|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-14-2010, 04:34 PM
|
| |
You wrote down all the obvious differences. You can use you 50-135 to test whether 70mm is good/enough for your needs. The 70mm is really a small lense but not so flexible. Another difference is the bokeh. There I would say, best ones are the 77mm, then the 50mm f1,4 lenses and then the 70/50-135.
I would say the image quality of the two lenses is quite similar. One is more flexible and heavier, the other one is inflexible but small/lightweight.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-14-2010, 04:04 PM
|
| |
At the moment I've got the 18-55 and the 50-200 wr using them with a K7 (and some other more specialized lenses, eg the 40 ldt and 55*). I am thinking about a reduction of the numbers of my lenses and one option is selling the 18-55+50-200 and replacing it with the Tamron 18-250 or the new Pentax 18-135 wr.
I would keep at least the 40 ltd as a prime lense.
My question is: What are the reasons to take the new Pentax 18-135 instead of the Tamron 18-250? Both of them encompass a big range and both are not that fast/euqally slow. Both are zooms and their image quality will be similarily worse than the image quality of primes. So to say, I know the zooms are worse than primes. Knowing this I only would like to have one lense as a standard lense with a bigger range than 16-50/17-70mm and a image quality being not worse than the quality of the 18-55+50-200.
The single hard fact advantage of the Pentax is the wr, so weather resistance. The advantage of the Tamron is the bigger range (18-250mm).
Referring only to image quality: Are the lenses comparable to each other?
Or is the image quality of the 18-135 one (or more...) step ahead?
Is there a difference in image quality between the 18-55+50-200 on the one hand and the Tamron 18-250 or Pentax 18-135 on the other hand?
Would you replace the 18-55+50-200?
ps: Tamron 18-250, not 270...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-10-2009, 07:00 AM
|
| |
Pentax does no more show the roadmap - the roadmap in the internet is an old one. As far as i know they don`t want to give the competition to much information as they did in the past.
And I am disapointed because the lense does not have a focus limiter or at least a clamp. On the german website is written: "The lense construction is based on the construction of the D FA 100 mm macro. A clamp exists no more..."
This combined with its price, the lense won't be in my camera bag. I'll take the very good Tamron 90 - focus limiter, half price, excellent macro, good protrait lense and usable as a 90mm tele lense.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-09-2009, 06:33 PM
|
| |
And the lense is big - I would prefer a lense in size of the fa 35. f1,4 is nice, but I would be happy with a lense with f1,8 or f2, but small enough to carry around all the time. A da* f1,4 could be as big as the da*55 - this lense is to big to take it with you all the time. The fa 35 is much smaller, also the fa 50 is smaller.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-09-2009, 04:55 PM
|
| |
Someone said, the new kx buyers will be the new customers - replacement for leaving customers switching to Canikon.
But: The kx customers bought a relatively cheap body, do these people want to buy lenses for 1000 dollars each?
Pentax will not be able to satisfy the customers needs if they do not offer some affordable lenses in near future - and then Pentax will lose these "new customers"...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-09-2009, 04:15 PM
|
| |
I cannot find information about a clamp or focuslimiter functions.
Does Pentax really sell a new lense without this function for about the double price of the similar competition?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-08-2009, 08:54 PM
|
| |
I would really extremly like to see a lense like the FA35 f2. A normal / standard lense, you can buy without being rich...
In Germany now you have to pay about 660 Euro / 970 US Dollar for a FA 35, for the even more expensive alternative, the ltd 31, you have to pay 950 Euro / 1400 US Dollar - out of my personal range for a prime as a hobby photographer not earning money from my hobby.
So my wish would be:
- continue the production of the fa 35 and reduce its price to the normal price for such a lense, perhaps 250 Euro, as it was for a long period of time.
- offer a new standard/normal lense as a Water Resistant / WR lense:
DA WR 32mm f1,8 or f2,0, that in a relativ compact form and for a reasonable price for less than 300 Euro.
Moreover I would like to have:
- DA WR 85 f1,4
- DA WR 135 f1,8
- DA WR or ltd or * in 13mm - I think the ltd 15mm is a bit to short, to similar to the 16mm of the da*16-50. For a compact 12 or 13mm (like the 15mm) prime I would sell my huge 12-24mm Zoom, but not for the 15mm.
Why not DA *?
- They are expensive - it seems to be a new strategy of Pentax, all new lenses seem to be high price lenses; they have stopped to produce lenses everyone can afford. The new WR kit zooms are the only really affordable and for their price good lenses.
- The autofocus of the * are sloooow. I own a DA*55mm and its autofocus works like a snail. The AF of the da 70mm ltd is for example much faster.
- The * lenses have a very good build quality, but they are - compared to the ltd - huge. I would LOVE to see ltd lenses with weather sealing.
For me Da* are good for portraits of sleeping babies or in concert situations, because they are quite silent. But in all the other situations I prefer excellent compact ltd or water resistent good WR zoom/prime lenses. As I said, a combination of WR and ltd would be perfect!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-05-2008, 08:09 PM
|
| |
Hi folks,
has anyone heard about a new Pentax 55-300mm f4-5.6?
Will this lense be the next standard telephoto zoom lense, so will this new one be a replacement for the 55-200mm?
Slowly but surely I am a bit afraid Pentax has perhaps announced to much new stuff at once. Thinking about the long long waiting periods for new lenses in the past, Pentax would have to change their "production speed" completetly - and at the same time Pentax would have to improve the quality control to prevent such a story as the 16-50 * SDM. The people would not like 4 or 5 new lenses in 2008 - which would have such problems.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-31-2008, 06:36 AM
|
| |
Thanks for your fast answers :) I like Pentax more and more, hope to have the "little amount of money" to buy my dslr pentax equipment. It is a bit strange, but Pentax seems to attract me in a magical way. Whereas Nikon or Canon are tools for me, Pentax is a bit more - strange but nice :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-30-2008, 04:50 PM
|
| |
Hello :)
What do you think about the old Pentax lenses being used with the new K20D? Pentax has developed a new version of the kit lense, the 18-55 II. They made this because - as I have understood - the old 18-55 has a resolution, which could make problems being used with the 14 MP K20D.
But what is gonna happen with the other old Pentax lenses? Are there any other lenses which could cause problems with the K20D?
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-31-2007, 01:24 PM
|
| |
Hallo and a happy new year :)
I am new in this forum and I hope you can help me with a question.
Although this is mainly a forum about photography and Pentax I also found in this section some posts about the other adobe programs of the creative suite. I have seen there are some people who do image editing and web design in this forum.
Up to now I used gimp (for a short time), Photoshop Elements 6 and coding oriented html/css editors (not wysiwyg). I made courses about / working with Photoshop CS3 standard and Indesign. So I have some experience, but not enough to decide on my questions concerning the Adobe software. I know you can download trial versions. But I think you will not get a real full insight in the software only by playing a bit with it. My opinion is, that you only really get insight working with software on projects / "real life". So I hope here are some people who are working in this field of activity (image editing and web design).
Answering my questions or only giving me your opinion would help me a lot :)
I would like to buy the adobe products I need to do tasks in web design, image editin and text layout. So I have looked on the adobe website and found two possibilities to buy the software I think would need.
I am from Germany - I do not know wether the Adobe creative suites differ from country to country concerning the combination of the Adobe suites. And I am still student - so I will buy student or the academic versions. So my two possibilities are:
A) The first possibility would be to buy 2 seperate suites: Creative Suite Web Standard + Creative Suite Design Standard. These two suites would contain:
Design Standard: InDesign CS3, Photoshop CS3, Illustrator CS3, Acrobat 8 Professional
Web Standard: Adobe Dreamweaver CS3, Adobe Flash CS3 Professional, Adobe Fireworks CS3 (as a replacement for Imageready, which is no longer part of photoshop), Adobe Contribute CS3
B) The second possibility would be to buy the "Creative Suite Design Premium". This one would contain the following programs:
InDesign CS3, Photoshop CS3 Extended, Illustrator CS3, Acrobat 8 Professional, Flash CS3 Professional, Dreamweaver CS3 Professional
So the advantage of the "Creative Suite 3 Design Premium" is:
- the extended version of Photoshop
- the professional version of Dreamweaver
The disadvantage of the "Creative Suite 3 Design Premium" is:
- Fireworks and Contribution is not part of the suite. This is espacially annoying, because ImageReady is no longer part of Photoshop.
Now the questions:
- I have tried to read a lot about the programs. So - if I have understood right - you do not need the extended version of photoshop for image editing. Is that correct?
The end of ImageReady seems to be a big problem for some people used to work with Adobe suites. And there are even people who go back to version CS2 only to get back ImageReady.
Adobe tries to tell the people they would have transferred the skills from ImageReady to Photoshop - and Fireworks should do now the things Photoshop can not do as well as ImageReady.
But there seem to be a lot of people who do not want to work with Fireworks or who are not content with it.
I do not produce 3D Animations, but I do webdesign. So, if there is someone who knows the photoshop versions in detail and who knows perhaps even Fireworks:
- Which software packages [A) or B)] of these two would you recommend to buy? So, what is more useful for webdesign: the extended version of Photoshop or Fireworks as an additional programm?
Or would you even say for web design you do not need Fireworks and you do not need the extended version. Do the new CS3 versions of Dreamweaver and Photoshop work together in a way, that makes possible a good workflow in the field of activity of webdesign without ImageReady or Fireworks?
A) Creative Suite Web Standard + Creative Suite Design Standard
+ plus Fireworks and Contribution
- "only" the standard versions of photoshop and dreamweaver
B) Creative Suite 3 Design Premium
+ extended version of Photoshop and professional version of Dreamweaver
- no Fireworks and no Contribution
What do you think?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-30-2007, 06:09 PM
|
| |
Hallo,
I would like to purchase one the discussed versions of Photoshop - but I am not really sure which one would be the right one.
I have read about different versions of Photoshop CS3 - a standard version and an extended version. Can someone explain the differences between the two versions? Is the extended version generally speaking better? Or do you need it only for special purposes?
Adobe starts to confuse me a little bit :confused: I would like to buy one of the software bundles (web / design creative suite standard / premium). Some of the creative suites are bundled with Photoshop standard, some with the extended version.
And so on with Dreamweaver - some of the suites are bundled with a standard and some are bundled with a professional version of Dreamweaver; but the differences between those two is not really explained.
Before I tried to make gimp become my friend (the windows version) - but this attempt failed completely :lol: It was unstable and I hate the fact, that every single file opens a new window - a funny game is to work with more than 4 files and menues at once opened. I also found a version of gimp, which tries to copy the standard "one window" style of photoshop (and like the most other software products). It is called gimpshop - and yes, it managed to exceed the standard gimp version in two aspects. 1. It is only one window to avoid a complete chaos on your desktop. 2. It was even more unstable than gimp standard :lol:
Now I am working with an trial download version of Photoshop Elements 6. This one works quite fine, uncomplicated and stable. For most of the work it is sufficient. You have layers, you can rotate images, change colors ... and a lot more.
For more complex work I would recommend Photshop CS/2/3. I made a course working with CS2. If you know how to handle the software (what will probably take some time), it is quite powerful.
But now return to my question:
What is the difference between the standard and extended version of Photoshop CS3?
Any idea? |
