|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-20-2018, 11:18 AM
|
| |
[quote=normhead
You need a 60-250 to go to with the 18-135. If you need centre sharp past 50mm, the 18-135 does it. if you want edge to edge, you have to switch tot he 60-250.[/quote]
Yes, this would be a near ideal for IQ, but lack of compactness is a mismatch. A better matchup and nearly as good within the range would be the 18-135mm with the DA HD 55-300mm WR, which can keep to f/4.5 out to 200mm. Or the PLM version.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-20-2018, 01:37 AM
|
| |
Yes, I did not count them due to their size, weight, and being only for APS-C. They certainly are justifiably highly regarded, sharp lenses, but still lag behind a top quality prime within their range in certain respects. I really would not share so much enthusiasm for the 18-35mm, as per the test images I've seen being quite soft at f/1.8 even in the center, so I'd just as soon go with my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC and get more range at less cost. Distortion, vignetting, bokeh and even resolution wide open are indeed better with a Pentax FA 31mm Limited. But it cannot zoom, so my Sigma lens is better for that purpose.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-18-2018, 02:09 PM
|
| |
This is very good information. Now it is clear that you know what your 3 FA Limiteds are like used with a FF body compared with APS-C. I am with you all the way- my walkaround FF outfit involves the excellent PZ-1p or the MZ-S, in my case the Pentax FA 35mm f/2, FA 43mm f/1.9 and FA 77mm f/1.8 Limiteds, and the Tokina 28-70mm ATX f/2.6-2.8 Pro II zoom lens. I also have a couple of Pentax FA 28-105mm lenses that are much lighter, as well as the very good FA 28-70mm f/4.
Of course, the answer to the question of prime vs. zoom lens is obvious. Each one can do what the other cannot. There are no f/1.8 zoom lenses, and if there were, the performance wide open would not be comparable. OTOH, a zoom lens can do what no prime can- instantly change FL. So with a zoom lens one can often get a shot that would be missed with a combo of prime lenses. It is simply more versatile, and these days there are numerous zooms that can deliver excellent IQ.
Nothing wrong at all with your way of doing things. Your logic is very good. So why would anyone get a K-1 and the D-FA 28-105mm instead of what you are doing? Well, if you are out and about all day with your PZ-1p outfit, and come across a situation where the flexibility of a zoom lens would be very useful, or even necessary, and since you know what your PZ-1p outfit can do with your FA Limited lenses that would not be possible with your APS-C KP, then your question is self-answered.
Although a film SLR has is own virtues, the virtues of a modern DSLR like the K-1 far out-weigh those. No contest these days when it comes to high resolution low-light/low noise (grain) performance. Not to mention the convenience and effectiveness of processing, and if you do the film thing often, over time the cost of that would pay for a K-1.
As for me, I am more than satisfied with what I can get with my APS-C bodies, especially the KP. I rarely do film anymore. I just keep an eye on the development of the Pentax FF line to see if at what point I might jump in for the reasons above.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-16-2018, 03:32 PM
|
| |
I am with you in principle. I have three models I shoot with for varying reasons- the KP (mostly), the K-5 IIs (usually for when I desire its control set), and the K-S2 (when I need smallest/lightest possible with smallest lenses). These serve my needs very well, and I've reached the conclusion that I really don't need a FF body, especially since now having the KP. I think that is essentially the nature of your question- why buy a FF outfit.
But as I mentioned, there are still some virtues the FF format offers. Just for example, take the very fine FA 43mm lens- it was designed for 35mm bodies (FF) to provide accurate "normal" perspective for scenes shot at "normal" distances. It will not do this when mounted on an APS-C body, although still a fine lens. To get the equivalent you have to go to a 28mm lens, but then you will not have f/1.9 capability, nor the quality of the Limited series. The same for the very fine FA 31mm Limited f/1.8- on APS-C it is no longer a wide angle FOV, and there is no equal of it for APS-C.
One vey good reason for buying a particular camera body is for the use of particular lenses. I have several such lenses. If I should decide to acquire the K-1 to employ the full benefits of having them, I would also include the D-FA 28-105mm DC WR zoom lens because it offers fine corner-to-corner sharpness, basically through its range, WR construction, and is compact for carrying, making the K-1 less of a bulky ensemble. In my case, for more tele range work, I'd then return to APS-C where I have some fine lenses for that at a much lower size/weight/price consideration.
When not wishing to shoot with the lenses I've bought the K-1 to use, I'd simply still go with the more compact APS-C equipment I have, which is very satisfying for my needs.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-16-2018, 02:57 PM
|
| |
Actually, the same factors apply to both the K-1 and the KP, which performs remarkably close to the K-1 as Pentax designers intended. There are numerous reasons for having a fine FF body, among them very fine WA capability and better control of perspective and background blur.
For both is the issue of why take a zoom lens of f/2.8 if you do not need the speed? It is otherwise the image quality the lens is capable of that counts. Why use a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 on your K-3 if you would rarely need to shoot at f/2.8? Why not the DA 16-85mm instead? Or the DA 18-135mm which offer far more reach and can keep to f/3.5-4.5 out to 70mm- around 1 stop off f/2.8? The D-FA 28-105mm is smaller and lighter than the D-FA 24-70mm, with a far greater FL range, so it offers far more flexibility. The ensemble being no heavier than the K-3 with say the DA*16-50mm, but with greater reach. So for those whose work is better served with a FF format, this lens makes for a very good solution at a reasonable price. For work in which a faster aperture is desirable, some people who own the K-1 with this lens also have a prime or two for which these low light needs are addressed, such as the FA 35mm f/2, the FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited, etc. But when you need a zoom lens having a constant f/2.8 aperture, well nothing else will do.
|
