The feel of 16-45 images

loganross · 03-08-2007, 12:20 PM

Hi,
I have spent a lot of time on these boards talking about the Prime Lens Kit I working on. It just occurred to me. I still have the 16-45mm. It is a very good lens. So should I replace it as being redundant if I will have two primes in that focal length range?, or should I keep it if there is little to gain by replacing it with two primes in that focal range?

The 16-45mm doesn't render that dreamy/silky look that my 50mm 1.4 does. BUT!! I have gotten a lot of feedback that the limited primes don't either. That instead they give a more three dimensional look (whereby the in-focus is visibly separated from the out-of-focus). That is the same sensation I get from the 16-45mm images. If this is the case than maybe there is no purpose in replacing the 16-45 at all.

For those of you who own the 16-45 and Primes in that focal length range, can you provide you subjective comparison?

Thank you.

FotoPete · 03-08-2007, 12:24 PM

I say just keep both. If you are indoors in low light, use your 50/1.4. The low light capabilities are great and so is that silky effect for portraits.

loganross · 03-08-2007, 12:26 PM

Hi,
I am definitely keeping the 50. The question is whether I replace the 16-45mm with a DA21 and DA40/FA43. I find I don't often use the 16-45mm

davek · 03-08-2007, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by loganross

Hi,
I am definitely keeping the 50. The question is whether I replace the 16-45mm with a DA21 and DA40/FA43. I find I don't often use the 16-45mm

I'm in a similar dilemma. I like using primes, as they force me to slow down and compose more carefully, but I'm really tempted by a new 16-45 or 16-50 zoom.

Current primes:
FA28/2.8
F50/1.7
FA100/2.8 Macro

Zooms:
DA18-55
DA55-200.

I was seriously looking at a DA21 for wide and then I can take the 18-55 out of the bag. But now.... I don't know.

roentarre · 03-08-2007, 02:03 PM

I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel.

Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much.

Da shots examples (Not as 3D as I would have liked)

While Fa Ltd shots revealed more 3D feel here

I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough

Cheers

**SCGushue** · 03-08-2007, 02:11 PM

Logan,

I wish I could remember the source journal that I recently read this in because I think the statistics are quite shocking to many whom feel that the primes are the only way to get great images.

In a survey of hundreds of professional photographers (using digital and film 35mm type slr's) 90+% of them use zooms and rarely use primes. "Who'da Thunk?"

I think primes are great and I have plenty of them to chose from. But I think this "prime" talk is just a little too simplified and often misses the finer points of what makes great photgraphy and or a great photo.

Zooms are a relatively new phenomenon in photography. In recent years they have evolved into fabulous creations that can rival primes in resolution and surpass them in versatility.

Primes are wonderful, but there is nothing wrong with getting equally great images from hi end zooms.

There are always trade offs using either one or the other. A good photographer automatically can calculate the lens which will put the bread on the table for any given event. The idea, with current technological advances in lens craftmanship, that somehow zooms are always substandard to a prime is not a prudent method of thinking.

Most of the pro in the survey did not even carry a prime with them while on assignment. And these were world class photographers. Obviously, they know a thing or two about lenses and how to use them to their advantage.

Stephen

loganross · 03-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Thank you for the replies,

scg,

One of my main reasons for Pentax primes is the look of the pics. I have not been able to duplicate that look with my zoom. Also, bokeh, which is important to me. Its why I picked Pentax over Nikon (access to the lenses). I am not opposed to zooms. If I can find a zoom that gives me the look/bokeh, I would go that route and not have to worry about switching lenses.

roentarre,
Nice photos. Which LTD did you use? Actually they are all good pics.

Here is a pic. Not as contrasty or as intensely 3-d, but it is the type of photo that I love:

davemdsn · 03-08-2007, 03:03 PM

There is a big difficulty comparing the 3d effect and bokeh of images made from prime and zoom lenses. If the image from the prime lens has these characteristics it was shot with a wide aperture. Zoom lenses don't have such wide apertures so they can't provide these characteristics. This is in favor of the argument to have and use primes instead of zooms, but it isn't necessarily a matter of construction.

benjikan · 03-08-2007, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by loganross

Hi,
I have spent a lot of time on these boards talking about the Prime Lens Kit I working on. It just occurred to me. I still have the 16-45mm. It is a very good lens. So should I replace it as being redundant if I will have two primes in that focal length range?, or should I keep it if there is little to gain by replacing it with two primes in that focal range?

The 16-45mm doesn't render that dreamy/silky look that my 50mm 1.4 does. BUT!! I have gotten a lot of feedback that the limited primes don't either. That instead they give a more three dimensional look (whereby the in-focus is visibly separated from the out-of-focus). That is the same sensation I get from the 16-45mm images. If this is the case than maybe there is no purpose in replacing the 16-45 at all.

For those of you who own the 16-45 and Primes in that focal length range, can you provide you subjective comparison?

Thank you.

I find the 16-45 a very sharp lens and am still using primes. There are times where the zoom is just so much more convenient than having to switch focal lengths. When shot at f8.0 it is brutally sharp in fact. As to the bokeh, yes there are evident differences. But when stopping down these differences become negligible. None the less I would keep it if I were you.

Wethphotography · 03-08-2007, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by roentarre

I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel.

Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much.

Da shots examples (Not as 3D as I would have liked)

I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough

Cheers

Roentarre,
While I see the subtle differences you refer to, I like all your shots. I think you could find a way to take stunning photos with a cracked lens.

Keep sharing those great photos.

button · 03-08-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by davemdsn

There is a big difficulty comparing the 3d effect and bokeh of images made from prime and zoom lenses. If the image from the prime lens has these characteristics it was shot with a wide aperture. Zoom lenses don't have such wide apertures so they can't provide these characteristics. This is in favor of the argument to have and use primes instead of zooms, but it isn't necessarily a matter of construction.

I couldn't agree more. Roentarre, the first set of pics appear to have been shot at aperture values of no less than F8. The second set look like they range from F1.9 to about F2.8. Alternatively, the short focal length of the DA14 may account for the greater DOF (and expected less bokeh) vs the ltd43. Please post the aperture values for these pics if you can remember (BTW, they look great).

carpents · 03-08-2007, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by roentarre

I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel.

Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much.

...

I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough

Cheers

I'm a little floored here. You posted some landscapes, then compared them to portraits and (psuedo-)macros? Well, of course your subject has more '3D' pop - they're floating in bokeh!

Ultra-wides, like the DA14, aren't made to have beautiful shallow DOF close-ups. They're made for getting vivid landscapes or vast scenes.

It's a little like going to an indoor architectural shoot and complaining that your 300mm just wasn't getting enough ambiance.

roentarre · 03-08-2007, 09:44 PM

Sorry everyone. A major flaw is apparent here by having 2 sets of photos with different DOF designated by different aperture size in an uncontrolled tests with different focal lengths.

A lot of sample photos I saw from Da ltd mainly Da70 and Da 21 ltds are not as 3D comparing to Fa ltd shots in which the term 3Dness is a relatively subjective term. I could not substantiate these comments with tests as I do not own Da 21 or 70 Ltd (Joel has two lenses). Then Sean already clearly pointed out in the last post ...

Call me greedy. I was kind of dreaming to have that 3D look from Da14 shots

Like what Fa43 shots render with aperture between f5.6 to f8

I will borrow Joel's two Da limitids and try out this weekend

FotoPete · 03-08-2007, 09:49 PM

Dang, I wish I had Pentaxians in the neighbourhood let alone talk about borrowing Limiteds. (-_-)

roentarre · 03-08-2007, 10:19 PM

There are a few pentaxians in melbourne but we hardly manage to find time meeting up here!

Yeah, it is handy to have pals using pentax gear. Our lenses do not overlap each other...

03-08-2007, 12:20 PM	#1
loganross Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: SF Bay Area (CA) Posts: 86	The feel of 16-45 images Hi, I have spent a lot of time on these boards talking about the Prime Lens Kit I working on. It just occurred to me. I still have the 16-45mm. It is a very good lens. So should I replace it as being redundant if I will have two primes in that focal length range?, or should I keep it if there is little to gain by replacing it with two primes in that focal range? The 16-45mm doesn't render that dreamy/silky look that my 50mm 1.4 does. BUT!! I have gotten a lot of feedback that the limited primes don't either. That instead they give a more three dimensional look (whereby the in-focus is visibly separated from the out-of-focus). That is the same sensation I get from the 16-45mm images. If this is the case than maybe there is no purpose in replacing the 16-45 at all. For those of you who own the 16-45 and Primes in that focal length range, can you provide you subjective comparison? Thank you.

03-08-2007, 04:41 PM	#9
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	16-45? Originally posted by loganross Hi, I have spent a lot of time on these boards talking about the Prime Lens Kit I working on. It just occurred to me. I still have the 16-45mm. It is a very good lens. So should I replace it as being redundant if I will have two primes in that focal length range?, or should I keep it if there is little to gain by replacing it with two primes in that focal range? The 16-45mm doesn't render that dreamy/silky look that my 50mm 1.4 does. BUT!! I have gotten a lot of feedback that the limited primes don't either. That instead they give a more three dimensional look (whereby the in-focus is visibly separated from the out-of-focus). That is the same sensation I get from the 16-45mm images. If this is the case than maybe there is no purpose in replacing the 16-45 at all. For those of you who own the 16-45 and Primes in that focal length range, can you provide you subjective comparison? Thank you. I find the 16-45 a very sharp lens and am still using primes. There are times where the zoom is just so much more convenient than having to switch focal lengths. When shot at f8.0 it is brutally sharp in fact. As to the bokeh, yes there are evident differences. But when stopping down these differences become negligible. None the less I would keep it if I were you.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
can you feel it?	devisor	Post Your Photos!	11	09-05-2009 08:18 AM
I feel like sh**	flyer	General Talk	26	08-09-2009 06:33 AM
I feel like i should do this again...	Gaelen	Welcomes and Introductions	2	04-25-2009 08:31 PM
Feel Them	Gigahz	Post Your Photos!	7	01-13-2009 05:16 PM
Do you feel the same?	bc_the_path	Post Your Photos!	8	04-03-2007 02:35 PM

03-08-2007, 12:24 PM	#2
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	I say just keep both. If you are indoors in low light, use your 50/1.4. The low light capabilities are great and so is that silky effect for portraits.

03-08-2007, 12:26 PM	#3
loganross Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: SF Bay Area (CA) Posts: 86 Original Poster	Hi, I am definitely keeping the 50. The question is whether I replace the 16-45mm with a DA21 and DA40/FA43. I find I don't often use the 16-45mm

03-08-2007, 12:45 PM	#4
davek Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Elmira, On, Canada Posts: 461	Originally posted by loganross Hi, I am definitely keeping the 50. The question is whether I replace the 16-45mm with a DA21 and DA40/FA43. I find I don't often use the 16-45mm I'm in a similar dilemma. I like using primes, as they force me to slow down and compose more carefully, but I'm really tempted by a new 16-45 or 16-50 zoom. Current primes: FA28/2.8 F50/1.7 FA100/2.8 Macro Zooms: DA18-55 DA55-200. I was seriously looking at a DA21 for wide and then I can take the 18-55 out of the bag. But now.... I don't know.

03-08-2007, 02:03 PM	#5
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel. Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much. Da shots examples (Not as 3D as I would have liked) While Fa Ltd shots revealed more 3D feel here I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough Cheers

03-08-2007, 02:11 PM	#6
SCGushue Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,449	Logan, I wish I could remember the source journal that I recently read this in because I think the statistics are quite shocking to many whom feel that the primes are the only way to get great images. In a survey of hundreds of professional photographers (using digital and film 35mm type slr's) 90+% of them use zooms and rarely use primes. "Who'da Thunk?" I think primes are great and I have plenty of them to chose from. But I think this "prime" talk is just a little too simplified and often misses the finer points of what makes great photgraphy and or a great photo. Zooms are a relatively new phenomenon in photography. In recent years they have evolved into fabulous creations that can rival primes in resolution and surpass them in versatility. Primes are wonderful, but there is nothing wrong with getting equally great images from hi end zooms. There are always trade offs using either one or the other. A good photographer automatically can calculate the lens which will put the bread on the table for any given event. The idea, with current technological advances in lens craftmanship, that somehow zooms are always substandard to a prime is not a prudent method of thinking. Most of the pro in the survey did not even carry a prime with them while on assignment. And these were world class photographers. Obviously, they know a thing or two about lenses and how to use them to their advantage. Stephen

03-08-2007, 02:30 PM	#7
loganross Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: SF Bay Area (CA) Posts: 86 Original Poster	Thank you for the replies, scg, One of my main reasons for Pentax primes is the look of the pics. I have not been able to duplicate that look with my zoom. Also, bokeh, which is important to me. Its why I picked Pentax over Nikon (access to the lenses). I am not opposed to zooms. If I can find a zoom that gives me the look/bokeh, I would go that route and not have to worry about switching lenses. roentarre, Nice photos. Which LTD did you use? Actually they are all good pics. Here is a pic. Not as contrasty or as intensely 3-d, but it is the type of photo that I love:

03-08-2007, 03:03 PM	#8
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	There is a big difficulty comparing the 3d effect and bokeh of images made from prime and zoom lenses. If the image from the prime lens has these characteristics it was shot with a wide aperture. Zoom lenses don't have such wide apertures so they can't provide these characteristics. This is in favor of the argument to have and use primes instead of zooms, but it isn't necessarily a matter of construction.

03-08-2007, 04:53 PM	#10
Wethphotography Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, D.C., USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Originally posted by roentarre I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel. Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much. Da shots examples (Not as 3D as I would have liked) I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough Cheers Roentarre, While I see the subtle differences you refer to, I like all your shots. I think you could find a way to take stunning photos with a cracked lens. Keep sharing those great photos.

03-08-2007, 05:05 PM	#11
button Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 241	Originally posted by davemdsn There is a big difficulty comparing the 3d effect and bokeh of images made from prime and zoom lenses. If the image from the prime lens has these characteristics it was shot with a wide aperture. Zoom lenses don't have such wide apertures so they can't provide these characteristics. This is in favor of the argument to have and use primes instead of zooms, but it isn't necessarily a matter of construction. I couldn't agree more. Roentarre, the first set of pics appear to have been shot at aperture values of no less than F8. The second set look like they range from F1.9 to about F2.8. Alternatively, the short focal length of the DA14 may account for the greater DOF (and expected less bokeh) vs the ltd43. Please post the aperture values for these pics if you can remember (BTW, they look great).

03-08-2007, 05:49 PM	#12
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by roentarre I sort of felt the difference between Da 14 comparing to Fa ltd mainly in the area of 3D feel. Da 14 shots kind of looks flat to me while Fa31 or 43 gave that incredible 3D look. Actually I just received my Fa43 yesterday and the 3Dness amazed me so much. ... I know there is narrow DOF but they look 3D enough Cheers I'm a little floored here. You posted some landscapes, then compared them to portraits and (psuedo-)macros? Well, of course your subject has more '3D' pop - they're floating in bokeh! Ultra-wides, like the DA14, aren't made to have beautiful shallow DOF close-ups. They're made for getting vivid landscapes or vast scenes. It's a little like going to an indoor architectural shoot and complaining that your 300mm just wasn't getting enough ambiance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2007, 09:44 PM	#13
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Sorry everyone. A major flaw is apparent here by having 2 sets of photos with different DOF designated by different aperture size in an uncontrolled tests with different focal lengths. A lot of sample photos I saw from Da ltd mainly Da70 and Da 21 ltds are not as 3D comparing to Fa ltd shots in which the term 3Dness is a relatively subjective term. I could not substantiate these comments with tests as I do not own Da 21 or 70 Ltd (Joel has two lenses). Then Sean already clearly pointed out in the last post ... Call me greedy. I was kind of dreaming to have that 3D look from Da14 shots Like what Fa43 shots render with aperture between f5.6 to f8 I will borrow Joel's two Da limitids and try out this weekend

03-08-2007, 09:49 PM	#14
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	Dang, I wish I had Pentaxians in the neighbourhood let alone talk about borrowing Limiteds. (-_-)

03-08-2007, 10:19 PM	#15
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	There are a few pentaxians in melbourne but we hardly manage to find time meeting up here! Yeah, it is handy to have pals using pentax gear. Our lenses do not overlap each other...