On 10/20/2013 6:44 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
That's not a sealed lens, therefore not directly comparable. More
importantly, that's not a telephoto lens; the mount and hardware at
shorter focal lengths makes more difference, and you start seeing more
significant differences out past 100mm/e.
Well, no. It is directly comparable to me because:
1. I have one and used to have another for quite a long time, including
a period of time when I had both simultaneously. Further, both were
serving the very same purpose in my photo bag.
2. You appear to put extreme value in the fact that DA* lens is sealed.
Valid approach indeed. However I don't put as much value into that.
Consider this, I've just noticed that my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 (old, used,
etc) also has double barrel design. But no wobble or play whatsoever -
it is firm and tight. My DA* had some rather noticeable play there. Why
am I saying that - because I think that properly assembled lens with
modern tight tolerances can withstand certain degree of unfavorable
weather.
However, both are fast constant aperture moderate wide to moderate tele
lenses, and as such are directly comparable in my book.
What does a 90-375/4 look like? What about a 27-200/3.5-5.6?
Indeed. I think the heaviest/biggest Pentax lens I had privilege of
handling is DA* 60-250/4... Easily as big/heavy as Sigma 70-200/2.8 I
also held in my hands. However, Aahz, I don't shoot beyond 100mm focal
length. My longest lens used to be FA 100/3.5 macro which was 90% in use
by Galia and then that position passed to FA 77/1.8. My personal
shooting interests don't include anything longer than portrait tele range.
Further, I am yet to see super-zoom (the likes of 27-200 you mentioned)
that would consistently produce photographs that I would find
technically (sharpness, contrast, resolution) acceptable. I prefer
primes whenever possible and I use zooms only for shooting conditions
where otherwise I would have to swap lenses in the field. Speaking of
which, I have two GXR M-modules, which allow swapping in wider range of
conditions.
Of course smaller sensor means potentially smaller/lighter tele lenses.
Imagine 100mm macro (one of the very sharpest out there) mounted on
Pentax Q. However to produce 100% rectilinear (not by means of clever
JPG processing, but in RAW form) 24mm equivalent for the same Pentax Q
would be a tough game. I for one cannot be happier with Super Wide
Heliar 15/4.5 on my cropped Ricoh GXR. Excellent sharpness from corner
to corner and no visible distortion towards the corners of the frame. I
am not suggesting however that you should get excited about this as it
would seem you're more a telephoto kind of shooter.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
