Pentax lenses

[photogerald]

3) I also found out that my 16-50 seems to have a very slight problem at the wide right site with a slight softness; not a big deal but also not 100% perfect IMO

Sounds like a decentering defect. I would take it back too.

 

[ptomsu]

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.

Many thanks for this - agree that the lineup with primes is a good alternative, especially in combination with the 60-250.

 

[photogerald]

What I can add so far is that my Kit lens (18-55WR) seems to be not the sharpest lens specially at the long end end short distances.
I therefore check out the 16-50/2.8 now.

Another alternative in that range is the DA16-45/4 (which might be difficult to find new). It's a step up from the 18-55 kit, and has less distortion than the DA*16-50/2.8 @ 16mm.

I am also planning to look into the primes and find it hard to decide.
I think it would be 15 and 21 (for the focal length)

The merits of the DA15 Ltd are its compact size, excellent contrast/flare resistance, colour, and low distortion. The catch is some softness in the corners at wider apertures. It is also said to have significant field curvature, which excerbates the corner weakness in tests (charts). But I think if you understand this, there are certainly reasons to like this lens.

The DA21 Ltd seems to be an ideal WA walkaround. It does have some distortion (more than the DA15), however there are those who swear by this lens.

, but then its hard to choose between 31,35macro,40 and 43, and between 70 and 77.
I got some recommendations for the 43 in the K5 thread.
On the other side I read that the 40 and 70 do focus a little faster (shorter focus thread) and I would like the smallish size, lower price, and they seem to be good wide open too. (a little slower of course than 43 and 77).

Yes, the DA Ltds (40 and 70) do focus faster than their FA Ltd counterparts. They also have a more "clinical" rendering. They are sharp wide open and have a more even resolution (center to corner). On the otherhand, the FA 43 and 77 have at times a "3D-like" rendering. It's for you to decide if this is worth the added cost.

From reading around the 31 seems to be one of the best ones, but then I dont know if I find the focal length that usefull.

Yes, the FA 31 is quite special, but oh dear the price.

The 35....can it replace a 40 or 43? Its said to be sharp- but how clinical is it? Is it ok for portrait from short distanceor is it too sharp? How is the bokeh?
Or would you skip both 40 and 43 and get the 55 as a portraint lens?

I don't mean to confuse matters, but you might also consider the new DA35/2.4. This budget offering is actually based on the FA35/2, though the bokeh seems to have been improved.

As for the DA*55/1.4, personally I'm not sold. It is expensive and has slow AF. But it does seem to perform very well. I just don't think I'd choose it over the less expensive FA 43/1.9.

 

[photogerald]

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks Terry! I look forward to some great discussions with everyone here.

 

[photogerald]

Many thanks for this - agree that the lineup with primes is a good alternative, especially in combination with the 60-250.

No problem! I hope it helps you with your decision.

 

[Paratom]

Peter,
as you probably know I have decided for 15,21,35,70 (got those on a good deal mint-otherwise I might have started with only 2 primes) and 50-135.

The 16-50 sample I tested didnt convince me at f2.8 (it was quite good at f4 upward though) and this was one reason besides size why I went for the primes.
If I will use the Pentax a lot I might however endup in the future checking out another sample of the 16-50 for flexibility and weather proof built.

Take a 21 and 70 prime as a 2 lens kit and this will not need a bigger bag than a M9 with a 35 and 80mm lens.

 

[jonoslack]

HI there Gerald
And welcome from me as well - your shots with the 200 f2.8 look splendid, and I stand corrected on the f4!

Funny about the 16-50, I'm becoming more and more enthusiastic about it, perhaps it's just that I've learned not to shoot wide open at 16mm when I want really sharp corners! But, truth is I want sharp corners for landscapes, and that really isn't the time I'd be expecting to need f2.8.

I did consider the 16-45, which seems to have a good write up, but in the end I went for the faster lens.

I'm very much in love with the 35 DA macro - I think it does a decent job for casual people pictures, has a perfectly respectable bokeh (not common with 35s, even those made by Leica) and it has the double advantage of being a really good macro lens . .. . .and it's very small! Obviously it'd be nice if it was weather resistant, but maybe you can't have everything!

The 100 WR will be next on my list. As for the other primes - I'm not so interested, as, if I want to shoot something with a minimum focus of 0.7 metres which is small and quality, I'm more likely to pick up something else!

I hope you enjoy it here . . . . and don't find it too civilised! (if you want a bit of dispute, just head off for one of the S2 threads :ROTFL

all the best

 

[m3photo]

Re: Pentax Pancake Primes

Take a 21 and 70 prime as a 2 lens kit and this will not need a bigger bag than a M9 with a 35 and 80mm lens.

Excellent walk-around setup. I had the K10D back then and I took it with these two little lenses on a cruise around the Mediterranean. I posted the images on PBase. Here is the link to "A Day in Florence", there are pages on Capri, Rome, Malta and Tunis also. I will be definitely getting the K-5, when funds allow, to have an even better setup (mostly the quiet shutter!).

http://www.pbase.com/m3photo/florence

 

[jonoslack]

HI There Michael
The camera really is lovely.
Unfortunately, my 16-50 which passed it's brick wall tests rather well does turn out to be 'decentered' it actually reared it's ugly head at 35mm at f8 - most unexpected. Now I'm trying to decide whether to get it replaced, or to send it to Pentax to get it fixed.
Still, sending lenses back, is something us Leica users are definitely used to!:ROTFL:

 

[Paratom]

HI There Michael
The camera really is lovely.
Unfortunately, my 16-50 which passed it's brick wall tests rather well does turn out to be 'decentered' it actually reared it's ugly head at 35mm at f8 - most unexpected. Now I'm trying to decide whether to get it replaced, or to send it to Pentax to get it fixed.
Still, sending lenses back, is something us Leica users are definitely used to!:ROTFL:

My M9 and 24,50,75+135mm just came back from Leica for calibration

 

[photogerald]

Still, sending lenses back, is something us Leica users are definitely used to!:ROTFL:

Really? Is it because you folks have such high standards or does Leica have "issues" too?

 

[photogerald]

HI there Gerald
And welcome from me as well - your shots with the 200 f2.8 look splendid, and I stand corrected on the f4!

Funny about the 16-50, I'm becoming more and more enthusiastic about it, perhaps it's just that I've learned not to shoot wide open at 16mm when I want really sharp corners! But, truth is I want sharp corners for landscapes, and that really isn't the time I'd be expecting to need f2.8.

Thank you Jono as well for the welcome!

I just saw your latest post about your DA*16-50 being decentered - I'm sorry to hear that, I thought this was a thing of the past with this lens.

If you didn't already have that "something else", I would take this oppurtunity to push the DA15 Ltd for landscapes - compared to the 16-50, it's wider, has less distortion, and presumably has better contrast/colour/flare resistance. Yes it needs to be stopped down for best corner performance, but you'd be doing that anyways for landscapes right?

I did consider the 16-45, which seems to have a good write up, but in the end I went for the faster lens.

That's understandable - not only is the DA*16-50 faster, it's got the weather sealing and silent AF motor.

I'm very much in love with the 35 DA macro - I think it does a decent job for casual people pictures, has a perfectly respectable bokeh (not common with 35s, even those made by Leica) and it has the double advantage of being a really good macro lens . .. . .and it's very small! Obviously it'd be nice if it was weather resistant, but maybe you can't have everything!

Yes the DA35 Ltd does have a big fan following. I've been able to resist - so far.

The 100 WR will be next on my list. As for the other primes - I'm not so interested, as, if I want to shoot something with a minimum focus of 0.7 metres which is small and quality, I'm more likely to pick up something else!

Let me guess - that something else starts with an "M" and ends with a "9"?

I hope you enjoy it here . . . . and don't find it too civilised! (if you want a bit of dispute, just head off for one of the S2 threads :ROTFL

all the best

Thanks again, I'm sure I'll like it here.

 

[Paratom]

Really? Is it because you folks have such high standards or does Leica have "issues" too?

maybe both.
Shooting at f1.4 on ff with a sharp lens does lead to a very small tolerance regarding totally accurate Focus.
This is not allways the case in my experience. If I shoot a portrait I want the eye sharp - we are tlaking about mm.
Leica Lenses I had to send in was allways and only to adjust focus, everything else has allways been great.

 

[jonoslack]

Really? Is it because you folks have such high standards or does Leica have "issues" too?

Hi Gerald.
I think that "low tolerance" might be a better description than "high standards'

I got my 16-50 replaced, and the new one is pretty much the same, but on the other side

The 100 wr is lovely though, and although the focusing is a bit noisy, it seems to focus so fast (even in cr@ppy light).

 

[photogerald]

maybe both.
Shooting at f1.4 on ff with a sharp lens does lead to a very small tolerance regarding totally accurate Focus.
This is not allways the case in my experience. If I shoot a portrait I want the eye sharp - we are tlaking about mm.
Leica Lenses I had to send in was allways and only to adjust focus, everything else has allways been great.

Oh ok, I get it now - with rangefinders the focus calibration is critical.

Hi Gerald.
I think that "low tolerance" might be a better description than "high standards'

Which is very understandable given the cost of that glass.

I got my 16-50 replaced, and the new one is pretty much the same, but on the other side

How frustrating! So what are you going to do now? Get it replaced again, or return it outright and go for a different option?

The 100 wr is lovely though, and although the focusing is a bit noisy, it seems to focus so fast (even in cr@ppy light).

Yeah, that's the benefit of having the AF motor in-body - these lenses will benefit from improvements to the body (as has been the case from K20D -> K-7 -> K-5).

 

[photogerald]

How frustrating! So what are you going to do now? Get it replaced again, or return it outright and go for a different option?

From http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=37172274

"If you can get a decent copy then yes, it's a good lens.
That is the problem.... getting a good one.

My local camera store said the DA*16-50 was the most inconsistent lens they had ever sold.

Goods ones were excellent while the worst were abysmal mainly due to decentering issues

I have one myself.
Its already had a SDM replacement.

It's a little soft wide open, good from around F4 but still not in the same league as the FA Limiteds for sharpness."

It was because of reviews like this that I ended up getting the DA16-45 a few years back. And with the price hikes I would be even less likely to get the DA*16-50 now. However, if you really need the constant f2.8 *and* weather sealing, there are no alternatives.

If your requirements are more flexible, I hear the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is pretty good (disregard the comments about slow AF in other mounts as in Pentax mount this lens uses the in-body AF motor). Pentax also has the DA17-70/4 and the latest version of the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 is said to be quite good as well.

Also, the new DA18-135 DC WR is actually looking to be nice lens. It's got weather sealing and has a new fast and silent in-lens DC motor (faster than SDM). IQ is said to be a noticeable step up from the 18-55 kit lens, and if it's not wide enough you can pair it with the DA15 Ltd. It's also quite compact - when retracted, it's about the same length as the 18-55 and just slightly fatter. I'm actually thinking of replacing my DA16-45 with the DA18-135, not because of any IQ issues but rather because I find the range to a bit limited for walkaround/travel use.

 

[jonoslack]

HI Gerald

How frustrating! So what are you going to do now? Get it replaced again, or return it outright and go for a different option?

Also, the new DA18-135 DC WR is actually looking to be nice lens. It's got weather sealing and has a new fast and silent in-lens DC motor (faster than SDM). IQ is said to be a noticeable step up from the 18-55 kit lens, and if it's not wide enough you can pair it with the DA15 Ltd. It's also quite compact - when retracted, it's about the same length as the 18-55 and just slightly fatter. I'm actually thinking of replacing my DA16-45 with the DA18-135, not because of any IQ issues but rather because I find the range to a bit limited for walkaround/travel use.

Well, that's what I did - swapped it for the 18-135 and the 15 limited (plus a bit of cash).

First impressions of the 18-135 are a bit mixed, but I'll give it the benefit of a proper work out - I'm not expecting miracles, small 7x zooms should not be expected to produce the same results as a fixed focus lens!. As for the 15 limited, I'm aware it's soft in the corners wide open - I'll be testing it to see if I can live with that.

More Later!

 

[MPK2010]

HI Gerald
First impressions of the 18-135 are a bit mixed, but I'll give it the benefit of a proper work out - I'm not expecting miracles, small 7x zooms should not be expected to produce the same results as a fixed focus lens!. As for the 15 limited, I'm aware it's soft in the corners wide open - I'll be testing it to see if I can live with that.

More Later!

I am quite interested to hear how you find it. I bought the K-5 primarily for bad-weather days and seem to have settled upon the 21 and 40 limiteds for when the rain/snow goes away and the kit for when I need the WR. I'm happy with the limiteds but it would be nice to have a somewhat better-IQ WR lens that is less bulky than the 16-50. Of course a WR limited in the 35-50 equiv FOV range would also be fantastic but don't know if something like that is coming.

 

[photogerald]

Well, that's what I did - swapped it for the 18-135 and the 15 limited (plus a bit of cash).

First impressions of the 18-135 are a bit mixed, but I'll give it the benefit of a proper work out - I'm not expecting miracles, small 7x zooms should not be expected to produce the same results as a fixed focus lens!. As for the 15 limited, I'm aware it's soft in the corners wide open - I'll be testing it to see if I can live with that.

More Later!

Hi Jono, I just replied to your post about the DA18-135 in the other thread. Actually, I got confused and also started commenting about the DA15 Ltd in that thread. So to keep things aligned, I've removed that comment and put it here:

Regarding the DA15 Ltd's "soft" corners, it's been said that this lens has high field curvature, so the poor corner performance on test charts might not show up in real world non-flat subjects. Let us know what you find.

 

[photogerald]

I am quite interested to hear how you find it. I bought the K-5 primarily for bad-weather days and seem to have settled upon the 21 and 40 limiteds for when the rain/snow goes away and the kit for when I need the WR. I'm happy with the limiteds but it would be nice to have a somewhat better-IQ WR lens that is less bulky than the 16-50.

Right now it's looking like the DA18-135 could fit the bill - in the range of 18-55mm it appears to be excellent. We're still waiting for some "professional" reviews of it, and I'm also sure Jono will let us know his thoughts once he gets better acquainted with his.