The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Pentax lenses

jonoslack

Active member
1) One thing I understood after playing around with Sony A55 and K7 + various lenses: I understood how good those Leica M lenses are. I replaced my Leica 24/2.8 some time ago because I thought it was slow with a 24/1.4.
Today I ask myself if a 15/4.0 which needs to be stopped down for consistent IQ works for me.

2) Overall those DA limited lenses feel really good and overall seem to deliver quite good IQ - they feel a bit like a modern version of Leica M lenses to me
I agree with you - but I still rather feel that what we really need for small prime lenses is an M with this kind of high ISO.

On the other hand, for me this is looking more and more like my perfect little travel SLR kit - I know you aren't totally enamoured with the 16-50, but I'm getting to like it, and the new 60-250 seems like a great lens.

It's no replacement for my M9 and the lovely little primes aren't a replacement for M lenses, nor is it a replacement for the A900 with Zeiss lenses, but I think it might get used quite a lot in the gaps!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I like what it takes to get the image ...
So do I. I find most of what I get when snapping around at widely varying focal lengths with a zoom lens is crap. If you get worthwhile photographs doing that, more power to you.

It has nothing to do with getting "ultimate quality" or any such nonsense. It has to do with the fact that when I'm doing Photography, I'm concentrating on a specific subject matter, a specific way of seeing, and whether I have a zoom on the camera or a prime, I'm leaving it where it is and working the field of view, perspective, timing and framing to get what I want. It has much more to do with the fact that a fast, high quality prime lens is usually smaller, lighter, and handier to work with than a zoom, aside from that the quality is usually better.

Case in point: I can carry a 25mm f/2.8 lens set to f/4 by fitting a ZD 25/2.8 which weighs four oz and is less than an inch long, or I can fit a Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS which is 7 inches long and weighs more than a pound. Both return superb quality photos. I know which is handier, is going to intrude on the subject less, and I know which is more versatile. Handiness counts for a lot more than focal length versatility for me, most of the time.

My travel kit is usually one to three lenses: a nice kit is an ultra-wide, a normal and a short portrait tele.

When you suddenly see a deer nose to nose with a pheasant 100 yards away, you need something reasonably long . . . and you need it on the camera, not in the bag.
When I suddenly see a deer nose to nose with a pheasant 100 yards away and I'm NOT out shooting wildlife with appropriate lenses on the camera, I enjoy the sight ... and then go back to doing Photography. :)

It's a matter of focus, attention and the level of opportunistic shooting appropriate to the Photography I want to do. When I look at exhibitions and photo books that are the most successful, the vast majority show work made with one focal length, often one lens, with a small percentage of other fields of view used in to effect, express, specific things in contrast. The worst are the ones where every shot in sequence is made with a different focal length, as if the photographer had no idea in his/her head what sort of photographs they were making and what they were trying to express: they just zoomed in and out until they make a pleasing framing and pressed the button. Most such books are just a jumble of chaotic junk.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jono and Godfrey,
You are both right, of course, and there's very little dividing your points of view. The interesting thing is that Pentax, even with a relatively limited (or should that be "Limited"?) lens lineup, seems to have exactly the lenses needed for the kind of photography both of you (and mostly myself as well) like to do; some excellent, small primes and some very good zooms, all of the latter tailor-made for the DX format.

For a lightweight kit, more or less regardless of focal lengths chosen, Pentax is very hard to beat, and the only candidates I see, are Olympus (but they lack the primes) or a 5D with legacy lenses (an M9 is so far out of my range that I shouldn't even be allowed to dream about it). This is also one of my problems with Nikon: the new primes are very nice, but they are big and bulky, and the combined weight of 24 + 50 + 85mm f/1.4 in many ways negates the purpose of primes for travel. And don't even mention the cost. I could probably buy all of the Limited primes for the cost of those three. The 85mm alone costs more or less the same as the 77mm Limited with a K5 attached. That's food for thought...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... The interesting thing is that Pentax, even with a relatively limited (or should that be "Limited"?) lens lineup, seems to have exactly the lenses needed for the kind of photography both of you (and mostly myself as well) like to do; some excellent, small primes and some very good zooms, all of the latter tailor-made for the DX format.
That's why I became involved with Pentax in 2004. I was not happy with my Canon kit, for various reasons, and was looking for something that would achieve an improvement. Pentax at that time didn't have bodies at the same grade as Canon in many ways, but they had a good sensor in an inexpensive body. And they had a good library of the lenses I liked, primarily primes. I did a lot of photography with that gear ...

I went to FourThirds for a couple of reasons, mostly because I wasn't all that happy with Pentax bodies, and found that it suited me very well.

For a lightweight kit, more or less regardless of focal lengths chosen, Pentax is very hard to beat, and the only candidates I see, are Olympus (but they lack the primes) ...
My kit today is still primarily prime lenses ... I don't need a lot, I just need the ones that count for my work. And the whole kit is pretty compact and light weight ... E-5, 11-22, 25, 35, 50 lenses, EC14, and all my other necessities excluding lighting gear and tripod fit in a Domke F3X bag nicely and the whole kit weighs around 8 lbs complete. I don't carry all of that most of the time even ... my usual shooting carry is a much smaller Billingham L2 with body and one or two lenses, 4 lbs or so.

This works nicely for me. It's about what I want to carry, and work the way I want to work. Others choose other solutions, each with their own compromises.

Life is good. ;-)


Olympus E-5 + ZD 50mm f/2 Macro + ZD EC-14
ISO 200 @ f/5 @ 1/320 second, 70mm focal length

 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
My kit today is still primarily prime lenses ... I don't need a lot, I just need the ones that count for my work. And the whole kit is pretty compact and light weight ... E-5, 11-22, 25, 35, 50 lenses,

Life is good. ;-)
That's very similar to the E-1 kit I used to carry; 11-22 plus OM 35/2.0, 50/2.0 macro and 100/2.8. Exchange the E-1 for an E-5, add a 50-200 and use the GH1 for backup (or even skip the 50-200 and buy a Panasonic 100-300 for the GH1), and I could probably sell most of my Nikon gear. Hmmmm....

Oh well, we're way off topic. Back to Pentax!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
That's very similar to the E-1 kit I used to carry; 11-22 plus OM 35/2.0, 50/2.0 macro and 100/2.8. Exchange the E-1 for an E-5, add a 50-200 and use the GH1 for backup (or even skip the 50-200 and buy a Panasonic 100-300 for the GH1), and I could probably sell most of my Nikon gear. Hmmmm....

Oh well, we're way off topic. Back to Pentax!
:)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
If one goes zooms, I think three, Pentax and Canon and Nikon (and Oly) do offer some nice lenses which are optically good and do offer an size advantage over the full frame lenses.
However the D300 does not take that much advantage over the smaller sensor. It is nearly as big and heavy as the D700.
Also I agree if you go primes Nikon and Canon do not offer anything comparable to the nice small Pentax primes - they are not the fastest but they are optically quite good and so nice and small.
As I said before I often left Nikon lenses (and I have some very nice ones) at home because they are just too big etc. Thats also one reason why right now I skipped my idea to check out the A900+24-70 Zeiss.

The M9 on the other side offers even smaller and better primes (for a much higher price) and Leica M is the one and only system I have used now for over 20 years - and I also believen even though I have spent a lot of money its very stable value. The only things it doesnt offer are a) AF and b) not so great for Tele and macro. I have a 135mm M lens but find that allready hared to reliably focus and also the limit regarding framing (small frame) with the Leica M. Also I do have a small daughter (soon two) and while I have taken some very nice images of kids with the Leica M there are some activities where you can get another sort of images when you have a good and fast and reliable AF.
;) I write this to justify why I use both-the M9 with primes and the K5 with some primes and a telezoom.

Now the "big" one (ff DSLRs like Nikon D700 and A900 and 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/".8 etc) do offer even faster AF, better high ISO (in case of Nikon and Canon)thinner DOF and more speed.
But I do even consider that the K5 AF and high ISO are so close for my type of photography that I might find out after some time that I do not need such system (in my case Nikon FF) any more. Time will tell.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Jono,
I am afraid with too much testing and pixel peeping one can find some weak points for every lens on earth.
I shall stop soon. On the other side I want tomake sure the lenses /samples I buy are good ones.
I will definatly keep the 21/35/70 Limiteds (those are used but mint) and its a good chance for me to get them for a reasonable price. I have not yet decided about the 15 and also not yet about the 16-50. If the Limitids would not exist I would just keep the 16-50. I dont know yet if I will need both, a zoom and the primes and therefore probably first try to live with the primes (and a tele zoom) and see how that works.

HOw do you like the new tele so far? Do you find it fully usable wide open?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,
I am afraid with too much testing and pixel peeping one can find some weak points for every lens on earth.
I shall stop soon. On the other side I want tomake sure the lenses /samples I buy are good ones.
Me too - quite right - test away, and when you've decided it's okay, stop even thinking about it!

My situation is really the same as yours (M first, then BIG slr, now small slr)

I will definatly keep the 21/35/70 Limiteds (those are used but mint) and its a good chance for me to get them for a reasonable price. I have not yet decided about the 15 and also not yet about the 16-50. If the Limitids would not exist I would just keep the 16-50. I dont know yet if I will need both, a zoom and the primes and therefore probably first try to live with the primes (and a tele zoom) and see how that works.

HOw do you like the new tele so far? Do you find it fully usable wide open?
It certainly seems to be absolutely fine (but perhaps you're more rigorous than I am), right from f4 and from one end to the other - of course, it's not tiny, but it's nothing like as big as the old 70-200 Nikon, and with nearly twice the range . . .

all the best
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jono,
I am afraid with too much testing and pixel peeping one can find some weak points for every lens on earth.
I shall stop soon. On the other side I want tomake sure the lenses /samples I buy are good ones.
I will definatly keep the 21/35/70 Limiteds (those are used but mint) and its a good chance for me to get them for a reasonable price. I have not yet decided about the 15 and also not yet about the 16-50. If the Limitids would not exist I would just keep the 16-50. I dont know yet if I will need both, a zoom and the primes and therefore probably first try to live with the primes (and a tele zoom) and see how that works.

HOw do you like the new tele so far? Do you find it fully usable wide open?
You have a private message

Peter
 

Paratom

Well-known member
took some moreimages with the 15 Limited.
While corners are soft at f4.0, they look ok and usable at f5.6 and at f8.0 verything seems totally fine. So dont use it wide open if corners are important, and stop it down to f5.6 at least, even better f8.0 when shooting landscape where you want sharpness all over the image.

I think I could live with that keeping in mind that it is so nice and small and 15mm wide. (1mm wider than the 16-50 and 2 wider than 17-70/kit lenses).
You can see the difference in angle.

today it rained I thought - the sealing of lenses makes sense. but that might be to much of a wish to have sealed limiteds ;)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Has anyone tried the 12-24 ED, on a K5 or other Pentax?
Yes, briefly, some time ago on *ist DS and K10D bodies.
A very good lens. I already had the DA14 so didn't need it, but the performance seemed very good, nearly on par with the DA14.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Has anyone tried the 12-24 ED, on a K5 or other Pentax?

Thanks
I have read some reviews over the last days and they mostly say that the 12-24 is an excellent lens/ better than the 15 Limited for example.
Personally I prefer the small size of the 15 though
 

mediumcool

Active member
I have read some reviews over the last days and they mostly say that the 12-24 is an excellent lens/ better than the 15 Limited for example.
Personally I prefer the small size of the 15 though
I bought a 12–24 (actually designed—and maybe built—by Tokina) on eBay a few months ago and it is one of the two best zoom lenses I have ever used. The other was a Tamron SP 35–80 many years ago.

I understand the 12–24 is sharper than the 15 which disappointed in photozone’s review. Distorts somewhat but is surprisingly good wide open.

I’ll look for some available light samples. Shot products with it too.

Tokina and Pentax are both owned by Hoya BTW.
 

mediumcool

Active member
I bought a 12–24 (actually designed—and maybe built—by Tokina) on eBay a few months ago and it is one of the two best zoom lenses I have ever used. The other was a Tamron SP 35–80 many years ago.

I understand the 12–24 is sharper than the 15 which disappointed in photozone’s review. Distorts somewhat but is surprisingly good wide open.

I’ll look for some available light samples. Shot products with it too.

Tokina and Pentax are both owned by Hoya BTW.
Review of the 12–24 zoom.

And one of my next lens, the 70mm 2.4!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
50-135/2.8

Yesterday night I received the 50-135/2.8 and have to say from some first quick comparisons at 70mm with the 70Limited prime I am very happy with the 50-135.
Even at f2.8 IQ is allready good and sharp. The Zoom did not show purple fr. in some images where the 70 Prime did show some purple fr.
The colors of the zoom are slightly warmer than the 70, and if you use preset WB (cloudy) the zoom colors appeared slightly more close to reality than those of the prime.
Also the bokeh of the zoom seems a little smoother than that of the 70 prime (which doesnt have a bad bokeh at all)
The size of the zoom is really nice for such a range and speed. Wow, I am impressed. I didn expect the 50-135 to beat the zoom.
This is just from first observations, not a methodical test and I hope the lens will be as good as my first impression let me hope.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Cannot help myself, but looking into the Photozone reviews I must say that some of the Nikkor glass has definitely better results than the Pentax glass.

Especially if you compare the Nikkor 2.8/17-55 with the Pentax 2.8/16-50.

Or take the Nikkor 10-24 compared with the Pentax 12-24.

Not to speak of the Nikkor 2.8/24-70, which would be unfair, but this lens shows what is optically possible and it really rocks!

Why is everybody so enthusiastic about Pentax glass ????
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Cannot help myself, but looking into the Photozone reviews I must say that some of the Nikkor glass has definitely better results than the Pentax glass.

Especially if you compare the Nikkor 2.8/17-55 with the Pentax 2.8/16-50.

Or take the Nikkor 10-24 compared with the Pentax 12-24.

Not to speak of the Nikkor 2.8/24-70, which would be unfair, but this lens shows what is optically possible and it really rocks!

Why is everybody so enthusiastic about Pentax glass ????
From my experience I agree that the Nikon 17-55/2.8 (on D300) at f2.8 was better than the 16-50 I tested at f2.8

However in case of the 50-135/2.8 the lens seem to be very good and its not possible to compare it to Nikon since there is not such lens from Nikon. You either carry the beautiful (and larger and expensive) 70-200/2.8VRII or you accept a zoom lens with slower f-stop.

In case of the Limited primes - they are not superfast but they are optically good, they have a very nice bokeh, a very good build. Same here, I dont doubt the Nikon 24/1.4 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 105/2.0 are even slightly better in some respects and of course faster, but they are also much bigger and more expensive.

I think Pentax just offers some ( a little slower) nice semi-pro lenses in a nice solid small built. With Nikon you choose between the super pro glass (and of course you have many many more options here), expensive, heavy and great or you go more the consumer direction. Pentax is a nice option in between IMO.

Thats my opinion so far with limited Pentax experience and a long Nikon experience.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
From my experience I agree that the Nikon 17-55/2.8 (on D300) at f2.8 was better than the 16-50 I tested at f2.8

However in case of the 50-135/2.8 the lens seem to be very good and its not possible to compare it to Nikon since there is not such lens from Nikon. You either carry the beautiful (and larger and expensive) 70-200/2.8VRII or you accept a zoom lens with slower f-stop.

In case of the Limited primes - they are not superfast but they are optically good, they have a very nice bokeh, a very good build. Same here, I dont doubt the Nikon 24/1.4 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 105/2.0 are even slightly better in some respects and of course faster, but they are also much bigger and more expensive.

I think Pentax just offers some ( a little slower) nice semi-pro lenses in a nice solid small built. With Nikon you choose between the super pro glass (and of course you have many many more options here), expensive, heavy and great or you go more the consumer direction. Pentax is a nice option in between IMO.

Thats my opinion so far with limited Pentax experience and a long Nikon experience.
Agree, there is no counterpart fast tele zooms in the Nikkor DX lineup compared to Pentax - so one needs to go FF there, which is more expensive and adds heavy weight.

But the good old 2.8/17-55 (this has an age of almost 7-8 years) is still a stellar performer. As is the new 10-24 Nikkor.

I wonder if one uses consequently the DX glass, also if not as fast but in many cases with VRII already in combination with a D7000 this would not result in a cheaper, lighter and IQ wise sometimes even higher solution.

Also reading (no personal practical experiences here) the D7000 reviews (BTW they are mixed, as are the K5 reviews) but at least most reviewers seem to agree that the D7000 is the Nikon DSLR with best and most accurate color and WB out of the box. So this should also be no longer the killer argument for Nikon.

WRT weather sealing - well we should try holding both cameras under running water with a good weather sealed lens and see how long they survive. I do not give anything here on reviews, marketing and tests, because also the M8 proved for me to be weatherproof enough although lot of people complained in different forums. And I want to note that I am pretty demanding WRT weather sealing.

What argument remains then for Pentax? Small standard primes - ok. Question is what their function is in times when good zooms are at the performance level they are today ;)

But I understand this is all of course personal preferences as well and not just technical .....
 
Top