Zos, my reply interspersed. I also took the liberty and used "*" symbols
to outline some things that kind of jumped to my eyes.
On 12/27/2013 8:00 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the
DA*16-50 its:
Smaller Lighter Slower Less Range
Both have WR.
I wonder how come the lens that is slower and has less range is ideal
walk around?! You see, I have about 5,000 images in my collection shot
with DA* 16-50/2.8. It is a very good lens. I did not like its double
cam barrel design and wasn't very appreciative of not knowing whether
the SDM motor would quit on me. Also I did not like the sharpness
towards the corner at wider zoom settings. However, when it would hit,
it would hit it big.
Further, for walk around, I would rather agree to lose on the long end
of the zoom range rather than on the wide one.
Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it
rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. Out of focus areas
and the roll off are rather smooth and pleasing. I don't know what
minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I also
have a feeling this lens would look really nice on some extension
tubes. This looks like nearly a stack of primes and could replace
having a 21ltd, 35ltd, 40ltd with one lens. For a zoom like this, I
rarely shoot wide open, but it does look very usable there.
That's right. All these limited lenses are rather slow, so it would be
only natural to replace them with another slow zoom lens of similar
range. Re the three limited lenses you mentioned:
1. 21/3.2 - well, better close it to 4.0 or even 5.6 to get optimal
sharpness.
2. 40/2.8 - the OOF rendering is not to my liking from what I've seen on
the net.
3. 35/2.8 - this one looks particularly "limited" to me. What would be
the use of a macro lens if at maximal magnification the distance between
the front element of the lens and the subject would be how much? Few
centimeters?! Good for inanimate subjects or reproduction. And slow like
a zoom lens...
So indeed, it would seem that new DA Limited zoom is preferable to these
three. Beside macro capabilities of 35/2.8 - one would seem to be only
gaining.
*Compared to the Sigma 18-35*, it has a slightly different range and
is much slower. I think they are both pretty sharp lenses, but I bet
the limited resolves more. The sigma is also HUGE, lacks SMC/HD
coating, and *doesn't say pentax on the barrel*. I know that if I
wanted to shoot some street, I'd want the much smaller lens. I only
wish it were say 16-40. The extra width would come in handy, but
other than that this covers a range that is very useful, at least for
landscape and outdoors shooters. I think it is way too expensive, but
I have to admit that I really want one and a 15 and 70 to go along
with it.
The fact that average banana weighs approximately like an average apple
which in turn weighs somewhat close to an orange, does not mean these
fruits need to be compared. Let me suggest to you, Zos, that Sigma is a
truly revolutionary breakthrough in lens design. The sharpness that is
provides and other renderings qualities (except work against the light
sources) are indeed worth of title "stack of _high quality_ primes".
Additionally, you get wonderful USB connectivity option that would allow
you to fully align this lens with AF system of your very camera, which
for critical applications is well - critical.
I have very old 17-70/2.8-4.5 and in terms of coatings it is 100% there.
I don't miss SMC/HD or whatever.
I totally don't understand "doesn't say pentax on the barrel"
argument/sentiment/mention. Let me ask you - when having to choose
85/1.4 lens, would you then immediately dismiss Zeiss 85/1.4 (in Pentax
K mount, of course) or Leica R 80/1.4 (with properly applied Leitax
mount conversion) just because both Zeiss and Leica are not Pentax?
Granted the Sigma 18-35 is big and heavy and very much so, it is how I
would want Pentax to push the envelope and not offer to me yet another
slow limited lens. The FA limited lenses were brilliant in being of
exceptional optical quality and optimal speed (not too fast, not too
slow). The DA limited lenses are, well, how to put it - indicative of
someone in Pentax non-engineering headquarters deciding - I want my new
limited lenses small, nothing else matters, give me small lenses. And so
we have all the pancakes...
And like I said - DA 20-40 seems like a good small street shooting lens
or common purpose slow around the standard focal length optic. The WR
adds nicely, the barrel design would seem to ensure somewhat better than
average longevity.
As for optical qualities - I would very much hope to see PDMLers shots
that were made with it.
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.
