|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-11-2016, 05:42 AM
|
| |
There inherent diffraction. That's something. But there also the lens optical design. If you see so terrible shots at f/22 and f/16 on APSC this is because of both diffraction and a lens not designed for such small appertures. But macro lenses typically are designed for it. Also the sensor size does count...
This is a Canon 100mm macro lens on FF by photozone:
This is DA70 f/2 on K5:
As you can see, the Canon 100 macro at f/22 is very comparable the DA70 at f8 and I don't see many people complaining of their DA70 being soft at f/8 ;)
I would expect the DFA50 macro to have similar characteristics because as a macro it is optimized differently than most lenses but unfortunaly I didn't find FF review of it.
2400/2700 score is among the best a K5 can handle and you could print that to quite huge size no issue. It might be better to have the subject fully in focus than to have a very small part very sharp and all the rest very soft due to lack of dof.
Even for landscapes, at 50mm on FF, you may have difficultives to have a subject near the camera and the background, all in the focal plane.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-11-2016, 05:25 AM
|
| |
On my APSC, the 2 lenses I use the most for this are DA15 and FA77 and if I am to look at the pictures I am the most likely to print, they almost all come from FA77. That may change as I recently acquired FA31 to replace DA35 macro, but we will see. On an FF body, I guess available new the nearest to FA77 would be DFA100 macro.
I say that on purpose, because most think landscape equals wide angle and I was part of them, too. But a landscape isn't about putting as much in the frame as possible. As any other type of photography, this about compositions, colors, textures, subjects. Many landscape suffer from being to wide and as a consequence the subject can be lost or innexistant. There also the point to know if you want perspective compression or distorsion in you picture. That a creative decision.
More or less do you want:
DA15 (22mm on FF)
IMGP2575 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
DA15 (22mm on FF)
IMGP2563 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
or
DA35 f/2.4 (55mm on FF)
IMGP2595 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
And maybe,
FA77 (115mm on FF)
IMGP2461 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
FA77 (115mm on FF)
IMGP2359 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
(I used a rather famous building for this comparison as I have shoot it with many lenses and also because the difference may be more visible too).
A 24-70 is sure a nice choice, I would find a big short at time honestly but on FF you should be able to crop that 70mm so that good. but you'll pay high money for it and get heavy stuff.
The problem of 28-105 is you get much more reach and also lighter/cheaper zoom but at time you may want larger than 28mm. Not that often honestly but this will happen. But maybe I'll prefer 28-105 + a used 20mm prime that will give you even wider shoots when really needed than a 24-70. You have time to switch lenses as landscape are not moving that fast.
Likely myself I'd do FA20, FA31, FA77 and F135.
But this is finally quite personal. There no absolute. This is all in the eye of the photographer. This is maybe the most important thing to understand. And you, me, the next guys may have different preferences, see different things...
|
