|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-31-2023, 01:15 PM
|
| |
This reminds me - I think the DA*200 I tried was slower focusing than most lenses. This is bad if you shoot action, yet a 200mm lens would often be used for this -> poor design IMO. On the newer bodies a few screw drive lenses outperform many SDM lenses in focusing speed (e.g. the FA135/2.8). I believe what happens is the new body upgrades the motor for an older lens, whereas an SDM lens is stuck with its built-in motor. So it’s possible the FA*200 would be better than the DA*200 in this regard. I also prefer the FA*200’s color rendering in the photos I’ve seen.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
04-08-2019, 06:47 PM
|
| |
I think you are closest to the causal issue here. The perceived (and actual) value of photographic images is the root problem. This was caused primarily by the explosion of online images, fueled both by the popularity of social media/online galleries (e.g. Instagram) and the ease of acquiring/posting images (e.g. via smart phones).
The resulting heavy over saturation of images has lowered their value, which in turn has lowered the expectations for professional quality. People believe anybody can produce good images while investing almost no time or money. Only special events such as weddings are seen as important enough to justify the (erroneously perceived) “slight” improvement a photographer can bring.
So the saturation of images has led to people’s belief that they’ve already seen everything there is to be seen; therefore neither photographers nor viewers can drive as many camera sales anymore.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
04-10-2019, 02:14 PM
|
| |
This is an interesting perspective I didn’t expect, and I’ll continue to think about it more.
But I do believe that even within our personal collections, the explosion in the number of digital images (whether from a higher quality camera or not) lowers our perceived value of them. Think about how we consider historical family photos one of the first possessions we’d save in the event of a fire. The number of good family photographs from the film era are relatively few, while there’s a proliferation of quality personal digital photos.
This makes it harder for us to justify the additional time and cost of better photographic gear - because we’ll get “good enough” images from our cell phones anyway. Obviously Forum members think otherwise, but our ranks are slowly shrinking.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-10-2019, 03:22 PM
|
| |
That sounds like a good plan. The most important factor is that you like the images from a lens you choose, such as as the DA12-24.
Those lenses will get you familiar with the focal lengths. You will be able to concentrate on that and composition.
Eventually you’ll look at subject isolation (Depth of Field) too. That was my idea behind suggesting the D FA 100/2.8 WR Macro. There are many other lenses (some more expensive, some much less expensive) of f/2.8 or faster at similar focal lengths that will achieve the same purpose. Examples include the (manual focus) M or A 100/2.8 (non-Macro), the F or FA 135/2.8, FA and earlier 100/2.8 macros, the FA 77/1.8, and the DA 70/2.4.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-08-2019, 05:05 PM
|
| |
At the risk of sounding as corny as the first line of a product manual, Congratulations on your purchase of the Pentax KP kit! Amongst many quality cameras on the market, you couldn’t have done better. The KP is an ideal platform, and you’ve bought into a community at Pentax Forums that’s anxious to help.
I’m glad to hear your trip is in December - this gives you time to prepare.
First and foremost, I suggest taking one or two photography classes in landscape or general photography. If you can, take them in person, such as at a local camera shop. Ignore the fact that everyone else uses a different brand - Pentax forces you to focus on the fundamentals, which is to your benefit.
The two topics you want to concentrate on the most - even if you have to study by yourself - are “The Golden Spiral” (Composition) and Depth of Field. Continue to think about them, even after you already know them.
Next is what you asked about - one or two lenses to buy or rent. As you know you’ll need to get hands-on with them to understand what you’re capable of.
My essential kit is the FA*24/2, the FA*85/1.4, and the F*300/4.5. Why do I mention this? These are three vastly different lenses/focal lengths, but their fast apertures give me so much flexibility that I usually don’t need the focal lengths in between. Experience with any one of them (or a similar lens) will change how you look at photography, and equip you for specific types of shots.
The other two lenses I can’t avoid needing sometimes are a macro (the D FA 100/2.8 WR Macro) and a wider angle (the DA 10-17 Fisheye), so I carry them too.
Let me attempt to summarize at the end of this exceedingly long post:
After studying Composition and DOF, immediately get your hands on a couple of lenses. If you can afford it, I’d suggest the D FA 100/2.8 WR Macro plus either the FA*24/2 or DA21/3.2 (each of these lenses has also been recommended by somebody else in this thread). While I think you may gain even more (learning and capability-wise) from the FA*24’s faster f/2 aperture, the DA21 (even the HD version) is an excellent value that’s hard to pass up, whether new or used.
While these overlap focal lengths you already have, they provide at least three advantages you can’t duplicate with your zoom:
1) Their faster apertures provide advantages you have to use to appreciate
2) They create higher quality images without requiring much stopping down
3) They force you to concentrate on a specific focal length, which is important right now
4) The Macro is so good it can double as your affordable medium-long Portrait (~70-100mm) lens
Your DA18-135 is a nice lens, but these will help you expand your photography.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-08-2019, 05:33 PM
|
| |
First, if you’re tethering, make sure there’s a tethering solution that works for you with this camera.
Secondly, make sure your Post Processing solution is to your liking. In particular, Capture One won’t support Pentax MF cameras - whether tethered or not - because Phase One views them as competition to their own (somewhat superior but more expensive) MF camera systems. Most other PP software will probably be fine. This is unfortunate :(, since IMO Capture One is the best.
As you know, like most Digital MF sensors it's cropped compared to film. But once you’ve verified the necessary infrastructure (as above) is in place you should probably find a good lens or two and try it!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-22-2014, 08:46 PM
|
| |
WR 24mm first; then maybe 28 or 35.
There is the DA20-40, but I don't consider the IQ up to that of a prime, or even as good as it should be for a 20-40mm zoom.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-21-2018, 11:52 PM
|
| |
I presume you’re thinking of going wider when you say “for landscape.”
The obvious choices are the excellent DA15 for APS-C, and the nice FA*24 or FA20 for the K-1.
I’ve had all of them (and still have the latter two), although I haven’t tried a K-1 yet. I’d recommend any of them, and they’re sufficiently compact.
But I think you also need a 100mm+ lens. I can think of 4 great candidates off the top of my head:
- M or A100/2.8
- Cosina 100/3.5 Macro (light and affordable; available under many brands including Pentax)
- DFA 100/2.8 WR Macro
- F or FA135/2.8
I still own all 4 of these, which means I really like them
If you combine a DA15 or FA20 with your excellent K28/3.5 and FA43, plus a 100mm+ lens you’ll have a versatile yet lightweight kit.
Although the above is my preferred approach, the DFA 28-105 is a viable option. It’s one of the few “slow” lenses I would want. But I think getting a both a wider and a longer lens is more important than investing in a K-1 at this point.
EDIT: Don’t overlook the F17-28 (K-1) or DA10-17 Fisheye zooms (they could serve as your only UWA). At the “long” end they have minimal distortion, plus natural landscapes easily hide fisheye distortion since no one knows the original proportions of natural objects anyway. And if you break the normal rules and put the horizon smack in the middle of the frame you can even get away with using the full, wide fisheye end. I have them, and I actually allowed myself to sell the wonderful DA15 because I kept the DA10-17.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-28-2018, 07:03 PM
|
| |
Their scheme is to get us to buy both, even if we weren't planning to. So we get the 50 now since we can't get the 11-18, and then we have plenty of time to prepare to lay out another big chunk of change next year for the 11-18!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-27-2018, 10:26 PM
|
| |
Oh no, minty is really bad - Mint anything always turns out to be in much worse condition than something “Like New” (which is often accurate) - don’t ask me why it’s this way. But if they can’t even commit to “Mint,” well ...
Coin collectors know Mint is better than Uncirculated, but for some reason Mint in any other product means “noticeably used.” It would be better if they just said “lot’s of potential!”
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-25-2018, 11:47 AM
|
| |
By page 7 the AF discussion regresses into normhead wishing he were Chevy Chase! ;)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-26-2018, 05:39 PM
|
| |
I attended a presentation by this professional wildlife photographer last week. She is average size and strength, yet she lugs a 500mm f/4 lens around to get shots like this:
Sandra Lee Photography | Dakotas
The backgrounds are very important to her (you may want to browse her other shots). Her Canon Digital Pro body is nearly 10 years old (I’m not kidding) but she (appropriately) insists on the fastest (widest aperture) lenses for most of her shots - a 300/2.8 and the aforementioned 500/4.
While there are photographic situations where you can take fantastic pictures with older, slower, inexpensive Pentax lenses (and you can learn about them on this forum), there are very good reasons pros want wide-aperture lenses.
You just purchased an excellent lens and camera - I suggest you take full advantage of it. I also suggest you pick up a reasonably priced 100 or 135mm lens (such as the f/2.8 models - used is fine) and see what it does for you. This experience should answer most of your questions.
You may also want to browse the Pentax Photo Gallery, selecting different lenses, and see what appeals to you. Most photos include information on the lens and camera settings used.
PENTAX : Welcome to the PENTAX Photo Gallery |
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
06-21-2018, 08:00 PM
|
| |
For action sports 1/400s is the minimum you can (sometimes) get away with, while 1/800s is preferable. Even if the catwalk is less demanding, I think his ISO 500 setting was far too low.
About 3 years ago I was shooting an indoor high school dance competition while Crewl1 DJ'd. Next to me was a Canon shooter with some nice equipment (L glass on a 5D Mk II or III, I believe). Even though he had some experience at these competitions, he refused to raise his ISO to a level that would give him adequate shutter speeds. I think all the negative industry press coverage at the time (of Canon's inferior sensor noise performance) had gotten to him, and he couldn't keep it in proper perspective.
I got some nice keepers from the event. Of course I had the normal challenges with composition and Pentax AF speeds. But the noise from the ISO limit of ~5000-10,000 I typically use on my K5 IIs didn't ruin any of my shots, whereas setting the ISO around the 400-800 I think he was using would have ruined most of them!
Perhaps this Pro still hasn't gotten over Canon's historic ISO weakness, despite the fact that he was using the excellent 5D Mk. IV!
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
06-25-2018, 10:22 AM
|
| |
When I want to get a print out - or a small set - I use the Canon Pro 100 with Canon inks, Canon paper, and Canon profiles. I can literally get quality prints in only the time it takes to crop and print my (already processed) files. And the print times are fast too. Every other serious photo printer literally takes me 3-10 times longer to get results, as I print, re-print, and otherwise mess around. And then I still wonder if the print is good enough, and may re-print it again in a follow up session or two.
There’s potential value in pursuing third party inks/papers/profiles. You may save some money and improve your results, but you won’t save time.
In other words, the Canon Pro-100 has saved me from myself.
For me, using the Canon supplies has made the difference between getting nice prints to hang or give out vs. having my images stuck in digital purgatory forever.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-23-2018, 04:54 PM
|
| |
I read your Original Post last night just before I fell asleep, but I wasn't sure what to reply.
I've owned every lens you mentioned.
Keep in mind that my latest body is the K-5 IIs, so I can't speak about performance on the K-1 or any other more recent bodies.
My first thought is you don't need the FA35/2 - especially if you're keeping the FA31. I owned two copies of the FA35 concurrently, so I really wanted to love it. I ended up selling both because I couldn't get adequate IQ wider than f/2.5. You could re-aquire one easily enough if you later regretted it, or you could get it in DA35/2.4 guise instead. In fact, I've long argued that the DA35/2.4 (I've used one) is better anyway - it delivers nice round bokeh circles wide-open at the IQ sweet spot.
This was my next thought. If you have a good copy of the FA24-90 count yourself lucky! It was my first "non-kit" lens and I was rather fond of the travel images it produced. Many people apparently have bad copies of this lens - mine has frequent AF problems and developed optical issues after its fall from my cursed old green Canon backpack (the horrible design unzipped by itself while wearing it, and the FA24-90 was its unwitting victim)!
I may be romanticizing this one a bit, but I still have great shots from it.
As for the rest:
I trimmed my kit down to "only" 12-16 key lenses (plus a few of Pentax' great, cheaper lenses like the F24-50/4):
I sold the 3 amigos :eek:, and effectively replaced them with the FA*24, FA*85, and F*300. As great as the FA Ltds are, I've been fine without them. The FA*85 and F*300 are now my favorite lenses. The FA Ltds are still amazing for their size, and outstanding in their own right. But somehow these widely-spaced F/FA* focal lengths suit me, and sometimes I carry only these three lenses.
Oddly enough, I don't have a single prime between 29mm and 84mm anymore (except for the A50/1.7, which I've lent out). It seemed that I didn't get enough interesting shots between these focal lengths. Of course this range includes all 3 FA Ltds. They're all wonderful, but they weren't doing enough for me. I think if I ever need primes in this range again I'll know it, and they're readily available. I suppose if I get a K-1 I'll be content with a single ~24-80/2.8 zoom to cover this.
I really liked the FA20-35/4, but managed to let go of it when I got the FA20. I don't think I regret this either. I still have faster FA20/*24/28 lenses, plus the DA* zoom.
The FA*24 has become an essential part of my kit. The fast aperture makes a big difference to me, allowing me to leave behind the FA20, FA28, DA*16-50, and (often) even the DA10-17. But I confess it's tricky to wrest what I want out of it sometimes. Like the fine FA31, it can take extra work to avoid getting ~ordinary looking images from it.
TLDR; What I actually did is sell the FA35, the FA20-35, and ~lost the FA24-90 to an accident (without replacing it). I kept the FA20 and acquired an FA*24.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-23-2018, 05:49 PM
|
| |
It could also indicate that most of the Sony A7 buyers are coming from Canon. The local high-end camera shop says virtually everyone is buying Sony now.
Canon owners are used to having the best compatibility with peripherals, software, and lenses, so I'd imagine they want native Sony-mount lenses when switching systems. This could cause a glut of Canon-mount lenses in the market.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-28-2012, 12:51 AM
|
| |
On paper they're optically identical, but in practice they never are. I think it's because the glass elements were manufactured slightly differently in each generation. In my experience, each generation has a distinct character of it's own - in other words, K glass looks different from M glass, which looks different from A glass, which looks different from FA glass, ...
I find the character of the F and A glass are the most similar to each other - F glass looks almost like A glass with AF added. And occasionally a particular F lens model may look like FA glass (or visa versa). Perhaps this is mostly with later model F lenses or early FA lenses, where they "crossover" somewhat. But in general each generation yields a distinctive appearance. If you're a discerning viewer, you can often identify the generation of the glass just by looking at the images it produces (if you study the http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=820 long enough you'll start to notice the differences, and then as you build your own lens collection you'll see they follow the same trends). On the surface you might describe the "look" as differences in attributes like color, contrast, or CAs, While these differences are subtle, they're identifiable, and in my opinion subtle differences can make the difference between an image people stop to admire and one they pass right over.
I never tried the FA50/1.4 (there was no point for me, since the F version was rated better, and I usually favor F glass anyway), but I owned the other 3. I'd already viewed enough images to know I didn't want the FA50/1.4. However, I thought my F50/1.4 was rather nice - that is, until I compared it to the FA43. To put them in perspective, the scale (from 1 to 10) from the perspective of a discerning, near-perfectionist would go something like this:
10 - none (this is reserved for lenses like the Sony Zeiss 135/1.8)
9 - DA*55 (nearly 10 for sharpness, but backgrounds are a mixed bag)
9 - K50/1.2 (OK sharpness, but excellent backgrounds)
8 - FA43 (perhaps the best color of any Pentax lens)
5.5 - F50/1.4 (nice, rich color)
5 - FA50/1.7 (overall pleasing images)
4.5 - F50/1.7
4 - FA50/1.4 (rating based on comparing many images online and comparing to lenses I owned)
2.5 to 3.5 - Excellent kit zooms like the F35-70/3.5-4.5, F70-210/4-5.6, or F24-50/4
2 - DA18-55 kit zoom
1 - Canon ~18-55 kit zooms (sorry Canon, your L glass is great, but not your kit lenses!)
So a "3" is a nice lens I still enjoy using, even though there's better glass out there. As you can see, while the AF 50's are good, they're not outstanding. So while you may still want to take the time to find the particular model you like better, keep in mind that the differences become mostly irrelevant when you compare them to the more expensive models.
[It should be noted that most of my shots, with any lens, are taken within 1 stop (or sometimes 2) of wide open, so my assessments should be viewed in that light]
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-14-2016, 12:32 AM
|
| |
Outis, don't feel bad - it's really not a special lens. The fact that it's now discounted almost 50% may be a clue (although lenses like the 100 WR Macro are an exception to this idea). If we could see 5-10 years into the future at the comparative used prices of this lens we'd get a clearer idea of how good it is - I'm thinking around $300 (or maybe less) for this one. But of course you can simply judge with your own eyes right now.
You have 3 great Ltd primes - 15, 31, and 77 - all of which I've owned. This isn't in their league.
Those who have this lens and like it, just ignore me and keep on loving it - no harm done and you can continue to be happy. But I've never seen anything special out of this lens. I'd much rather have my FA20-35/4 back, if I needed such a lens. For that matter, I also prefer my F24-50/4.
No, I haven't owned this lens, but after owning 20 or 30 of the best Pentax lenses (I lost count) and diligently studying others' photos before purchasing them, I gained a pretty good understanding of what a lens would give me - even before it ever arrived. This is not a lens I would purchase.
So don't feel guilty Outis. I don't think you're missing anything here.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 04:00 PM
|
| |
It should say "look at me," then have the aesthetics to back it up as one continues to look at it.
Usually easier said than done. But sometimes we manage to get it.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-07-2015, 12:22 AM
|
| |
Yes, I've noticed this smoothness with some Phase One images too. I suspect it's a little of both; nevertheless, you can still do very well with a Pentax and a good lens (e.g. FA43 stopped down a little). I did a direct studio comparison with an FA43 on my Pentax (K-5 or K200D) and a Hasselblad. It was Hasselblad promo event.
When I looked at the photos later in the editing software (it was either Capture One or Phocus) I had trouble telling which images came from which camera, without looking at the metadata. They both had beautiful colors and a pretty similar appearance. I'm well aware of some of the medium format advantages, but this impressed me with just how good the Pentax and an FA43 already was!
I actually believe some of what you see (not all of it, of course) can be due to the CCD sensors. So a K200D or K10D can be good here.
But even on my computer screen I can see breathtaking smoothness on some of those Phase One images. You probably won't completely duplicate it with a DSLR - possibly not even the 645D. And of course Phase One strategically omits support for Pentax 645s and Hasselblad in Capture One, because their software really is good.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-24-2015, 07:26 PM
|
| |
A lower price benefits Ricoh more than you, probably. Unless you already have a complete stable of FF glass, you'll end up paying for premium-priced lenses. My guess is most people are in my boat - they'll need at least one more lens - probably two. If I want to replace my DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 with their FF counterparts, each will now cost me about three times (!) what I originally paid for the APS-C versions.
So Ricoh just needs to get you in the door with a lower priced body, as usual. A couple months after you get it, it will come to you that you really do need those two extra lenses after all! We lie to ourselves as we make the initial purchase of the flashy new body, but we pay later.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
02-25-2015, 11:02 PM
|
| |
FA*24. Better focal length most of the time - particularly outdoors. Sold my FA31; kept it.
Save yourself some money - 23-24mm (on APS-C) or 35mm (on FF - same angle of view) is what most premium fixed focal length cameras have today (e.g. Fuji X100 series; Sony RX1).
Most of the time, however, when I need low light indoors it's the FA*85/1.4 - because I'm shooting my daughter or niece in a play. Both the focal length and aperture are nearly ideal. It's not a traditional "landscape" focal length, but it still works well for that too. Possibly my most used lens. The FA77/1.8 did the job almost as well when I had it. Both are very good wide open, though often I still want to stop them down by 1/3 stop or so.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-04-2015, 05:27 PM
|
| |
I agree. Anything with an F that stands for "Full Frame" is cheesy. Only Nikon managed to get away with that (with their FX designation - but it's not in the model name!).
K-2 or K2 (probably need the hyphen, actually) would be classic and allude to the high-end K2 of the film era.
How about a K-1000D entry model?? ;) (Don't think so - the D's considered extraneous these days, though Canon and Nikon seem to be a bit 'stuck' in this regard).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-06-2015, 12:00 AM
|
| |
It may also be a hint that we will see something like K-2, K-F2, K-L2, or a similar name on a new FF.
---------- Post added 02-05-15 at 11:08 PM ----------
Look how DSLR cameras are becoming - very tied in to the legacy. People have decided they like a conventional grip, which originally was almost created by accident - or at least had as much to do with the need to put a roll of film in there as anything else. To retain such a grip they have to put something in the large space of the grip - so they stuff a battery in there. Then they have to leave some space between the grip and the lens so one can get his fingers in there to hold it - thus making the camera wider. And they need to have a great amount of thickness front-to-back in order to maintain the registration distance for the lenses, as well as giving the mirror space to move within. On the left side virtually nothing's left, because no legacy requirement forces them to even have a "left side!"
It's no wonder mirrorless ILCs have become prevalent in the market. I think they should design a smaller, mirror-like part that doesn't have to flip and take up so much volume or front-to-back space.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-04-2015, 05:37 PM
|
| |
I was actually thinking of the K007 Paul Frank designer camera.
Cartoons, colors, designer, "Be Different" - it all fits with Pentax.
|
