Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 25 of 78 Search:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-21-2018, 01:03 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
Bingo.

Lots of comments in here have me wondering how many people actually understand how the equipment works.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-16-2018, 09:44 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
Because the K3ii getting discontinued is a major business decision, which then had other business decisions getting brought up like the creation of the KP. Not at all a stretch.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-16-2018, 08:50 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
That's exactly what I was thinking. That's literally just averaging out the noise... which is smearing it out. That's the polar opposite of detail retention.

You can attempt to retain as many details as possible, but unless you've created software with psychic abilities to know what color and tone that pixel should have been, you're going to be losing detail when doing noise reduction. There's no such thing as "noisy pixels" in the sense you can just clean the noise off that pixel. The information isn't there. They should have been color and tone unknown, but are instead color and tone Y... and there's no way to know for sure what color and tone it should have been.

Truly improved high ISO performance comes from not having that incorrect data in the first place. That doesn't mean averaging it out in software before writing the file. It means getting the correct data from the initial sensor read. That isn't what KP is doing. That isn't what any noise reduction algorithms do. That's what better sensors, better shielding, and better cooling do.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-15-2018, 12:24 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
But I haven't seen anyone bashing the equipment. I've seen (rightly deserved) harsh criticism of some really stupid business moves by Ricoh.

I don't see anyone denying that Pentax builds high-quality, durable cameras that blow away competition in the same price range in these areas (and often in features too). That has nothing to do with pointing out what appears to be one business misstep after another.

Maybe the "Pentax can do no wrong" label isn't the right one. Maybe what it actually is, is an air of defensiveness that lashes out against legitimate and deserved criticism.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-15-2018, 08:35 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
That's somewhat true, but saying "I don't need it" is absolutely not the same thing as a huge advantage not being there. That's like saying a Ford Focus and a McLaren P1 are basically comparable vehicles because both of them get you to work just fine and driving to work is all you do.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 02-15-2018, 08:24 AM  
Lens suggestions for light k3-ii hiking setup....
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 33
Views: 3,674
16-85 is the obvious choice if it's in your budget and image quality is the most important factor to you.

I didn't see you mention what type of hiking you do, whether casual through the woods or mountain scrambling. Personally, I just bring the 18-50 kit lens when hiking. It weighs nothing, the hood is flush-mount to make it even smaller, the IQ is perfectly tolerable given the other advantages, it has WR, the focal range is great if you're not trying to shoot small or distant animals, and, most important to me, when I inevitably slip on a rock while scrambling and smash it - I won't have to cry over it and hold a memorial service. The 18-135 looks like another good cheap option if you want the reach to be able to better get distant or smaller animals.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-15-2018, 08:07 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
Because other manufacturers are doing the same thing these days (see the A7R "star eater" issue). Because the KP uses a known sensor that isn't exclusive to that camera model and there's no explanation for the "better" high ISO in that particular model aside from software baking (which is exactly what the accelerator chip is there to facilitate).

I agree that in actual use, if Ricoh managed to bake in noise reduction that has minimal-to-no impact on image detail... great. Enjoy it. But that isn't my point. My point is that it's disingenuous to compare baked RAW files from camera X to largely unmolested RAW files from camera Y - then go on and on about the amazing high ISO performance of camera X. That high ISO performance wasn't achieved by a superior sensor, shielding, cooling, etc. design. It was achieved with noise reduction algorithms. That's like comparing an untouched RAW to something you've run through Lightroom and reduced noise on. It makes no sense.

That's why I said it's absurd to try to say a KP might "match or best" FF in IQ. That's just absolutely not true. Suppressing high ISO noise to the level of an unmolested FF file doesn't mean it's matched it in image quality. If the sensor was truly better and truly matched FF image quality, we'd see increased DR across the range too. The D7200 was able to achieve an incredible 14.6 stops years ago, so it's definitely possible. At last check the KP and A6500 shared a sensor, and the A6500 is a full stop down from that. Otherwise, I can just take K3 files, run them through Lightroom, and two seconds later I've achieved the same "image quality" as the KP.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-15-2018, 07:44 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
Who's trashing it? In my short time on this forum I've quickly identified two groups of people: 1. Pentax can do no wrong and everything they produce is the best thing ever, 2. The realists.

Being a realist isn't "trashing" the brand. Having an unrealistic view of the brand's capabilities is even less beneficial.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-14-2018, 03:07 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
At what??

Even an M43 GH5 has a 1.5 stops lower DR at ISO100. An RX100iii with a 1" sensor has a over two full stops less DR at ISO100 and 2.5 stops lower high ISO performance.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-14-2018, 02:00 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
The KP has lower noise at high ISO, likely due to baking of the RAW files and not any hardware advancement that actually results in less noise. That's not the same thing as better low-light performance through increased DR and increased tonality in low light, which is where a 24mp FF like the D750 is going to excel with lower pixel density (hence larger pixels). High ISO performance is nice, but if you're shooting landscapes (which is supposedly Pentax's target market), then it's not terribly relevant and dynamic range matters a lot more.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-14-2018, 11:35 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
His entire post was comparing the D750 to the K3ii, not the K1, on the premise that the the D750 is



That's an absurd statement.

In reality, the K1 is a little better than the D750. The D750 is leaps and bounds better than the K3.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-14-2018, 11:24 AM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
A little better? This entire post is madness. The D750 has a full stop better DR at lowest ISO (50 vs 100) and maintains that advantage right through the available ISO range. That's not a trivial difference at all. The K1 barely bests the D750 at lower ISOs and is identical after ISO1600.

Their "sports" measure is almost a stop and a half better. That's the difference between a K3ii and a K10D. Not at all trivial. The D750 is only fractionally worse than the K1.

Pixel Shift is irrelevant because it's useless 98% of the time unless you're a dedicated, tripod stabilized landscape shooter only.

There's no comparison between a K3ii and a D750 - exactly as you'd expect when putting a 24mp APS-C against a 24mp FF. You don't even have to just geek out at DXO to see the difference. Compare the actual photos taken with both cameras. The D750 produces some of the richest, broadest DR images in a camera under $2k.

The selling point of the K3ii over the D750 is that it's half the price (when the D750 isn't on sale for $1500) - so performance per dollar it might beat it, but in absolutely image quality, not even close.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-13-2018, 03:27 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
I think that's the ticket. Other than people already owning K-mount film lenses, Pentax's biggest customers are likely people that actually put in the time to research camera systems and realize that Pentax gives them more for the money on both bodies and lenses. That's really the only competitive advantage they have and they threw it out the window with the KP. If they are making a K3iii, it just needs to be D7500 spec with AFC half as good and IBIS for $1100. Is that doable? Not sure.

---------- Post added 02-13-18 at 03:28 PM ----------



How? The KP doesn't even out-spec the K3ii that costs $100 less. It doesn't out-spec a D7200 that costs $100 less. The KP is a really expensive K70 with removable grips.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-13-2018, 01:41 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
Without a doubt, that's the market - but how big is that market? People looking for those features... that are also already Pentax users... that also already own LTD series lens... that wouldn't just rather move systems to an A6000s series. That has to be like, what, fifteen people? It's nice that they made a camera that's perfect for die-hard, existing Pentax users, but from a business perspective, is that really the best use of R&D and manufacturing dollars? Maybe if you're a company rolling in money and capacity, and want to do something nice for your fans. For a company in this position though, it's baffling.

I did almost buy a KP myself, but the more I thought about it the less sense it made from a practicality standpoint. Yes, it's a minuscule amount smaller than the K3 and a bit lighter, but it's also larger and heavier than the K-S2 which is nearly half the price and the K70 which is still significantly cheaper and loses very little in specs. The retro look is actually what got me in the first place, because it's cool and different... but $900 for cool and different? Had to pass on that one. The K-S2 already makes a great travel cam that's smaller and lighter than the KP, cheaper (slightly less worrying about it), and doesn't give up too much in the way of image quality or meaningful features to achieve a good heft reduction.

Pentax has(had) a good thing going with value for the money. K70 absolutely destroys competition in its price range. K1 is one of the best FF values on the market. K3ii offered a better spec sheet than the Canikon equivalents on release, for less money, and has only gotten better as prices dropped. I got the K-S2 because it too originally blew away competitors at its price point. And then there's this KP thing that offers so little for so much.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-13-2018, 12:58 PM  
Pentax K3ii officially discontinued
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 509
Views: 51,720
The KP might be good from an IQ standpoint, but to summarize everything you're saying... it's not a professional level camera. It lacks dual SDs, adequate burst, adequate buffer, adequate battery life, comfortable ergonomics (for long shooting hours, not for carrying around downtown), adequate shutter assembly life, etc.

I'd love to talk to someone in Pentax's marketing department and ask them for a profile of their target buyer in general and also the KP's target buyer. If their APS-C target buyer is someone looking for slim body portability and light weight, they're barking up the wrong tree and have dire times ahead. A KP and even KPii isn't going to compete with an A6xxx in those areas - not even close. Casual and street shooters are going mirrorless if they want slim and light. Professional shooters' needs haven't changed and they aren't going to downgrade to KP level specs just because the RAW files have nicely baked in noise reduction. The KP is a really confusing camera that must have an absurdly specific (and thus tiny) target market I just can't wrap my mind around a profile for. Discontinuing the only pro level APS-C camera without a replacement is even more confusing. The K70 is such a solid entry-level offering... why not duplicate that high value model up the chain?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 02-01-2018, 07:18 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
You're 100% right. Me taking a handful of pictures with it is a FAR superior method of judging its rendering than viewing thousands of pictures taken with it in diverse lighting conditions and of limitless different subjects. Smallest sample size possible always yields most accurate survey results. I learned that in stats 101... wait... what?

---------- Post added 02-01-18 at 07:28 AM ----------



Point me in the direction of a 9/10 condition one that's not from an EBayer in Japan.







You're absolutely right. If it was $400 I'd expect it to render like a fast kit lens. But it's not $400, so it's absurd that it renders like a kit lens for $1100.



And which lens is this? That's what this thread is about. Where is this expensive Pentax lens that can render like Canon L glass? We only have an expensive Pentax lens that renders like a kit lens.




I've been shooting other people's equipment for over a decade and shot film before that. I was a photography student in college. But the only real qualification I need to see the difference in rendering between lenses is eyes - and I have two of those.



No. I made a thread looking for suggestions and received 10% suggestions and 90% feelings hurt 24-70 owners trying to defend their purchase.





You're the second person to say this. My Flickr is right in my signature.




Lens rendering has nothing to do with skill. If you can set the camera to auto and click the shutter button, the rendering is entirely up to the glass at that point. The photo doesn't have to be well composed, interesting, or anything else. None of those things have anything to do with the way a lens renders, nor does it matter if someone is a 40 year professional or just started photography yesterday, flat images look flat and nicely rendered images look nicely rendered.




You've failed to actually read and comprehend the thread.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-31-2018, 01:54 PM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
That's definitely one I'm going to look into. The few images I've seen look nice and it's cheap, really cheap used. I'm not at all concerned with razor sharpness wide open or corner sharpness, so if those are the only downsides then I'll probably like it a lot.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-31-2018, 01:15 PM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
color flatness != dimensional flatness

Shooting video in a flat color profile is a compromise to preserve dynamic range in compressed video formats and/or to allow for better color control later. This has nothing to do with three dimensional rendering (or lack of) in photos.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-31-2018, 09:34 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
BINGO :cool:

---------- Post added 01-31-18 at 10:02 AM ----------



And I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but from a purchasing process standpoint I'm looking at a different order of operations. I'm going to narrow my options down by browsing the body of work first - which is where this thread originated. As zjacreman said, if hundreds of other photographers cannot achieve images that I find appealing with a given lens, I'm certainly not going to be able to either. Once I've got a few lens that stand out to me as nice, then I'll rent or buy and see which ones I end up wanting to keep. I'm certainly not going to browse images, find a lens that in hundreds of images has produced a handful I find nicely rendered and say to myself "I'm buying this one! I bet I can make it work!" That makes no sense, because I don't think I'm anything but an average photographer.

Part of the reason I went with Pentax is that I can load up on cheap old glass at basically no cost, keep what end up being the sleeper lenses (like my $25 F 35-70) and resell the rest. I still have a pile of A and M glass I haven't even shot a photo with yet. This is great for casual shooting and my own personal enjoyment, but when it comes to buying equipment for paying gigs that require auto focus and faster apertures, I'm starting to run into issues. Canon's L line manages to balance "corrected for digital" and wider apertures while maintaining life-like images. Pentax obviously used to be able to do this/had interest in doing this (see: FA* 28-70), but it seems to be lacking in the current line up. Now I have to choose between speed and life-like rendering when buying a zoom. The f2.8 zooms render flat. The nice rendering zooms are disappointingly slow (see: 16-85). The whole point of this thread was not to start a war with 24-70 owners that have a big purchase to defend, but to get some suggestions on the plethora of zoom glass available that might suit my needs/taste without me spending a decade sorting through the lens review page. 24-70 flame war aside, I have been given some good suggestions, bought one of them, and have plenty more to research.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-31-2018, 09:08 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
No it won't. A flat lens is a flat lens. If Lightroom could add "pixie dust"/pop/life then the DA Limited primes wouldn't even exist. Processed flat images look like processed flat images. See: every photo in the 24-70 thread other than Rondec's food images. Now, you can ruin a nicely rendered image in post, but you can't make a flat image not flat.



This is true. But that's why I don't only look at heavily controlled portraits. That's the great part of having thousands of images to look through - you can see how a lens performs in nearly any situation, probably some in which you'll never even use it. It's pretty hard to control lighting on landscapes.



I don't care about color rendering. That's what camera profile adjustments and HSL are for. It's not very frequently that a lens renders color so poorly that they aren't even there. As long as they're there, even if they're wrong, they can be corrected in post.

But, as mentioned above, you cannot get tonality and life back in post if it wasn't there to begin with.



It's not misleading at all. If I can look at 500 images from lens A that came from 50 different shooters and 450 of them look flat and lifeless, I can reasonably conclude that Lens A is flat and lifeless. I'm not looking at composition. I'm not looking at the fact that Rondec is a great photographer that takes well composed pictures in beautiful locations almost exclusively at golden hour. I'm not looking at how much post-process saturation was dumped into the image or whether someone composited a Milky Way sky into the photo. A saturated flat photo looks like a saturated flat photo. A nicely composed flat photo looks like a nicely composed flat photo.

Look, this isn't terribly difficult.

You're obviously familiar with the 24-70 club photos. If you haven't already (or recently), go look at the DA Ltd club photos and tell me the rendering is no more life like. Yes, it's primes compared to a zoom, but you can look at HD 16-85 pics if you want a more fair comparison. They're not even in the same city, let alone ballpark. AND that's with most of the 24-70's photos being taken on FF and the 16-85's photos taken on APS.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-31-2018, 07:49 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
As a matter of fact, yes. And I can't wrap my mind around what the issue with that is. What better way is there to judge a lens than by looking at its body of work? What's a more accurate assessment of a lens's rendering: me renting it and taking a few dozen photos over the course of a weekend or browsing through thousands of images online taken in various lighting, locales, times of days, seasons, colors, photography genres, etc? Why WOULDN'T that be the go-to method of judging a lens?

When you buy a car, do you go take a ten minute test drive and say "yup, this model is awesome, gonna last me 200k miles no problem" or do you take to the internet where you can review maintenance costs and statistics from thousands of owners and then make a judgement about whether it's a solid model car or not? If you're buy a track day weekend racer, do you get in it on the dealer's lot and rev it up a few times and say "yup, winner right here - sold" or do you go watch what other people are actually doing with the car at local tracks days, maybe even research how it's doing at track days across the country?

A lens is not a camera body. Camera bodies need to be felt, handled, and shot first-hand, because ergonomics, menus, button layout, size, weight, shape, battery life, etc. are all things someone needs to experience for themselves to make a decision. But a lens isn't a body. Lens ergonomics are way in the back seat. What matters is the images it produces, and I don't need to be the one clicking the button to fully experience those. I'm not a snob reading MTF charts on DXO (I don't even go there for anything but sensor reviews) and looking at 600% crops of the extreme top/left corner to check for whether that blade of grass 300 yards away is sharp enough. I'm doing literally the opposite of that and simply looking at photos as a whole, at reasonable sizes, saying "this looks real" and "this looks flat/fake/digital". And it's the fact that I'm not a DXO pixel peeper snob that leads me to conclusions like a $25 lens making nicer looking images than a $1100 lens.

No where am I claiming to be a "better photographer" than anyone else. Likewise, I don't care if you're a really good photographer and managed to take a nicely composed photo with a lens whose rendering I don't like. I can take a nicely composed picture with a piece of photo paper and a cardboard box with a hole in it - that doesn't make a cardboard box a great lens. A lens's rendering has nothing to do with who's taking the photo, as long as they've achieved the very low threshold of simply exposing correctly. So all the hyperbole of "hey look at this photo I took and I'm a good photographer, so this lens is great" or "oh go show those 24-70 guys how it's done if you're better" is just laughably ridiculous, because whether I'm a 14 year old girl taking MySpace angle shots with a cell phone or Annie Leibovitz is neither here nor there to the rendering of any particular lens. Photography skill isn't even relevant, but if you guys want to wave our photo manhoods around to see whose is bigger, maybe we can do some totally irrelevant blind tests of the DFA 24-70 vs nicely composed shots with the 18-50 kit lens and see how many people are actually capable of telling the difference.

There's nothing more telling of a lens's performance than it's body of work. If you or anyone else happens to own the DFA 24-70 and think it's awesome, great, more power to you. Keep enjoying it. Like BigMack said, no one is right or wrong here and my dislike of the 24-70 isn't a personal attack or insult against you or anyone that uses it. If you like the rendering, cool. I don't like the rendering. I think it sucks. Over $1000 for an easy focal length like 24-70 is a mid-high end lens. For that much money I don't just expect sharpness and speed, I expect life-like rendering - otherwise all I'm doing is paying nearly 3x as much money for no advantage but speed. That's not worth it, to me.

---------- Post added 01-31-18 at 08:06 AM ----------



Close. I'm looking for an actual 24-70 that maintains the nice, life-like rendering of the old FA 28-70. I don't really want a "crop equivalent" to a 24-70, I want an actual 24-70 for some reach and the fact that there's too much distortion going below 24mm (actual) even if the FOV is "24mm equivalent". FF guys tend to do the 24-70 and 70-200 thing to have themselves covered everywhere for event type shooting, but I've found that 24-70 on APS hits the middle of that range, allows me to carry only one lens/body, and has been good enough so far, albeit with a little extra "zooming on foot".

I'd buy the DA* in a heartbeat and simply deal with switching between it and the F 35-70 when needing something wider, but it too looks too blah, which is surprising for a * lens.



Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the Tamron 28-70 f2.8, which might not be an option for you if you're looking to go wider, but could be an option for me. I haven't had time to look through many images though, so no judgement on that one so far.

Would be interested in some images from the Sigma when you get it.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-30-2018, 01:30 PM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
Not hard to follow at all if you listen instead of trying to assign positions and box me into something easier to attack and write off than listen to.

Here's a start to finish walk through of my thoughts if it's too difficult to follow the thread or OP:

I know exactly what the Canikon glass costs. Where's the Pentax equivalent? It doesn't exist. Pentax has a $1100 option whose specs read the same, but rendering isn't even in the same universe, let alone ballpark. That's not an acceptable alternative, especially for $1100. I don't know who would pay $1100 for flat, kit lens rendering just to get f2.8. If they wanted to sell it as a fast kit lens upgrade for $500, whose images would be indistinguishable from a cheap Sigma of the same price, I'd think about it. But for $1100 I wouldn't buy it with someone else's money. BUT, if they wanted to actually offer a revamped FA* 28-70 or redesigned 24-70 that renders as well as it's Canikon competition, I'd absolutely pay $1900 for it, because this focal range at f2.8 is worth investing in IF the lens produces nice images.

I've already found a superior level of rendering performance to the DFA 24-70 from not a $40 lens, but a $25 lens. On a crop sensor, just about any image taken with the F 35-70 looks better than the DFA 24-70, and anyone can go see this for themselves after about ten minutes on Flickr. But what the F lacks is a constant 2.8 (sometimes I shoot indoors without flash, every little bit helps) and more range on the wide end (35mm isn't much to work with on APS)... which brings us to the FA* 28-70 f2.8 which checks all those boxes and, most importantly, maintains great rendering - hence this thread.

This lens is obviously out of production and clean examples are difficult to find. So here I am trying to discover why Pentax hasn't made an updated version of this lens (with nice rendering, not flat, lifeless rendering) or made a dedicated APS lens with the same qualities. Maybe the DA* 16-50 is that lens, but as zjacreman pointed out, the vast majority of the pictures taken with it aren't doing it justice if that's the case.

What's funny to me about this thread and a lot of the reactions to it is that a brand known for its outstanding rendering with the Limited, *, and A/M glass has a bunch of users basically saying "yea who cares if it's lifeless, it's really sharp, you're just too picky". Who here actually bought a Pentax to use lifeless, "but it's sharp" glass?

---------- Post added 01-30-18 at 01:32 PM ----------



Hahhaha didn't even see this before basically saying the exact same thing above. :lol:
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-30-2018, 10:32 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
The issue with renting is that I'm not going to pay $100 to have the thing for ONE day, to shoot ONE event or shoot under a single day's lighting conditions at a single or half-handful of places. Maybe I spend $200 to have it a couple days and double those numbers. $200 isn't a throw away amount of money. If I had browsed through Flickr and said to myself "I like this lens, I think I want it", I'd probably drop $100-200 to confirm that before spending $1300 on the lens itself. But after looking through a plethora of pictures that were taken under more conditions and in more places than I'll ever cover in a two day rental, this lens isn't even on my radar. There's no way I'm going to spend $200 to most likely reinforce that belief.



In cheap lens news, someone just listed an actual SMC (properly marked with the orange lettering) F 28-80 and I managed to get my $40 shipped offer accepted immediately. Hopefully that other one is returnable, although it's not much lost if it isn't.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-30-2018, 09:42 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
The lack of the orange lettering should have been the tip off, but I didn't realize there was a non-SMC Pentax version as well. Hopefully that'll be returnable for not being what it was advertised as.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-30-2018, 08:53 AM  
Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?
Posted By AyeYo
Replies: 69
Views: 4,692
Glad someone else is on the same page.

I found the same thing about the Takumar vs SMC versions. The EBay listing specifically stated SMC and the lens says Pentax-F on it and not Takumar-F, but I'm also slightly concerned because the brand badging doesn't match the typical SMC-F lenses, nor does it actually say SMC on it. Maybe because it's the Japanese version?

What do you think?

Pentax SMC F Zoom 28-80mm f3.5-4.5 Lens for Pentax AF from Japan Z0798A | eBay



Everyone seems to be a sharpness disciple and I'm sure the DFA 24-70 is plenty sharp. But the rendering as far as color, contrast, and pop/pixie dust (whatever you want to call it) looks barely better than a kit lens, albeit a fast one. That stuff is far more important to me than razor sharpness.

And yes, I mis-typed FA* as DFA* in a few places. I do know they're different lenses. The FA* rendering looks excellent and I wish I could buy one new or that Pentax would bring it back minus the unnecessary power zoom.
Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 78

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 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