore' feature for both thread and OP)
01-10-2018, 06:11 AM   #25
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by ChromaNoise Quote
Pentax-A 70-210mm f/4
Soft throughout the entire zoom range, no matter what aperture it's set to. It's been collecting dust ever since I got it. Overall, a complete waste of money.
Verdict: Trash
Wait... what?
Unless you're referring to the non-SMC cheapo version...
01-10-2018, 06:28 AM   #26
Veteran Member
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,217
QuoteOriginally posted by ChromaNoise Quote
OK, here comes a list, mini-review style:

Pentax-A 35-105mm f/3.5
Some call it "stack of primes", I can't agree more. All zoom lenses should be made like this. I probably got my best results with this lens. A bit heavy, yes, but who cares?
Verdict: Excellent

Pentax-A 135mm f/2.8
I haven't used this many times but when I did, there was that definite "wow factor" there. Sharp and contrasty, very nice colors.
Verdict: Excellent

Pentax-A Macro 50mm f/2.8
Sharp lens. I guess the only drawback is the lack of 1:1 magnification?
Verdict: Very Good

Pentax-A 70-210mm f/4
Soft throughout the entire zoom range, no matter what aperture it's set to. It's been collecting dust ever since I got it. Overall, a complete waste of money.
Verdict: Trash

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG
Not terribly good, not terribly bad either. Used it a couple of times, love the wide end on it.
Verdict: Medium-Good

Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4
The "would be decent" lens if not for said focus inaccuracy. It seems that the SDM is on its way out now too. Would not buy again.
Verdict: Mediocre

Pentax-A 24-50mm f/4
I got some decent results out of this one. It's a bit slow and soft on the wide end. The major drawback here it was designed for film cameras. If this was let's say a 16-30mm or similar, I'd use this one most of the time. Unfortunately it isn't.
Verdict: Good
I would'nt call your experience with "wide angle zoom" very ... rich or extended.

At some point, you have to realise that if you want a good lens, you have to pay for it.
The DA 12-24 f4 is great, the Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 10-24 are good lenses for wide angle.

in APS-C : 18mm is wide, below 18mm it's ultra wide.

Below 18mm close object close from the border will be deformed due to distorsion. If you have that in mind, you can get pretty good results with any of the wide angle lenses listed above, and by any other forum member.
01-10-2018, 06:38 AM   #27
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
When I went from the K5 to the K3 originally I had a massive jump in AF performance, and where the 18-135 was a decent lens on the K5 it really came to life on the K3. In fact I can pixel peep with it when I use it. It stayed on the camera most of the time on a trip to Europe.
01-10-2018, 07:23 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Albums
Posts: 101
Glad I found this thread.
While I was happy with my K5, especially considering how much I paid for it but once I started shooting my newborn son I began to realize the shortcoming of its AF performance.
Looks like it's time to upgrade it to either K3, K70, or KP?
01-10-2018, 07:31 AM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 78
QuoteOriginally posted by ChromaNoise Quote
What I found that literally all of the "digital" lenses don't provide enough quality the sensor otherwise would be capable of. Since I tried many film lenses, I know what the sensor can do, but the obvious caveat there is the lack of focal length on the wide end.
Everyone seems to assume you're complaining about sharpness, but is that actually what your complaint is? What exactly do you mean by "quality"?

Wide and ultra wide lenses, especially on APS-C (because they need to be even shorter focal lengths) make all kinds of optical compromises to get a usable picture, but negatively impact rendering. You're never going to get a 15mm with the rendering quality of a good 50mm. That's not a film vs digital difference, that's an ultra-wide vs normal difference. You might feel like it's a film vs digital difference because you haven't used (and there aren't really any) ultra-wide (on APS-C) film lenses.

There's also a fundamental resolving difference between ultra-wide, wide, and normal. The wider you go, the larger the area you capture, but your resolution stays the same. It's inevitable that you're going to lose fine details as you have the same sensor resolution spread out over a much larger photographed area. Again, that's not a film vs digital difference, but it might seem like it when the "widest" you've gone on a film lens is 35mm.

Last edited by AyeYo; 01-10-2018 at 07:37 AM.
01-10-2018, 07:38 AM   #30
Pentaxian
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Driving a Mirage
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,670
QuoteOriginally posted by ChromaNoise Quote
I immediately disregarded the Pentax 18-135mm when I got my camera body because of mediocre results. I think it's common knowledge that long zooms aren't very good?
My experience would be that that is not necessarily the case.

I have two Tamron AF superzooms:

28-200mm, and 28-300mm.

The 28-300mm lens blows away the 28-200mm, and is fairly sharp, even on film.

That's comparing full-frame results, so both lens are going to seem better on APS-C.
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!
a3, amazon, aps-c, camera, couple, dfa, dslr, f/4, fire, images, k1, k3, lens, lenses, mirror, pentax, pentax aps-c, pentax-a, photography, quality, sensor, sigma, size, smc, step, throw, verdict
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dead K5 and dead SDM chochichaeschtli Repairs and Warranty Service 6 01-04-2018 11:50 AM
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 24 11-10-2016 06:50 PM
Is the A-mount dead/end of the SLT D1N0 Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 132 10-06-2016 01:01 PM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C? lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 03-27-2015 07:45 PM
Poll - $2500 low end FF or Hi-spec APS-C? - Please read initial post before voting Richard Day Pentax News and Rumors 126 02-15-2010 03:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 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