Pentax lenses

[Paratom]

...
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 .....

Argument for me for the K5 would be the small primes as you said (not so much because I think its opticall ybetter but those lenses are tiny, unobstrusive-not much bigger than Leica M lenses), the small and still very good tele-zooms (I do find f2.8 usefull for some subject isolation), IBIS (which again makes much sense with those primes), out of camera color (subjective), very well damped shutter (quiet).

For the Nikon D7000 I would see one big argument (for you and it would be also one for me): you allready have very good lenses and could usethe D7000 not only as a smaller body but also as a second body with your D700. You can use the same flash. Also you/we are allready used to Nikon menue structure and user interface. (not so hard to learn the Pentax UI though)

In the end I think both options have so many pros and few cons that you can just decide from your stomach. If you decide from your head you will realize that we both do not need either d7000/K5 but could just use the D700

 

[MPK2010]

What argument remains then for Pentax?

IQ:size ratio. K-5 with the 40 and 21 limited pancakes -- hard-pressed to find anything other than an M9 to deliver that IQ in that size. Plus it's weatherproof if you carry a small WR lens, has good color and has a shutter quiet enough that it's actually a significant factor in choosing between cameras.

 

[jonoslack]

What argument remains then for Pentax?

Small sized body - good small(ish) fast zooms (16-50, 50-135, 60-250) - all weathersealed (and yes, people have washed under taps).

Nice files - decent colour - very quiet shutter.

Results

 

[ptomsu]

Folks,

you are really making me nervous to buy this K5 beast

Gear slut as I am this can happen sooner than later

Anyway I agree with most you say here.

 

[jonoslack]

Folks,

you are really making me nervous to buy this K5 beast

Gear slut as I am this can happen sooner than later

Anyway I agree with most you say here.

HI Peter
I still think you'd be better with a Nikon 7000 - you like the colour, and you already have the pro lenses - that's where I'd be going if I were in your position.

 

[Paratom]

Peter,
one point for Nikon is the AF.
While the K5 works fine I feel it is not allways as accurate as that of my D700.
I dont know about the D7000 though

 

[ptomsu]

Folks,

my brain says go for the D7000 plus 2.8/17-55 but my stomach says try the K5 and some nice Pentax glass - you know how that goes.

But so far my brain has won the battle still holding off to buy, because - right - I could do all with my D700 and even better, just with more size an weight ....

 

[Paratom]

Folks,

my brain says go for the D7000 plus 2.8/17-55 but my stomach says try the K5 and some nice Pentax glass - you know how that goes.

But so far my brain has won the battle still holding off to buy, because - right - I could do all with my D700 and even better, just with more size an weight ....

dont rush. wait until you now if/what you want. thats my suggestion
or make a 1 day trip to Frankfurt and borrow my K5 and shoot around Frankfurt and then decide

 

[ecsh]

Ok, had the 15 LTD and 77 LTD. Sent the 15 back. It was way too soft wide open, and did not get sharp until 5.6-8. A couple of guys on the Pentax forum told me not to bother with another copy, as thats how it is. The 77 is sharp wide open, and sharper at F4. Its a keeper. Great range for me in a small package. Got the newer 100 2.8 macro WR, and its sharp wide open as well. Beautifully made also, as well as small. What a nice lens that is. Have the 50-135 on the way to see how that is now.
Fun times ahead.
Joe
Joe

 

[jonoslack]

HI Joe
I think I'm going to have to revisit the 100 WR . . . . but today in the snow I've been having a lot of fun with the 60-250, snappy focusing, no worries about wet and cold - and even a few good shots on a drab grey day.

 

[ecsh]

Jono
Your pics using the 35 macro gave me a difficult road to travel, but in the end it was the 100 which won out, for distance to subject. But, as with most macros, the lens is beautiful for alot of other things.
Joe

 

[Paratom]

Ok, had the 15 LTD and 77 LTD. Sent the 15 back. It was way too soft wide open, and did not get sharp until 5.6-8. A couple of guys on the Pentax forum told me not to bother with another copy, as thats how it is. The 77 is sharp wide open, and sharper at F4. Its a keeper. Great range for me in a small package. Got the newer 100 2.8 macro WR, and its sharp wide open as well. Beautifully made also, as well as small. What a nice lens that is. Have the 50-135 on the way to see how that is now.
Fun times ahead.
Joe
Joe

My 15 Lim. looks ok in the center (not supersharp but also not soft), but at f3 heavy Vignetting and soft corners. The corners get acceptable at f5.6, and IMO really ok at f8.0
So at f4 I would use it only for subjects where you do not pay much attention to the corners, but other than that it looks fine.
On theplus side you have good contrast, not much if any flare, solid color, small size (quite important for me).

I also agree that for a lens used mainly as macro 100mm would be more usefull than 35mm because of distance to subject.
The charme for me of the 35 is that it is a small normal lens sharp and still with very nice bokeh, and the macro is the add on.

 

[emr]

Photozone measurements agree pretty much with that. But I have to say I find it a pleasant lens to use. If I shoot landscapes, I use f/8 anyhow and if I shoot objects at a closer range, the main object is usually in the center which is very sharp even at f/4. But it's certainly not a perfect lens.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono
Your pics using the 35 macro gave me a difficult road to travel, but in the end it was the 100 which won out, for distance to subject. But, as with most macros, the lens is beautiful for alot of other things.
Joe

HI Joe
When I (briefly) had the K7, I had the 16-50 (which I didn't then like) and the 100 (which I did).
Now I'm thinking about the 100 again, just over the last few few days I've been having such fun with the two zooms (16-50, 60-250), they both focus pretty close, and in the snow we've been having it's been great not worrying about them getting wet (which they certainly have!).

 

[ecsh]

The WR part of the 100 is the best part. We have more than our share of crummy weather in New England.
Joe

 

[ptomsu]

What would actually be a good lens lineup for the K5?

1) I thought about either zooms - 16-50 and 50-135 for a fast version or 60-250 for more reach

2) or a combination of primes and 1 zoom - DA15, DA35, DA70 and either 50-135 or 60-250.

I might prefer the 50-135 to the 60-250 because of speed as well as I want to use it as fast portrait lens.

Thoughts?

 

[photogerald]

What would actually be a good lens lineup for the K5?

1) I thought about either zooms - 16-50 and 50-135 for a fast version or 60-250 for more reach

2) or a combination of primes and 1 zoom - DA15, DA35, DA70 and either 50-135 or 60-250.

I might prefer the 50-135 to the 60-250 because of speed as well as I want to use it as fast portrait lens.

Thoughts?

I personally have steered away from the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 because of decentering defects with early units and a seemingly high failure rate with the SDM AF mechanism (which may or may not be addressed in recent copies). Granted these lenses are both highly-rated by Pentax users.

Also, with the excellent high-ISO abilities of the K-5, the need for fast zooms is diminished (if you really need the speed, then you can get some primes).

With that said, may I present an alternative kit (this is what I'd personally get if I were starting over):

DA18-135 DC WR - this would be the ideal walkaround/travel lens, a step up in quality from the 18-55 kit lens. It's also weather-sealed and uses the new DC motor which is faster and just as quiet as the SDM used in the DA* lenses (and probably more reliable).

DA*60-250 - this seems to be a superb zoom that is under-appreciated, IMHO. It is, however, a bit pricey.

And some primes to round things out:

DA15, the new DA35/2.4 (not to be confused with the DA35/2.8 Ltd Macro), DA70/2.4, DA100/2.8 WR Macro (not only does this offer 1:1 macro, but it has also been shown to be an excellent portrait lens)

This kit should suffice for general photography - I've tried to strike a good balance here between cost and performance (which is why I didn't include FA Ltds). Obviously more specialized applications will require some adjustments.

 

[photogerald]

The WR part of the 100 is the best part. We have more than our share of crummy weather in New England.
Joe

Also the compact size, compared to other 90 and 100mm macro lenses (yes, the Pentax is also FF compatible). See this comparison:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inferno10/5227899281/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inferno10/5228493864/

The Pentax has a 49mm filter diameter, compared to 58mm and 67mm for the Canon and Canon L, and is just over half the weight of the Canons.

 

[photogerald]

Well, I don't think the tests said that it was poor at 135mm, just that it was less than stellar (unlike the 60-250).
Interestingly, the 200mm figures for the 60-250 are as good as those for the 200 DA f2/8 (nobody seems to have tested the f4 ).

I quite agree about the fixed length lens, tromboning is most un-esthetic, but I don't think it has a huge effect in real life.

The extra stop is always nice - but much less of an issue when you have really useable high ISO

But from a little experience (and lots of reading) the 60-250 seems to be a great lens (the tripod mount is great too), and together with the 16-50 it makes a compact kit with a 24-387 focal length range - not bad.

Actually, there was an FA*200/4 macro, which is legendary and quite rare.

Anyways, the DA*60-250 does seem to be an excellent lens. And according to the Photozone tests it outresolves the DA*200/2.8 @ 200mm. I personally feel that the DA*200/2.8 might be a bit overrated (I have the FA* version of this lens, which is nearly identical). It suffers from some CA and PF in high contrast areas. However, it does have a very nice rendering which makes it nice for outdoor portraits. This is why I haven't parted with mine even after getting the excellent Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (original version).

I just realize I've done a lot of talking, so here are some photos taken with my FA*200/2.8:

 

[Terry]

Welcome to the forum!