|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-20-2018, 02:02 PM
|
| |
But when I take out the 55-300 PLM I really slack off and just carry the 21 ltd and 40 XS. Now that is a lightweight do everything carry kit.
A great deal of my 135 images are macro type images or images that are out of focus on the edges.
Correctly photographed those soft edges after 50mm are a bonus in that you get smoother bokeh. A lens for the way people shoot images, not for the test charts. Here you have a 5.6 lens that gives you 2.8 bokeh on the edges because it's not sharp edge to edge. People pay for 1.4 lenses, and they pay a lot more for an effect built into the 18-135. At 135 the out of focus areas are way smoother than they would be with a sharper lens.. Meanwhile at 24mm for landscrpe, it's sharper centre and edge than any available Pentax primes. A true two for the price of one lens, for those wiling to exercise a bit of discipline while shooting.
At 60mm, you shouldn't have any complaints. Centre or edge.
It's probably not as sharp as the 16-50 18-135 combo, although it's better than the 16-50 at 24mm, but it's one lens instead of two and a fraction the weight. It's not a throw it on your camera and forget about it lens. And therein lies the problem. Used to it's strength it's excellent. Used for everything, you're going to have some issues. You have to remember when to take it off the camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2018, 08:23 AM
|
| |
You have to go with what suits you. Tess wouldn't use my 18-135 if it was our last working lens. She prefers her tamron 17-50 over it. (A lens I wouldn't use if it was our last working lens.) I don't think there are a lot of really bad lenses, but there may be lenses that aren't good for what you do.
If you buy something newish as in not designed as a cheaper film option, you select the focal length you want and the aperture you want, and it's pretty hard to go really wrong. But the 28-105 on a K-1 is your only premium option for what it does. There is no comparable competition. Your only decision is "do I want that type of lens." Suggesting the 28-105 might not be good enough based on what it is, that's crazy. It's only real negative would be it might not be the type of lens you're looking for.
But setting folks up asking why they would use it and criticizing their responses, that's just rude.
Liking the 18-135 is a little more complicated. You have to be conscious of what you are trying to do with it and change lenses when necessary. The 28-105 is much less complicated. It does extremely well at what it was designed to do.
The proper title of the thread should have been "The DFA 28-105, it's not what I want." The OP has made the thread about himself, the lens used was just a ploy, to let everyone using the lens why it's not good enough for him.
Until he shows us some images that exceed the IQ of an 28-105, I'm not even buying that much. He's just some guy trashing a great lens (that he's never even used) because he makes issues of the fact it doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do. Everything in the design spec is accomplished superbly. I'd be interested in seeing images from the OP that convince me he can actually take images that exceed the abilities of this lens. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for them.
I've always thought this type of post should result in time away from the forum.
"You're favourite lens, it's not good enough for me."
Every lens is someone's favourite lens. It's just not appropriate behaviour in my mind. I wouldn't even trash an 18-55. It was my go to lens for more than 3 years. It was great lens for the price and use I made of it. And I'm certainly not going to start a thread so i can trash it, now that I've moved on. But I can show you some of my favourite images taken with it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2018, 08:09 AM
|
| |
People only say "no offence" when they are about to say or just said something offensive. :D
---------- Post added 07-19-18 at 11:10 AM ----------
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.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2018, 07:37 AM
|
| |
Spoken by someone who doesn't own the lens. Every lens has limited capability in some regard. The whole concept of an interchangeable lens system is, you can't find one lens that does it all.
My wife uses the lens all the time with her K-5. She could be using a Tamron 17-50, a DA 18-135, a DA 21 lt. a 40 xs, an FA 50 macro, a DA 35 3.4 an FA 50-1.7 a Sigma 70 macro, a Tamron 90 macro a DFA 100 macro, but she chooses my 28-105 when she can. The first thing she says when we head out is "are you using the 28-105 today?" I wish I could buy her her own.
For many, the capacity is not limited at all, because we shoot for wide depth of field in landscapes etc.
As for the K-P and 16-85 not being not much different than a K-1 and 28-105, we have taken images with the K-5 at 35 and the K-1 at 50mm both with the 28-105, and there isn't much difference. SO that's not even an issue. What many don't seem to realize is, for most people both the K-P and K-1 oversample what you need for their images. What you are talking about is the degree os oversample, not one having a lack of resolution.
You need to slap yourself upside the head and ask yourself, are you asking us about the lens or are you telling us what your misconceptions are and asking us to confirm or deny them?
We can tell you about the lens, it's much harder for us to deal with your misconceptions. The lens is a walk around lens. If you want macro, telephoto, ultra-narrow depth of filed, ultra wide or some other specialty type function, you need to look at something else.
It's a great quality general purpose lens.
I don't like it for macro, telephoto, low light, narrow DoF or many other functions. Telling us it's not good for those things... dude, we already know that. We bought the lens knowing that. This is not news.
But it's on the K-1 every day I go out the door, because it gives me the best chance to get the shot if i don't have time for a lens change over all the lenses that do those other things better. If that doesn't mean anything to you don't buy the lens. It's not for you. You asked why you should buy the lens. There it is. Stop telling us why you won't like it. We don't care, it will still be on my camera almost every time I walk out the door, regardless of your opinion.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2018, 07:18 AM
|
| |
IN one of my lens tests a good number of people liked the Sigma 18-250. Not so may like it pixel peeping. My point being, you could prefer the reduced image for it's rendition, but not like it as a pixel peeper. Unless you regularly use full size prints, and I'm talking over 60 inches, you may never see your images unreduced. Like ever in your whole life.
My advice would be look at images the size you will be viewing them. An image that looks great pixel pepping isn't always the one you'd prefer 3840 x 2160. If you don't know where you're going, it's really hard to make the preperations that will get you there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-18-2018, 07:37 AM
|
| |
No. 15 MP instead of 24 MP. You can create the same image on APS-c by using a shorter lens, and the difference will be equally obscure, between the FF and APS-c image. Bottom line, both can do what the other does for 95% of the images you're likely to capture.
--------
There's just one good reason for buying the DFA 28-105. It's modern glass and comes under th umbrella of "lenses designed to take advantage fo the resolution of the K-1." That being said, it also takes advantage of the higher centre sharpness of a K-3 or K-p (or K-70).
Apart from the 70-200 and possibly the 150-450, there are no other candidates.
The new modern primes are coming but they are coming slowly.
In my experience, no other lens is going to give you the same IQ. You can talk about fast primes, but there are no modern fast primes for Pentax apart from the soon to be released 50 1.4.
Modern glass for modern sensors completely redefines a new set of standards in both design and manufacturing. Older film primes were designed and manufactured to a lower standard. That's the ugly truth.
SO what are your other choices. Around my house, my wife and I both use this lens at every opportunity on both FF and APS-c. But there's no way to explain why. It's images are just more compelling than other lenses. They are cleaner, better micro-contrast, brilliant resolution. Rendering that's to die for, but even with all that, you still might not like it. So if you're hoping for some sure fire reason to buy the lens, their isn't one.
The biggest reason would be you have a K-1 and you want to make the most of it. But there are lots of other reasons that wold be just as good.
When kenspo first suggested this I ripped into him pretty good. Now that I have a lens designed to the new standards, I have to agree with him. My older glass simply isn't comparable.
When my prime loving wife starts lugging a zoom everywhere, you know something's up. :D
|
