|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-06-2013, 01:27 PM
|
| |
Totally agree with the second half of this. But my comments were directed at people who have recently bought into Pentax and find the premier lenses escalating out of their price range. To them I'm trying to say:
1. There are other options, new and old, zoom and prime that will give you great photos;
2. Some of Pentax's premier lenses are getting rather long in the tooth, so don't feel guilty about not paying a large amount of money right now for some premier lenses that have had zero new investment/development up-grades for numerous years (except for Japanese outsourcing of production);
3. Find the right focal length(s) for you and focus on those. Then buy a premier prime when you know what you really want - unless money is no option, in which case go for the lot.
Take the DA35mm Limited. Great lens, great results, but this lens is the wrong focal length for me personally - how I've learned to do macro (just a bit further away), what focal length I like for landscapes (wider) and what kind of lens I like for walking around (wider and/or longer). I'd highly recommend it to others who asked "what about a top quality 35mm?", and the results are stunning but I wouldn't buy another if mine got lost. That's my inane view that excellent lenses may not be excellent for every buyer.
And finally Point 4; the wind-up I wrote in a hardly disguised way into the OP. Pentaxians - actually not just Pentaxians - are fiercely and admirally loyal to their best, most expensive lenses, occassionally to the point of blindness (no PF here). I for example think the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8 is the most jewel like, perfectly engineered, greatest value for money lens ever made by anyone, even Leica, even better than the 'legendary' 1.4; I have three variations, but on the rack I'd admit it is probably, maybe not 100% perfect, but I'd have to be close to the end.
Of course lens buying is both a rational and emotional thing, and a guilty pleasure, and all the more fun for that. And there's always the re-sellers market if you make a mistake.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-05-2013, 02:01 AM
|
| |
No I don't own the 77mm, nor the 31mm Limited. I decided to buy the K85mm 1.8 and K28 3.5 instead, on the basis of what I'd read on this and other forums. A third of the price and very happy - with the lens and forum support.
Here's the kind of comment, from "Chris" on the internet, that made my mind up not to spend hard earned cash on some of the most expensive primes, because it resonated with what others had said in their user-reviews:
"I bought the 77 recently and just now had the opportunity to test it, as on a short trip to Africa I chose to take the 21, 40, 77, 100WR and 200 with me (not the 70 as usual). Short result from my point of view: I understand that Pentax developed the DA 70. The 77 is difficult to handle in high-contrast situations. Purple fringing is everywhere. The half-stop advantage over the 70 (1.8 vs. 2.4) does not outweigh this disadvantage. In addition, the 77 is heavier than the 70. End result: I will use the 70 and keep the 77 just as a collection object (and the occasional portrait shot inside, with low contrast and good lighting). Very disappointed with the 77. I think it is overrated".
Who knows who Chris is, competence-wise...who am I'm to judge lens either?!! I'd still consider buying the 77mm, as a vanity purchase, as you nicely put it.
But to repeat: my purpose is not to moan about the value for money issues around Limited Pentax primes, but to suggest that if (say) you've just purchased a K30, try good value zooms first, try a few used primes. Buy hoods. Focus on a couple of focal lengths.
And...(my second "contribution") maybe wait until Pentax upgrades the most expensive primes for the next generation - and where they have, like the 100WR, they seem to be excellent.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-04-2013, 09:42 AM
|
| |
Many thanks for the warning! It did cross my mind that I could be heading for needless trouble, and nearly deleted the post, but thought what the hell, this is the advice I'd liked to have got a few years ago.
In response to other comments, maybe the OP does not quite have the right tone, because I too value my old and new primes a great deal. But it has taken me a lot of time and money finding the right ones.
I do have something else up my sleeve to encourage more snarky remarks. The OP actually came out of something I'd written for myself as I think about what to do next camera kit-wise, and what primes/zooms to buy. I noted down how I thought the current Pentax range of prime lenses would be perceived/perform vs. other options in the future, remembering that when I got the FA50mm just a few years ago it was considered by some to be one of the greatest 50mm ever made. Now its showing its age, and I should probably have seen that coming, as the Sigma 50mm 1.4 had just come out. Here's my personal view of the FA77mm Limited - do I 'invest' in it or not, or do I look/stay with other options and wait? So I could always try and write up the rest of my notes covering other prime lenses in full to really get people going!!!
FA 77mm limited
Future generations will be less kind than today’s owners about the $1,000 77mm Limited’s contradictions. Promoted as an outstanding lens but with PF flaws wide open on digital sensors. A “Limited” hand-made-in-Japan lens, but mass produced, not in Japan. Coveted by non-professionals, but increasingly priced out of their reach and not championed by most influential professionals because it’s a K-mount. I am willing to wager that at some point in the future a mint version of the rarer SMC Takumar 85mm f1.8 will be worth more than a FA77mm. Aside from historical value, the screw-mount works much better on non-Pentax camera/video bodies. But I could be wrong. |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-04-2013, 05:28 AM
|
| |
Dear Pentax lens buyers,
Many prime lenses are becoming seriously expensive. But will their $500 plus premium guarantee better photos? That’s an important question for people buying Pentax dslrs (which really are excellent), and coming to this forum for advice on what lenses to buy. The reason I’m posting this thread is not to moan about the escalating prices of Pentax primes – prices that some camera buyers would not have expected when they chose Pentax and mapped out their wish-list of new lenses - but to praise today’s budget zooms and budget primes. And to pass on the lessons I’ve learned since switching from Canon to Pentax a few years ago.
Don’t buy the story that excellent expensive primes guarantee excellent photos
I purchased a K20D, a 18-55mm kit lens and a budget Tamron 70-300mm, a good coverage from 18mm to 300mm. Then I started to read this forum, and was persuaded I really, really needed to buy my first new “prime lens”. To be honest I wasn’t impressed by the quality of photos I was taking (on auto settings) with the budget zooms. A better, faster, smaller lens should make my photos look more professional; give me better images in low light; and the chance to take the kind of photos I’d seen on this forum with artistic bokeh and narrow depth of fields.
My thoughts were directly influenced by members of this forum. Many times the response to questions like “what is the best Pentax prime for a step-up in your photos” seemed to be: “buy a Limited…because if you don’t buy a Limited you’ll end up wanting one anyway so buy it now”. I got the impression that if I didn’t buy a Limited I’d never get the best out of my new Pentax camera. But OMG the Limiteds have become expensive. For that money you’d almost want a written guarantee that your photos will look more professional. I was always a bit sceptical about that. I couldn’t even match the stunning Pentax kit results I’d see from forum members.
Primes don’t always deliver
So instead of a Limited I found a new FA50mm 1.4 for under $300 (nowadays it would probably be best to go for the cheaper DA35mm 2.4). What I learned from the lens was (1) it doesn’t guarantee better photos; (2) it doesn’t always deliver in low light; but (3) I can take great photos of my kids at or around f1.4 with very artist backgrounds/bokeh, as long as my kids stay still enough. I was getting fast aperture photos I’d never get from the zooms, and remain happy about that. However, I was surprised to find that the FA50mm was often not as good as the zooms outdoors – both budget zooms came with a hood, something the FA50 really needs outdoors but wasn’t included in the price.
Is there much IQ difference between expensive primes and budget zooms at f5.6 or f8?
More generally I started to wonder whether there was a real, significant image quality (IQ) difference between expensive Limited primes and budget zooms at my most commonly used aperture stops - f5.6 or f8? My experience is that if you want to blow up pictures to a bedroom wall size you may notice a difference. But otherwise the difference is hardly noticeable, as long as you take control of the zoom’s aperture setting, e.g. manually set it to f5.6 or f8 and work from there. That’s very easy with modern digital cameras; they’ll do the work for you.
Using semi-manual settings will give you better looking photos
If I was going to do this all again, I’d still buy my budget zooms first and then invest in a cheap ($50), used, film era fast prime lens to learn semi-manual skills at different apertures. Skills that help to get the best out of both budget zooms and primes. Something like the M50mm f1.7 would be a great place to start. All the positive reviews here are not wrong! Don’t listen –as I did initially - to people with Limited lenses who say rather patronisingly, “that’s not such a good lens, the reviews are by people who don’t know any better”. Bottom line is that it may be a $50 manual lens from the film-era, not a $1,000 digital lens, but it is small and solid, fast, sharp and capable of “magic”. (However you define that).
Focus on a couple of focal lengths when you starting buying primes
By using zooms I found the focal lengths I really liked/used the most. Curiously, my two favorite focal lengths turned out to be: 28mm for walking-around and 85mm for special family/kids portraits. “Curiously”…because neither focal length is covered directly by new Pentax primes! But there are excellent alternatives, old and new. You’ll find there are differences to research between expensive and budget primes; between expensive and budget zooms; between new and used lenses; and between M42 and k-mount lens manufacturers. If I’d know that part about focal lengths from the start my lens collection would be far smaller, cheaper and more focused.
And when you do your lens research….
Don’t believe the hype, sometimes perpetuated by members of this forum, that only very expensive prime/Limited lenses take excellent photos, and these primes are faultless in the right photographer’s hands, regardless of “negative” test results and some legitimate owner concerns. At the same time, don’t believe put-downs from owners of high-cost primes that budget primes and budget zooms will never deliver excellence.
The majority of my “best photos” (as judged by friends and relations) have been taken with the two budget zooms, even though they now make up less than 10% of my lens spend. As an example, below is a photo taken by the budget Tamron 70-300mm at 300mm. Some people heavily criticise this “cheap lens” for producing unusable results at 300mm, and “its only a Tamron”. Guess it’s not a DA* 300mm $1,300 lens. But this photo, even slightly cropped, looks sharp and good enough to me; miles better than a point and shoot.
So please if you’re new to Pentax or thinking about a Pentax dslr, or thinking about investing in new lenses, don’t be discouraged by the $1,000 prices of some supposedly “must have” primes, or comments about the “less than prime” performance of budget zooms or budget primes. You have plenty of great, cost-effective options to choose from.
All the best
-------------------------
I’m sure I’ve missed some key points, and could have got my points across in far fewer words, but I thought I post this thread so others can add their 2c if they want.
 |
