|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-24-2017, 11:56 PM
|
| |
There really no bad macro primes but they usually quite average in rendering for non macro/proxy shots. Oh, usually macro are extremely sharp, with flat field and constrasty but that also why they don't render people as well for example a portrait prime lens. They are said to be then great for landscapes but from experience I still prefer the FA ltds to the the Pentax macro lenses I tried for that.
Sure, they would beat anything else for macro but I don't get the point of FF for macro. The subjects are small usually, and the focal length doesn't change. The same subject fill the frame less on FF than on APSC. A 24MP APSC give an addiitional 1.3X reach vs 15MP of K1 for the APSC crop... And once the same surface for the subject there no benefit of FF vs APSC. If anything the best Pentax camera for low light for the same APSC surface is the KP. Not the K1.
Actually I think that none of the lenses the OP have fully leverage the FF. FA31 become a WA and less likely to be used with significant bokeh where it shine the most. On FF more modest lenses like the FA28 or FA35 (to keep the FA rendering) would be more often than not undistinguishable from the FA31 for picture quality and rendering on an FF. The 2 macro lenses are doing a fine job on APSC and do not benefit that much of FF for macro. For non macro/proxy there better lenses out there and if you are in research of improved gear for better picture quality, you'd want them. The APSC zoom would work in crop only.
And again let's not forget the crop difference. None of the lenses the OP currently have would be used for the same as before except maybe the DFA100 for portraiture. But already the type of portrait and rendering would be quite different. If the choice of focal length of the prime was not random, the OP might want to change it prime setup entirely in the long run.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-24-2017, 02:17 PM
|
| |
I get your point but currently the OP has an FA31 that is an expensive lens that may be worth it. Interrestingly at the focal used on FF, it would be quite likely used closed down at f/8 most of the time where the other excelent Pentax lens in the focal range wouldn't make that of a difference.
There no point to me to spend $2000+ on a body to get slightly more from current lenses in particular if they are not exceptional, one has to be exchanged for an FF compatible and one more need to be brought to cover the range that was covered before...
The same plan when the K1 would be $1000, ok I would get it. And that would open the road for maybe more lenses. But there the whole thing doesn't bring much more than a 17-50 f/2.8 would, but for many time the price.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-24-2017, 02:09 PM
|
| |
I agree with the idea that K1 is not necessarily a true upgrade for everybody.
If you don't care to have bigger lenses with less interresting range, to switch lenses more often and to have more weight, in exchange the K1 truely offer more possibilities. Better ergonomics, better picture quality, more dof control. Better high iso.
There ways to leverage K1 for cheap lenses with say tamron 28-75 + 70-200 or with the 28-105. But this is still a true step back in conveniance toward a 16-85 that can really be your only lens and cover all framing.
Problem of 28-105 is that it isn't a 24-135. The range is a bit short. You may buy a 20mm, I ear you, so you'll either have always with you and change lenses or you'll not use it.... And what 20mm seriously ? Pentax doesn't sell any FF lens near 20mm. The old 20mm f/2.8 was a good compromize but now many people brought one for their K1. It is now expensive. And Pentax roadmap as no 20mm in the pipe. The next lenses are a 50 an d 85mm.
And the worst? A guy with a K3 + sigma/tamron 17-50 would still have same or better high iso performance for anything at high iso. A KP would beat the crap out of the K1 is you put a fast lens on it.
You can buy a K1, but as this you are in the worst case. No noticable difference, a reduce range of covered focal range, bigger/heavier. No significant step up in quality. If I were you'll I seriously think to pair it with something a bit better than that 28-105 if the idea is really an upgrade.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-22-2017, 06:06 AM
|
| |
From your plan, basically if you get K1, you'll get bigger/heavier body, lot of money spent. When chooting the 16-85, you'll not take any benefit of K1 vs say a KP. Your prime lenses would become wider suddently. The 50mm would replace the 31, the 31 would frame like a 21 and you'd get less effective reach for macro with the 100WR while if you used it for portrait or any reach, you'd have to crop.
The day you replace the 16-85 with a 28-105, you'll loose a lot in term of framing. Not as wide, not the same reach. The 24-135 zoom that would be necessary doesn't exist, at least yet. Worse the 28-105 + K1 combo is know to have issues with shutter shake at the most common shutter speeds arround 1/100s...
For the price of the K1 you could just buy a KP + a 17-50 and still have money in the bank and get better high iso with it than with K1 at least when using the zoom. You could start with the 17-50 alone. The sigma is measured as one of the sharpest lenses in K-mount APSC... Doesn't look like a bd deal.
When using the primes, if you don't manage right now great high iso performance, you'll not manage it with the K1. The K1 give you 1.1EV and less dof, not 4-5EV closed down. A fast zoom give you 2EV. Learning to process raw for high isos give you easily 2EV too... And at any apperture for that last one.
It is quite possible to manage high iso with an APSC body. See pictures below...
FA77 f/2.5, K3, iso 8000
Arlequin by Nicolas, sur Flickr
F135, f/2.8, K3, iso 800
Body Painting by Nicolas, sur Flickr
FA31, f/2.8, K3, iso 1600, pushed 1EV (equiv iso 3200)
Red dance #2 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
DA15, f/4, K3, iso 3200
IMGP2891 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
DA15, f/4, K3, iso 6400
IMGP2881 by Nicolas, sur Flickr
K1 or KP withj fast prime/zoom would do as well or better. K1 or KP with a slow zoom, would do worse.
|
