|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
12-10-2014, 07:04 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-31-2013, 10:39 AM
|
| |
Does anyone have a sense of how the DA* lenses will perform on the full frame body when it is released? They've always been billed as Pentax's response to the DSLR, which has implicitly meant a cropped frame. I expect my DA* 15-60mm will now perform at it's true focal length. But, I'm wondering how much f-stop I'll lose if I convert from my K-5 to FF.
Am I correct to think that f2.8 will perform at about f3.5? And do folks expect vignetting, since the DA* line was built to hit a smaller target than the full frame?
Finally, will the SMC Pentax-FA Ltd. lenses maintain their f-stops on the full frame? I feel more confident that because the FA series was designed for film, there will not be any vignetting or performance drop off on a FF body.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-22-2012, 10:21 AM
|
| |
Thank you, everyone, so far for your comments. They've been extremely helpful. I wanted to attach, for the sake of someone coming to this with the same question I have, an email I got from a friend of mine who's a big Pentax enthusiast and has a fairly large array of lenses that he owns and has worked with. It's his answer to the same question I asked in this post...
More elements is more interference between sensor and image. The extra elements are there for focal range/macro ability.
I think this blurb says it all on the sigma:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Reviewed: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
(Vine Review: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Review)
I think you’re getting too caught up in the details. Many of the reviews read like a car magazine without considering real world limitations: If the average speed limit is 45mph, do I really care that I can do 0-60 in 5.4 secs?(and brake in time for the next stop sign…) A lot of these reviews for the sigma are based on Nikon or Canon bodies which will produce different results anyway. None of the choices you’re presenting will work poorly, So at this point it’s really about cost. If it’s not about cost get the best aperture you can afford.
Here’s my take on these three:
If you’re going to be in low light 60% of the time get the sigma. ( I ‘need’ my 1.7 about twice a year. 2.8 is usually fine)
If you think you’ll be doing any serious macro work (less than 3ft) get the 2.8
Otherwise the 2.0 is a good general lens.
Look at the photos in the second link above. If those shots are problematic, then what’s the point... I give up.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-21-2012, 02:20 PM
|
| |
I should add that the price comp between the f2.8 and the f2.0 is no longer as large as it may have once been, creating for me more intrigue around the f2.8
At B&H
f2.8 = $539.95
f2.0 = $475.00
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-21-2012, 01:34 PM
|
| |
I'm going to be purchasing a Pentax K-5 and want to start with a nice 35mm prime for capturing indoor, photojournalistic moments. I want to prioritize sharpness and bokeh at the best value. I'd also like to find the quickest lens possible, because I see myself shooting a lot in poorly lit rooms at friend's houses and when out at evening events.
The two lenses I'm strongly considering are the
Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro
Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro - Review / Test Report
Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL
Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report
I'm leaning toward the f/2.8, which is at the very edge of my price range, because of its better optics. But, the 2.0 seems to be evaluated as an outstanding value for the price. I've also strongly considered the Pentax 43mm f/1.9 ltd, which is around the same price as the 35mm f/2.8, but I believe will put me too close to my subjects as my primary lens. The one thing I will say I really like about the 2.0 is the 2.0. The extra openness could be of great use in the kinds of settings where I'll be shooting.
So, wondering your thoughts here and whether the extra price for the 2.8 is worth it.
|
