Forced to continue search for wide lens

[DavidL]

I thought I had a temporary solution in the form of a 16-45 f4, but after a few days it stopped auto focusing at the wide end. Back to supplier who has no replacement and not sure when they will have. They said it was best to refund C.C.
I wanted because of size and focal length but from what I've read here and other places it looks good but fails on IQ. So it appears as though I have to choose between the 14 f2.8. Although I don't really want a wide zoom there could bas an exception in the form of the Tokina 11-16. Considering Tokina and Pentax share designs this seems strange. I did read somewhere, in my cyber wanderings, it may be available in the autumn. However, with all the problems in Japan not sure anything can be relied on in supply terms.
Oh hum

 

[woodyspedden]

I thought I had a temporary solution in the form of a 16-45 f4, but after a few days it stopped auto focusing at the wide end. Back to supplier who has no replacement and not sure when they will have. They said it was best to refund C.C.
I wanted because of size and focal length but from what I've read here and other places it looks good but fails on IQ. So it appears as though I have to choose between the 14 f2.8. Although I don't really want a wide zoom there could bas an exception in the form of the Tokina 11-16. Considering Tokina and Pentax share designs this seems strange. I did read somewhere, in my cyber wanderings, it may be available in the autumn. However, with all the problems in Japan not sure anything can be relied on in supply terms.
Oh hum

David

I just got the Zeiss 18 3.5 in the ZK mount and after one day of tests find I really like it. Of course this is a manual focus lens but if you can live with that, the IQ is really good (certainly compared to both the 14mm and 15mm Pentax lenses I tried). Zeiss apparently did one final run of these lenses and the 50 macro and both are available from Popflash Photo. I have no relationship with Popflash other than I have gotten superb service from Tony Rose and Alex,his associate.

Woody

 

[Rich M]

Like Woody.....I have been using a manual focus Zeiss 28/2 for wide (but not as wide as his 18/3.5).

Another lens I picked up and like is an older Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super Wide II (manual focus also).

Here's a shot I took with it....pretty sharp....nice contrast and saturation.

Good luck with your quest.

R

 

[MichaelinA2]

Oh hum

My feeling, exactly...

Is it possible your camera determined AF was not needed and the lens is OK? Are you aware that at 18mm and f/4.0 the DOF is 34 feet and at f/8 (the 16-45's sweet spot) from 4 feet to infinity?

 

[DavidL]

My feeling, exactly...

Is it possible your camera determined AF was not needed and the lens is OK? Are you aware that at 18mm and f/4.0 the DOF is 34 feet and at f/8 (the 16-45's sweet spot) from 4 feet to infinity?

That wasn't the problem. The focus stopped locking on, so no af confirmation, hence the shutter wouldn't fire. Other lenses are working OK. Thanks for the thought though.
David

 

[mediumcool]

I have a Pentax-badged 12–24 and it is superb. Better than the 16–45 in my experience.

 

[mediumcool]

Another lens I picked up and like is an older Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super Wide II (manual focus also).

Here's a shot I took with it....pretty sharp....nice contrast and saturation.

Good luck with your quest.

R

Smooth bokeh.

 

[benroy]

I'm one of the old guys on the K-5 threads...to me, a wide angle is 28-35mm.What you are apparently looking for is (in my ancient vernacular) an extreme wide angle...something much wider than 28-35. Like the guys who have already sent you a reply, I find the Zeiss ZK 25/2.8 to be sharper and contrastier than any of the Pentax lenses of the same focal length range. I can provide examples if you need a peek.

Normal wide angles: the Pentax 31 and the 35 macro are excellent lenses...but apparently not wide enough for you. Good luck in your search.

Roy Benson

 

[DavidL]

I'm one of the old guys on the K-5 threads...to me, a wide angle is 28-35mm.What you are apparently looking for is (in my ancient vernacular) an extreme wide angle...something much wider than 28-35. Like the guys who have already sent you a reply, I find the Zeiss ZK 25/2.8 to be sharper and contrastier than any of the Pentax lenses of the same focal length range. I can provide examples if you need a peek.

Normal wide angles: the Pentax 31 and the 35 macro are excellent lenses...but apparently not wide enough for you. Good luck in your search.

Roy Benson

Thanks Roy
I went with the 21 f3.2 as you may have seen on the forum.
David

 

[benroy]

David: I have seen and admired your "tor" images...how do they look when 11x17s are made of them? I have a 21, and really enjoyed using it...but...while internet (K-5 forum) pics looked real good, the 11x17s were lacking punch...could be me, however...I made a nice living off of 21mm Super Angulons and Zeiss Biogons in the golden days of yesteryear.

Roy Benson

 

[Godfrey]

David: I have seen and admired your "tor" images...how do they look when 11x17s are made of them? I have a 21, and really enjoyed using it...but...while internet (K-5 forum) pics looked real good, the 11x17s were lacking punch...could be me, however...I made a nice living off of 21mm Super Angulons and Zeiss Biogons in the golden days of yesteryear.

I'm not David, but I used the Pentax 21 Limited quite a lot when I was working with Pentax equipment. Made many lovely 13x19 inch prints with it.

 

[DavidL]

I've only printed one A3 and that was to get an old epson 1290 up and running to print some posters for a local campaign. It looked good, especially as I didn't take much care and was really cleaning out print heads etc. It was a stitched image
David

 

[benroy]

Godfrey...like I said in my post, it could be me, not the lens...but I was spoiled by the Super Angulons and Biogons in my salad days, and I still maintain that the Pentax 21 couldn't hold a candle to those lenses.

The Zeiss ZK lenses leave the Pentax 21 well behind, as well.

Roy Benson









Roy Benson

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey...like I said in my post, it could be me, not the lens...but I was spoiled by the Super Angulons and Biogons in my salad days, and I still maintain that the Pentax 21 couldn't hold a candle to those lenses.

The Zeiss ZK lenses leave the Pentax 21 well behind, as well.

Roy Benson

Roy, at double to triple the price, if that were not so what would be the point of buying them?

 

[benroy]

Godfrey. You're right...if all you are doing is posting pics on the internet, paying double to triple the price for a lens is not going to show up any obvious differences...but...if you are in the business and your reputation depends on the highest quality imaging...double or triple the price is worth it.

Roy Benson

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey. You're right...if all you are doing is posting pics on the internet, paying double to triple the price for a lens is not going to show up any obvious differences...but...if you are in the business and your reputation depends on the highest quality imaging...double or triple the price is worth it.

Not always. As I said, I've printed many 13x19 inch photos made with the DA21 lens (on a six-megapixel Pentax body at that), which have sold very well. Several have won awards in exhibition too. I also did quite a number of assignment jobs using this lens which the clients were very satisfied with, in a couple of cases handing me a nice bonus over my standard fee invoice.

Is it worth paying double to triple the price when the DA21 Limited seems to be able to fulfill the need perfectly adequately? As a business person, I'd say absolutely not! Why raise costs for no reason?

The Zeiss lenses are very good, likely better in some cases than the Pentax Limiteds, but to say that you can't do top notch photography with the Pentax DA 21 Limited is simply incorrect.

... "Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...

 

[DavidL]

I'm sliding out of professional photography into retirement. The 21mm does fine for my on line agency work. Back in the day I shot with Zeiss lenses on Contax and loved them. Last serious pro wide I used was Nikon's 14-24 f2.8, as good a wide lens I've come across on digital. I used to do a lot of PR/press work and needed fast reliable AF and Flash.
For the first time in decades I'm just amusing myself photographically, and the Limited primes are a pocket outfit. I used to lug Canons and big lenses around the world shooting wildlife for agencies in the last century. I have no desire, let alone the physical ability, to go back to that.
The 300 f4 would do me if I ever go back to Africa.
I'm so smitten by the mini Ltd's I'm thinking of ditching the 50-135 f2.8 I got to cover any remaining portrait work I get. It seemed small after Full frame outfit equivalents but it now seems BIG.
If I was still gainfully employed in the business I'd have stuck with the Nikons and looked into Medium Format.

 

[benroy]

Godfrey and David: you are both right...it's your creativity and skill that wins the awards and bonuses, and business recognition...not the lens (or the camera). A news reporter once asked Cartier-Bresson what kind of a camera he used to take such marvelous pictures. CB responded by asking the reporter what kind of typewriter he used when he writes his stories.

Kudos to both of you for very eloquently stating your case.

Roy Benson