Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Hi, from your list - despite everything - DA*16-50. QC problems? In this case we shouldn't even mention Sigmas. Distortions? It's digital age - shoot RAW, correct 'em with software. You got it all with your camera (Photo Laboratory, I mean). Besides, IMO the real problems with this lens are much less than everyone is talking everywhere. The same everyone are asking you, why there is no creative programs (or whatever) at K20D... BR, Margus proud owner of VERY early DA* 16-50 lens Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
If the store doesn't want my business I'm just as happy to save money. That's what I thought many years ago when I stopped dealing with that store. That stores policy was actually very good for me. It led to me being able to get equipment directly from Pentax at a great cost save. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Which if that's the way it goes means, buy it online from BH, give it a quick test, if it's good save money, if it's bad, send it back. If the store doesn't want my business I'm just as happy to save money. Ken Waller wrote: Here's how it works where I'm at - I walk into a store where they advertise Pentax, I tell them I'd like to see so so by Pentax, they tell me if I prepay they'll order it for me. If I don't like/want it when it arrives, they'll issue me in store credit - no refund. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. What hides behind all this exchange is the fact that proving that the lens such as DA* 16-50/2.8 malfunctions is going to be non-trivial process. What you will claim is soft they will claim is normal. Usually there is an indignant frown attached to it saying something like - this is professional gear, you just don't know how it works for 'us' professionals. My nephew is also Pentaxian and he has this lens and he loves it. I know personally a guy who bought one of the first Nikon D2Xs here (five digit sum in local currency, something like 3-4 times average monthly salary) and couldn't actually prove to local Nikon dealership that some of AF sensors of his camera malfed. He even wrote some letters to Nikon Japan or whatever high authority outside Israel there is. Ultimately, the firmware upgrade solved the problem, but I am sure poor fellow lost some hair on the way. Trust me, I've been through this story more than once. Unless I develop a deep friendly (as in drinking beer together) relationship with the dealer, the game is extremely risky. And unfortunately there are no enough reaons for me to start developing such a relationship (though I do like drinking beer, thanks to Thibouille ;-) ). Nor are there any considerably reliable and long-lasting photo gear dealers that also work with Pentax. Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws? Here's how it works in Canada: I go into a store and ask for a lens. They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass. When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out to the parking lot and take a few snapshots of the brick wall of the store across the lot. If it looks good on the review screen I buy the lens. Now this is where it gets nice for the buyer. We have a set of consumer laws that state that if the product isn't usable for the purpose for which it was sold, the seller must give a refund within a reasonable time frame (several days at least). So, if in the course of using my new lens, I notice a defect which compromises it's usability, it goes back to the store, I get a refund, and they order me a new lens, which then repeats the process. It sounds like Israeli consumer laws favour protecting the merchant over the buyer. There is probably a cliche or two in there someplace. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Boris Liberman escribió: Brand new Tamron costs here order of $450, which considering that I already have it shipped, taxes paid and also covered with at least 1 year warranty, I reckon is a good price. Here it costs more or less the same, VAT included. If I remember well, you were interested in reading a review of the DA 17-70. I have found one: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676review=pentax+17-70mm Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Thanks, Carlos. Unfortunately, this review only supports the same issues that had been stated on the list earlier. And it seems that the sharpness fall off towards the borders of the frame is indicative of certain degree of field curvature of this lens. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is both cheaper, faster and probably not significantly worse in other respects. Although it does not have SDM and full time manual focus override. Otherwise, Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems not worse of a choice to me. On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here it costs more or less the same, VAT included. If I remember well, you were interested in reading a review of the DA 17-70. I have found one: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676review=pentax+17-70mm Carlos -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Boris, Why not wait for the Tamron 10-24 and pair it with the 28-75? I believe it's been released in Canon and Nikon mounts with Pentax and Sony to follow soon. I've yet to find a review of the 10-24 but if it's as good as my 28-75 Di I'm in the market for one...anyone looking to buy a lightly used Sigma 10-20 EX? lol. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 November 2008 04:11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Well, Christine, I suppose I ought to clarify here. Christine Aguila wrote: Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I've a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I bought from a fellow PDMLer (well, PDMLeress, in fact, but that's beside the point). It is just shines. It has certain problems as well, but they are minor. If Pentax comes up with full frame body, all my problems will be solved then. I will have moderate wide to moderate tele walk around lens at the ready. Above Tamron is the only 3rd party zoom lens that I'd be willing to put on my bodies knowing that I'd get superb image quality from it. We had a company fun day just several days ago. Unfortunately the other photo fellow ;-) couldn't bring his wide angle lens (Nikon 12-24 or something like that) due to battery problems with his camera. So I shot some very fine images, but no wide ones. That's why I am started again on my search for a wider lens. So in a sense, I am looking to replicate speed, sharpness, low distortion (at 28 mm cropped it is not difficult though) and AF precision of Tamron 28-75/2.8. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount, not what's available in 1st party form. Note that most of the currently available FF primes in K mount are not from Pentax, and most of the best of them aren't either (the Zeiss ZK and Voigtlander SLII lines are both at least as good as the equivalent pentax's). I've found that 3rd party lenses can offer superior performance to the 1st party options. And thus I use a mix of 1st and 3rd party lenses (Right now, Sigma, Voigtlander, Kiron and Nikon) -Adam On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:21 PM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
We had a company fun day contradiction in terms. Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman Sent: 16 November 2008 04:12 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Well, Christine, I suppose I ought to clarify here. Christine Aguila wrote: Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I've a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I bought from a fellow PDMLer (well, PDMLeress, in fact, but that's beside the point). It is just shines. It has certain problems as well, but they are minor. If Pentax comes up with full frame body, all my problems will be solved then. I will have moderate wide to moderate tele walk around lens at the ready. Above Tamron is the only 3rd party zoom lens that I'd be willing to put on my bodies knowing that I'd get superb image quality from it. We had a company fun day just several days ago. Unfortunately the other photo fellow ;-) couldn't bring his wide angle lens (Nikon 12-24 or something like that) due to battery problems with his camera. So I shot some very fine images, but no wide ones. That's why I am started again on my search for a wider lens. So in a sense, I am looking to replicate speed, sharpness, low distortion (at 28 mm cropped it is not difficult though) and AF precision of Tamron 28-75/2.8. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Nov 16, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Adam Maas wrote: I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount, not what's available in 1st party form. I differ from that in that I don't trust the quality control of third party lens manufacturers on the whole. Carl Zeiss lenses are a notable exception to that generalization, and the Cosina/Voigtländer lenses have proven to be very good as well. I consider those two to be on par with original manufacturers' lens offerings or better. I particularly detest Sigma lenses for their utter lack of consistency. Get a good one and they're likely decent performers, but the odds are stacked against getting a good one in my experience. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Its kinda like TVs. If you get far away enough or go to a tiny screen they eventually will look sharp enough, that's because the circle of confusion changes shape. but no matter how far away or how small a screen you use, you can always see bad color. I'm colourblind. Doesn't matter to me. Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC OConnell Sent: 16 November 2008 03:04 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux oh, and never foget, depending on the subject, image size and and print size, the loss of resolution of a zoom compared to a prime may be meaningless, but better contrast/less flare is always visible no matter what size image or print you do. Its kinda like TVs. If you get far away enough or go to a tiny screen they eventually will look sharp enough, but no matter how far away or how small a screen you use, you can always see bad color. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
You can't get further away from a room interior or the passenger cabin of a car. Sometimes an ultra-wide is a necessity. And if the budget doesn't allow for several, a zoom is a great answer. What's more, today's best zooms compare favorably to most primes. Paul On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:07 AM, Tim Bray wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) What he said. The 21mm Limited is so obviously the class of that list, on top of which it's smaller and lighter and indestructible. You'll just have to get a little further away from your subject. -Tim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele reasonably fast zoom lens. Probably the 16-45 then. I've only used one once, and was impressed enough with it's optical quality. I wouldn't buy a 16-50 unless I could go to a store and try it first. They still haven't fixed the assembly problems, so the end user seems to be the first stage of quality control. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
David Savage wrote: In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. The FA* 28-70 and 80-200 are friggin' amazing lenses as is the DA*16-50. They're at a disadvantage compared to primes in size and weight (thought they make up for this to an extent because a single zoom replaces several primes). The only real disadvantage is speed; sometimes only a really wide aperture will do. But barring those relatively rare (for me) instances, top tier zooms match all but a rarefied few primes these days. I can see the superiority of my Limited series lenses in close examination under critical circumstances, but I've never had a shot taken with an FA* or DA* zoom that failed to cut the mustard because of optical shortcomings of the lens. My main reason for shooting primes is usually because I love the different shooting/thinking style they necessitate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. What hides behind all this exchange is the fact that proving that the lens such as DA* 16-50/2.8 malfunctions is going to be non-trivial process. What you will claim is soft they will claim is normal. Usually there is an indignant frown attached to it saying something like - this is professional gear, you just don't know how it works for 'us' professionals. My nephew is also Pentaxian and he has this lens and he loves it. I know personally a guy who bought one of the first Nikon D2Xs here (five digit sum in local currency, something like 3-4 times average monthly salary) and couldn't actually prove to local Nikon dealership that some of AF sensors of his camera malfed. He even wrote some letters to Nikon Japan or whatever high authority outside Israel there is. Ultimately, the firmware upgrade solved the problem, but I am sure poor fellow lost some hair on the way. Trust me, I've been through this story more than once. Unless I develop a deep friendly (as in drinking beer together) relationship with the dealer, the game is extremely risky. And unfortunately there are no enough reaons for me to start developing such a relationship (though I do like drinking beer, thanks to Thibouille ;-) ). Nor are there any considerably reliable and long-lasting photo gear dealers that also work with Pentax. *Deep sigh*. On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably the 16-45 then. I've only used one once, and was impressed enough with it's optical quality. I wouldn't buy a 16-50 unless I could go to a store and try it first. They still haven't fixed the assembly problems, so the end user seems to be the first stage of quality control. William Robb -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. What hides behind all this exchange is the fact that proving that the lens such as DA* 16-50/2.8 malfunctions is going to be non-trivial process. What you will claim is soft they will claim is normal. Usually there is an indignant frown attached to it saying something like - this is professional gear, you just don't know how it works for 'us' professionals. My nephew is also Pentaxian and he has this lens and he loves it. I know personally a guy who bought one of the first Nikon D2Xs here (five digit sum in local currency, something like 3-4 times average monthly salary) and couldn't actually prove to local Nikon dealership that some of AF sensors of his camera malfed. He even wrote some letters to Nikon Japan or whatever high authority outside Israel there is. Ultimately, the firmware upgrade solved the problem, but I am sure poor fellow lost some hair on the way. Trust me, I've been through this story more than once. Unless I develop a deep friendly (as in drinking beer together) relationship with the dealer, the game is extremely risky. And unfortunately there are no enough reaons for me to start developing such a relationship (though I do like drinking beer, thanks to Thibouille ;-) ). Nor are there any considerably reliable and long-lasting photo gear dealers that also work with Pentax. Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws? Here's how it works in Canada: I go into a store and ask for a lens. They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass. When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out to the parking lot and take a few snapshots of the brick wall of the store across the lot. If it looks good on the review screen I buy the lens. Now this is where it gets nice for the buyer. We have a set of consumer laws that state that if the product isn't usable for the purpose for which it was sold, the seller must give a refund within a reasonable time frame (several days at least). So, if in the course of using my new lens, I notice a defect which compromises it's usability, it goes back to the store, I get a refund, and they order me a new lens, which then repeats the process. It sounds like Israeli consumer laws favour protecting the merchant over the buyer. There is probably a cliche or two in there someplace. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. I can see both sides. I once went into a well-known photographic shop in London with the intention of buying a lens (I think it was a Canon 24mm f 1.4 IIRC) and it was not cheap. I had made my decision and marched in. I asked if I could please see (said) lens as I would like to buy one (eg - I made my intention clear). I was stunned when the proprietor refused and said I would have to pay first before he would even open the box. I tried to make him understand that I was fully intending to purchase there and then. He explained that he could not take the chance that I would not buy the lens once opened - and he certainly would not mount it on a camera (I had my 1DmII with me). He said that 'people were ever so anal and wouldn't buy a lens if it had been handled or mounted already', and that 'people come in and try things out and then go buy them on the internet...' I explained that the idea of a camera shop was so that customers could indeed try before buying, rather than purchasing site unseen on the net. He still would not open the box! At this point I had decided on a matter of principle not to buy from him. I informed him that as he was indeed emulating an online web store by not letting me see my intended purchase first, that I would indeed wait and use an online store instead and save another 60 quid in the bargain (we're talking about 900 GBP here). He was unrepentant, and I left the shop. My only thoughts were that I would not enter a camera shop again. I would seek out a colleague or acquaintance in future to 'try out' a lens. I would buy from an online dealer in future. I have not changed my opinion. YMMV. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. I can see both sides. I once went into a well-known photographic shop in London with the intention of buying a lens (I think it was a Canon 24mm f 1.4 IIRC) and it was not cheap. I had made my decision and marched in. I asked if I could please see (said) lens as I would like to buy one (eg - I made my intention clear). I was stunned when the proprietor refused and said I would have to pay first before he would even open the box. The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective, would you have gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you discovered the defect fairly soon? One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I think this is because of consumer protection laws), if you discover a defect in a product within a few days to a few weeks of purchasing, the vendor will replace the product rather than making you deal with it as a warranty issue. The vendor replaces the product and sends it back to the distributor, and it gets dealt with in the supply chain rather than putting the customer out any more than is necessary. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective, would you have gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you discovered the defect fairly soon? One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I think this is because of consumer protection laws), if you discover a defect in a product within a few days to a few weeks of purchasing, the vendor will replace the product rather than making you deal with it as a warranty issue. The vendor replaces the product and sends it back to the distributor, and it gets dealt with in the supply chain rather than putting the customer out any more than is necessary. it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without question. Paul On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Bob W wrote: The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective, would you have gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you discovered the defect fairly soon? One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I think this is because of consumer protection laws), if you discover a defect in a product within a few days to a few weeks of purchasing, the vendor will replace the product rather than making you deal with it as a warranty issue. The vendor replaces the product and sends it back to the distributor, and it gets dealt with in the supply chain rather than putting the customer out any more than is necessary. it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
William Robb wrote: Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws? Here's how it works in Canada: I go into a store and ask for a lens. They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass. When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out to the parking lot and take a few snapshots of the brick wall of the store across the lot. If it looks good on the review screen I buy the lens. Now this is where it gets nice for the buyer. We have a set of consumer laws that state that if the product isn't usable for the purpose for which it was sold, the seller must give a refund within a reasonable time frame (several days at least). So, if in the course of using my new lens, I notice a defect which compromises it's usability, it goes back to the store, I get a refund, and they order me a new lens, which then repeats the process. It sounds like Israeli consumer laws favour protecting the merchant over the buyer. There is probably a cliche or two in there someplace. William Robb Of course we have laws that are supposed to protect the consumer. However, like Cotty explained in his example, too many people have abused these laws and they have been 'changed' to 'protect' the seller from 'anal' buyers. You see, the same moment I walk out of the store and return, say on the next day, for whatever it is worth, I could've abused the lens all the way through, cleaned it up some and come to the seller saying that it is defective. There were cases when I would explicitly agree with the seller (of non-photographic items) that I shall be sure to thoroughly try the item during a day, at most two and then either I come and they replace it, or I accept that it is fully ok with all the consequences. Like I said, I placed an order for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 with one of the stores and I will see how it works out. I am going to have to discuss this issue with this shop anyway. If anything interesting turns out, I'd report it to the list just for sake of curiosity. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. I suppose it is only logical, since so much of Canadian law is based on British Common Law. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
PN Stenquist wrote: I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without question. Paul That's the whole problem here. That guy I wrote about with D2X in another message in this thread - he dealt with the official, the biggest, allegedly the best dealer - still no cigar ;-). Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
In a zoom, f2.8 isn't moderately fast it's blazing. I don't know of any faster off hand. Boris Liberman wrote: Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele reasonably fast zoom lens. Boris William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Olympus Digital Zuiko 14-35 f2.0 and 35-100 f2.0, Angenieux/Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 are pretty much the only zooms faster than f2.8 in 35mm SLR mounts. -Adam On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a zoom, f2.8 isn't moderately fast it's blazing. I don't know of any faster off hand. Boris Liberman wrote: Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele reasonably fast zoom lens. Boris William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Another option is the forthcoming DA 15 F4 Limited. Joe Nor is the very excellent DA 12-24/4 On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:59 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I'll be in a position to quite possibly give you a first hand account of the U.S. process when I receive my DA* 16-50 this next week or so from BH. I have to determine if it's acceptably sharp across the field of view. If not, then I return it to BH. Complicated by the fact that the lens was ordered and paid for by Liberty Mutual's Insurer's World division. I am getting unpriced BH receipts with me as the Ship to: entity, but Nicky Breitstein, Home Entertainment Distributor in Canton, Mass. as the Sold To. I'm concerned that the gap twixt BH and me might be a hurdle. We'll see! Joe On Nov 16, 2008, at 08:37 , PN Stenquist wrote: I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without question. Paul On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Bob W wrote: The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective, would you have gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you discovered the defect fairly soon? One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I think this is because of consumer protection laws), if you discover a defect in a product within a few days to a few weeks of purchasing, the vendor will replace the product rather than making you deal with it as a warranty issue. The vendor replaces the product and sends it back to the distributor, and it gets dealt with in the supply chain rather than putting the customer out any more than is necessary. it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. Bob Joseph McAllister Pentaxian -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I cant comment on modern third party lenses, but back in the 80's-90's the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X series made a few real doozies in lengths /ranges / speeds that Pentax didnt. I wouldnt dismiss third parties altogether JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I have the AT-X Pro series of Tokina ; 20-28, 28-70, and 80-200, all ƒ2.8 except the 20-28, of course, it being a ƒ2.6-2.8. I found all three to be great in 35mm film like the LX and PZ-1p. But their mass makes them pretty slow to auto-focus and tending towards out of focus on a digital body. In manual focus they are still great. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian On Nov 16, 2008, at 12:30 , JC OConnell wrote: I cant comment on modern third party lenses, but back in the 80's-90's the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X series made a few real doozies in lengths /ranges / speeds that Pentax didnt. I wouldnt dismiss third parties altogether JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
In Tokina AT-X, I still kept my 80-200/2.8, 100-300/4 and 60-120/2.8, all exceptional. Manual focus. The 60-120/2.8 is rare, its an incredible lens for portrait usage that nobody else ever made. In Tamron SP, I still have my 80-200/2.8 and 90mm/2.5 Macro, both exceptional. I also have the 17mm/3.5 which is really good, but I wouldnt call it exceptional. Manual focus, Adaptall mounts. There were others. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have the AT-X Pro series of Tokina ; 20-28, 28-70, and 80-200, all ƒ2.8 except the 20-28, of course, it being a ƒ2.6-2.8. I found all three to be great in 35mm film like the LX and PZ-1p. But their mass makes them pretty slow to auto-focus and tending towards out of focus on a digital body. In manual focus they are still great. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian On Nov 16, 2008, at 12:30 , JC OConnell wrote: I cant comment on modern third party lenses, but back in the 80's-90's the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X series made a few real doozies in lengths /ranges / speeds that Pentax didnt. I wouldnt dismiss third parties altogether JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Shouldn't be a problem BH deals honestly. Paul On Nov 16, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: I'll be in a position to quite possibly give you a first hand account of the U.S. process when I receive my DA* 16-50 this next week or so from BH. I have to determine if it's acceptably sharp across the field of view. If not, then I return it to BH. Complicated by the fact that the lens was ordered and paid for by Liberty Mutual's Insurer's World division. I am getting unpriced BH receipts with me as the Ship to: entity, but Nicky Breitstein, Home Entertainment Distributor in Canton, Mass. as the Sold To. I'm concerned that the gap twixt BH and me might be a hurdle. We'll see! Joe On Nov 16, 2008, at 08:37 , PN Stenquist wrote: I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without question. Paul On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Bob W wrote: The question is, if the lens had turned out to be defective, would you have gotten an over the counter exchange from the vendor, presuming you discovered the defect fairly soon? One of the nice things about Canadian vendors is that (and I think this is because of consumer protection laws), if you discover a defect in a product within a few days to a few weeks of purchasing, the vendor will replace the product rather than making you deal with it as a warranty issue. The vendor replaces the product and sends it back to the distributor, and it gets dealt with in the supply chain rather than putting the customer out any more than is necessary. it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. Bob Joseph McAllister Pentaxian -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Olympus do 2: ED 14-35mm 1:2.0 SWD ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 These have the same fov as 135 format 28-70 and 70-200mm respectively. Bob In a zoom, f2.8 isn't moderately fast it's blazing. I don't know of any faster off hand. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Based on their newsprint results I hope they got a bad copy. For the premium you pay over the kit lens I'd expect sharper results at wider apertures. Carlos Royo wrote: Boris Liberman escribió: Brand new Tamron costs here order of $450, which considering that I already have it shipped, taxes paid and also covered with at least 1 year warranty, I reckon is a good price. Here it costs more or less the same, VAT included. If I remember well, you were interested in reading a review of the DA 17-70. I have found one: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3676review=pentax+17-70mm Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] I choose bodies for the ergonomics and what's available in the mount, not what's available in 1st party form. Note that most of the currently available FF primes in K mount are not from Pentax, and most of the best of them aren't either (the Zeiss ZK and Voigtlander SLII lines are both at least as good as the equivalent pentax's). I've found that 3rd party lenses can offer superior performance to the 1st party options. And thus I use a mix of 1st and 3rd party lenses (Right now, Sigma, Voigtlander, Kiron and Nikon) Particularly when the 3rd party offers a lens that has no Pentax equivalent; e.g. FILM lenses. Some of us have not abandoned film to the extent Pentax has. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 16/11/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. I can see both sides. I once went into a well-known photographic shop in London with the intention of buying a lens (I think it was a Canon 24mm f 1.4 IIRC) and it was not cheap. I had made my decision and marched in. I asked if I could please see (said) lens as I would like to buy one (eg - I made my intention clear). I was stunned when the proprietor refused and said I would have to pay first before he would even open the box. I tried to make him understand that I was fully intending to purchase there and then. He explained that he could not take the chance that I would not buy the lens once opened - and he certainly would not mount it on a camera (I had my 1DmII with me). He said that 'people were ever so anal and wouldn't buy a lens if it had been handled or mounted already', and that 'people come in and try things out and then go buy them on the internet...' I explained that the idea of a camera shop was so that customers could indeed try before buying, rather than purchasing site unseen on the net. He still would not open the box! At this point I had decided on a matter of principle not to buy from him. I informed him that as he was indeed emulating an online web store by not letting me see my intended purchase first, that I would indeed wait and use an online store instead and save another 60 quid in the bargain (we're talking about 900 GBP here). He was unrepentant, and I left the shop. My only thoughts were that I would not enter a camera shop again. I would seek out a colleague or acquaintance in future to 'try out' a lens. I would buy from an online dealer in future. I have not changed my opinion. YMMV. So how long has it been since that well-known photographic shop in London went out of business? I'd have had to make a few pungent comments to him on my way out the door. There are two good independent dealers in town, and both seem more than willing to allow you to try a lens you're considering. One of them has rental equipment, so you can sometimes even give an intended purchase an extended workout ... at least a similar lens you can try before plopping down your credit card for the new-in-the-box lens. Both USED to be Pentax dealers. One still has a marginal relationship with Pentax, but has stopped stocking because they told me, they can't get the Pentax rep to come around and it takes forever to get orders fulfilled. They WILL order from Pentax for you, but have on more than one occasion advised me to order from BH because they have no idea if or when Pentax will fill their orders. But even the Wolf/Ritz Camera chain will allow you to get your hands on the camera/lens to test it in the store. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
From: PN Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure if merchants in the US are legally bound to offer a replacement, but the better one's do. BH replaced my DA* 16-50 without question. Paul It's taking care of the customer that MAKES them the better ones. Some places see that as an incentive to get customers to shop there again. Other places see it as an additional COST to be avoided in any way possible. Guess which sort of place is likely to get my business. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Here's how it works where I'm at - I walk into a store where they advertise Pentax, I tell them I'd like to see so so by Pentax, they tell me if I prepay they'll order it for me. If I don't like/want it when it arrives, they'll issue me in store credit - no refund. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. What hides behind all this exchange is the fact that proving that the lens such as DA* 16-50/2.8 malfunctions is going to be non-trivial process. What you will claim is soft they will claim is normal. Usually there is an indignant frown attached to it saying something like - this is professional gear, you just don't know how it works for 'us' professionals. My nephew is also Pentaxian and he has this lens and he loves it. I know personally a guy who bought one of the first Nikon D2Xs here (five digit sum in local currency, something like 3-4 times average monthly salary) and couldn't actually prove to local Nikon dealership that some of AF sensors of his camera malfed. He even wrote some letters to Nikon Japan or whatever high authority outside Israel there is. Ultimately, the firmware upgrade solved the problem, but I am sure poor fellow lost some hair on the way. Trust me, I've been through this story more than once. Unless I develop a deep friendly (as in drinking beer together) relationship with the dealer, the game is extremely risky. And unfortunately there are no enough reaons for me to start developing such a relationship (though I do like drinking beer, thanks to Thibouille ;-) ). Nor are there any considerably reliable and long-lasting photo gear dealers that also work with Pentax. Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws? Here's how it works in Canada: I go into a store and ask for a lens. They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass. When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out to the parking lot and take a few snapshots of the brick wall of the store across the lot. If it looks good on the review screen I buy the lens. Now this is where it gets nice for the buyer. We have a set of consumer laws that state that if the product isn't usable for the purpose for which it was sold, the seller must give a refund within a reasonable time frame (several days at least). So, if in the course of using my new lens, I notice a defect which compromises it's usability, it goes back to the store, I get a refund, and they order me a new lens, which then repeats the process. It sounds like Israeli consumer laws favour protecting the merchant over the buyer. There is probably a cliche or two in there someplace. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:38:01 -0600 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it works the same way here. The contract that takes place at the point of sale is between the customer and the dealer, not between the customer and the dealer's supplier, so the dealer has to sort out any crap. I suppose it is only logical, since so much of Canadian law is based on British Common Law. that's pretty much how it is supposed to work here too, at least theoretically. most electronic/consumer goods get replaced if they don't work as advertised, if you take it back within a reasonable time period. the problem with pentax camera/lenses is that though there is an official distributor, they are just not available off the shelf. canon has a very strong presense, nikon is catching up over the last one year or so. if you want pentax/sigma/tamron, you order it through a grey market dealer by paying a token advance, the lens comes from either singapore or hong kong within three to four working days. the prices are roughly the going US$ prices. you check it and take it home. if there's a problem, say, after you take it home, you are stuck. :-) i've just paid, on saturday, a token advance for the sigma 10-20mm. delivery wednesday/thursday. keeping my fingers crossed since i am not a praying man.:-) regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I think you miss my main point. I don't use Pentax to use third party glass. I have some, but I find more than enough satisfaction in my Pentax lenses. If I was going to use third party lenses, Nikon offerers better/more modern, though larger, camera bodies. That's not to dismiss the K10 and K20 cameras. They are good solid cameras mostly middle of the road cameras with some features not found in the competition, but without the SMC K lenses I'd be looking at Nikon today. Joseph McAllister wrote: I have the AT-X Pro series of Tokina ; 20-28, 28-70, and 80-200, all ƒ2.8 except the 20-28, of course, it being a ƒ2.6-2.8. I found all three to be great in 35mm film like the LX and PZ-1p. But their mass makes them pretty slow to auto-focus and tending towards out of focus on a digital body. In manual focus they are still great. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian On Nov 16, 2008, at 12:30 , JC OConnell wrote: I cant comment on modern third party lenses, but back in the 80's-90's the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X series made a few real doozies in lengths /ranges / speeds that Pentax didnt. I wouldnt dismiss third parties altogether JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Yep, two lenses, both released in the last year or two. Saying that an f2.8 zoom is only moderately fast, when the average zoom is 3.5 or slower, (most consumer zooms are f3.5 or f4.0 at the short end and f5.6 or smaller aperture, at the long end), is like saying my f1.4 50mm isn't fast because Canon made a 50mm f0.9 lens. The 1.4 is still fast... Bob W wrote: Olympus do 2: ED 14-35mm 1:2.0 SWD ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 These have the same fov as 135 format 28-70 and 70-200mm respectively. Bob In a zoom, f2.8 isn't moderately fast it's blazing. I don't know of any faster off hand. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Which if that's the way it goes means, buy it online from BH, give it a quick test, if it's good save money, if it's bad, send it back. If the store doesn't want my business I'm just as happy to save money. Ken Waller wrote: Here's how it works where I'm at - I walk into a store where they advertise Pentax, I tell them I'd like to see so so by Pentax, they tell me if I prepay they'll order it for me. If I don't like/want it when it arrives, they'll issue me in store credit - no refund. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Bill, here in Israel the following is very common practice. You walk in a store and ask for something. They walk away and return with the box which they put on the counter. You ask to open it and actually try it before you commit your money. They respond that by doing so they risk so many shekels worth of goods. You parry by saying that you cannot buy something that may not work. They respond in turn that whatever is the problem you will have it resolved by the warranty and that they'd be happy to assist you should invocation of warranty become necessary. What hides behind all this exchange is the fact that proving that the lens such as DA* 16-50/2.8 malfunctions is going to be non-trivial process. What you will claim is soft they will claim is normal. Usually there is an indignant frown attached to it saying something like - this is professional gear, you just don't know how it works for 'us' professionals. My nephew is also Pentaxian and he has this lens and he loves it. I know personally a guy who bought one of the first Nikon D2Xs here (five digit sum in local currency, something like 3-4 times average monthly salary) and couldn't actually prove to local Nikon dealership that some of AF sensors of his camera malfed. He even wrote some letters to Nikon Japan or whatever high authority outside Israel there is. Ultimately, the firmware upgrade solved the problem, but I am sure poor fellow lost some hair on the way. Trust me, I've been through this story more than once. Unless I develop a deep friendly (as in drinking beer together) relationship with the dealer, the game is extremely risky. And unfortunately there are no enough reaons for me to start developing such a relationship (though I do like drinking beer, thanks to Thibouille ;-) ). Nor are there any considerably reliable and long-lasting photo gear dealers that also work with Pentax. Doesn't Israel have any sort of consumer protection laws? Here's how it works in Canada: I go into a store and ask for a lens. They will probably have to order it in, unless it is consumer glass. When it arrives, I go to the store and mount it to my camera. I go out to the parking lot and take a few snapshots of the brick wall of the store across the lot. If it looks good on the review screen I buy the lens. Now this is where it gets nice for the buyer. We have a set of consumer laws that state that if the product isn't usable for the purpose for which it was sold, the seller must give a refund within a reasonable time frame (several days at least). So, if in the course of using my new lens, I notice a defect which compromises it's usability, it goes back to the store, I get a refund, and they order me a new lens, which then repeats the process. It sounds like Israeli consumer laws favour protecting the merchant over the buyer. There is probably a cliche or two in there someplace. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Sigma 17-70. Excellent optics, very close focusing, fast (f2.8-4.5) for a variable-aperture zoom. Yeah, it's a Sigma and not even an EX, but I was VERY pleased with mine when I was using it on the K10D. -Adam On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Having owned both, I have to say that the DA 16-45 shows considerably more distortion at the wide end than the DA* 16-50, although both are good in this regard. From what I've seen both are far better in terms of wide end distortion than the DA 17-70, although they are a bit wider. Also remember that the field of view varies greatly among these lenses. The FOV of a 20 is equivalent to that of a 30 in full frame, while the FOV of a 16 is that of a 24. Much more useful FOV for shots where you need wide. But you've certainly done some homework. Best of luck with this. I think the Tamron is a good choice if the price is right. Paul On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Nor is the very excellent DA 12-24/4 On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:59 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide solutions on miniature formats are difficult. Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
The irony, at least in Nikon's case is that there are exactly 2 Nikon primes that old (the 50/1.4 and 24/2.8) and one (the 50) has a replacement due to ship in the next couple of weeks. The 20/2.8 is a early 80's design, the 50/1.8 a late 70's, the 28/2.8 a mid-90's, the 35/2 a late 80's, the 85/1.4 an early 90's, the current 105's are '99 and 2006 and the 135 is '99. Bad as Nikon's prime lineup is, the oldest designs are mostly early 80's and many are much newer. The sad thing about it is the loss of the exotics (24 and 28 f2's, the 28/1.4, the 35/1.4, the 50 and 58 f1.2) and the classic 105/2.5 and 135/2.8 which never made it to AF form. -Adam On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide solutions on miniature formats are difficult. Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
The problem is most likely that we are talking extreme retrofocus designs because the focal lengths are very short yet the old 45.5mm registration distance left over from FF still remains on these APS Pentax DSLRs. I bet the wides are better on 4/3 or micro 4/3 formats because they have much shorter registrations relative to the sensor size. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide solutions on miniature formats are difficult. Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Boris Liberman escribió: 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names There are two versions of that lens. I have the newest, Sigma DC EX 18-50 2.8 macro. This one has a 72 mm. filter ring, instead of 67 mm. in the oldest version, and focuses closer. This lens is a very good one, at least the copy I have. Very good sharpness, except at 18 2.8, where it has good centre sharpness and acceptable resolution at the corners of the frame. Barrel distortion at 18 mm. is noticeable when there are straight lines close to the periphery of the picture, but if it bothers you it can be straightened easily in postprocessing. It is solidly built, better than the Tamron. I think that the Tamron 17-50 may have a slight edge in image quality, but not much, however a lot of users have reported focusing problems. The old version of the Sigma lens is still in stock in several shops. I wouldn't buy it, it shows more CA, more vignetting and less sharpness than the new version. In Europe, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is about 15% cheaper than the Sigma. I went for the Sigma because I could buy a LN in box lens for a low price (200 euros). I also thought of the Pentax 17-70 4.0 SDM, but although it seems a good lens, it is overpriced IMO. If it had been possible, I would have bought a Pentax DA 16-50 2.8, but this one was out of my price range. In fact, I still would choose that lens over the others in spite of that Photozone review. I don't dispute the findings of the review, but I am sure that a good sample of the DA 16-50 is a better lens than my Sigma EX, which is very good as I said previously. In fact, it is my second Sigma EX series lens, and both have been satisfying tools (the first was a 70-200 2.8 HSM in Nikon mount). As you see, nowadays quality controls seem to be a thing of the past. Nikon users also have reported problems with the Nikkor 17-55 2.8. I think you have made a good choice with the Tamron you have ordered. If its AF doesn't work as expected, you can always have it replaced. In fact, I am also thinking about buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8, although I would keep the Sigma, then my wife and me would have a fast walk around zoom for each. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Nov 15, 2008, at 11:37 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: and yet Canon is know for having fairly poor W/A offerings, and the major knock against Nikon is that they haven't redesigned their prime lineup since the late `1960's. Let's just face it wide and ultra wide solutions on miniature formats are difficult. The Olympus Zuiko Digital 7-14, 9-18 and 11-22 lenses are all excellent performers. 7mm on 4/3 System format nets a 114+ degree diagonal field of view, wider FoV than the Pentax 12-24 can muster (100.5 diagonal degrees). Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
#3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving it, along with the K20D, about a month ago. Quality images all, except a slight bit of f/4 softness although f/22 is surprisingly sharp. I shoot almost no architecture, so haven't noticed any distortion. Have to say I haven't noticed any CA, but haven't really looked for it either and sharpen very conservatively. Jack --- On Sat, 11/15/08, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 10:42 AM Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux #3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving it, along with the K20D, about a month ago. Quality images all, except a slight bit of f/4 softness although f/22 is surprisingly sharp. I shoot almost no architecture, so haven't noticed any distortion. Have to say I haven't noticed any CA, but haven't really looked for it either and sharpen very conservatively. Jack --- On Sat, 11/15/08, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 10:42 AM Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I'd have to agree. I've owned the 16-45 when I had my K100D and found it to be excellent overall. The only reasons I didn't buy another one when I bought back into Pentax in 2007 was the fact the Sigma 17-70 was a full stop faster at the wide end and significantly (about 20%) cheaper at the time. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
AS i. I find the 16-45 stays on my K10D as its main ;ens. No CA problems that i can see. Dave On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux #3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving it, along with the K20D, about a month ago. Quality images all, except a slight bit of f/4 softness although f/22 is surprisingly sharp. I shoot almost no architecture, so haven't noticed any distortion. Have to say I haven't noticed any CA, but haven't really looked for it either and sharpen very conservatively. Jack --- On Sat, 11/15/08, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 10:42 AM Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I'd have to agree. I've owned the 16-45 when I had my K100D and found it to be excellent overall. The only reasons I didn't buy another one when I bought back into Pentax in 2007 was the fact the Sigma 17-70 was a full stop faster at the wide end and significantly (about 20%) cheaper at the time. I agree with you too, Adam. :-) Yes, 2.8 would be great, but now that I have a K20D with the really good high ISO, I feel more confident shooting indoors with this lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I'd have to agree. I've owned the 16-45 when I had my K100D and found it to be excellent overall. The only reasons I didn't buy another one when I bought back into Pentax in 2007 was the fact the Sigma 17-70 was a full stop faster at the wide end and significantly (about 20%) cheaper at the time. I agree with you too, Adam. :-) Yes, 2.8 would be great, but now that I have a K20D with the really good high ISO, I feel more confident shooting indoors with this lens. I shoot a lot of low-light cityscapes so speed was a huge issue for me, still is (and is why I eventually sold my K10D) Now I've got a D300 with the 16-85VR and some really fast primes (35/1.4, 58/1.4) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. It's gotten to the point where not finding fault is a sign of imcompetent reviewing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
2008/11/16 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. It's gotten to the point where not finding fault is a sign of incompetent reviewing. Yeah, but you also hang out at Pentaxforum... :-) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
YEAH, BUT REALLY GOOD PRIMES, EVEN OLD K SERIES, KICK ALL ZOOMS ASS. BETTER RESOLUTION AND CONTRAST. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:40 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Yeah, but sometimes the convenience of carrying just 1 lens is an overriding factor. In those situations 1 good zoom is better than 1 POS zoom. DS 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: YEAH, BUT REALLY GOOD PRIMES, EVEN OLD K SERIES, KICK ALL ZOOMS ASS. BETTER RESOLUTION AND CONTRAST. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:40 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
- Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Yeah, but you also hang out at Pentaxforum... I don't think they like me very much. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
The problem with those 16-55s or a 24-70 on FF is too many elements, it affects contrast/flare. With really good zoom lenses you can get lulled into thinking they are just as good as primes, because they do look so damn good, but then you put on a great prime and they look spectacular which is even better than damn good in comparison. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Yeah, but sometimes the convenience of carrying just 1 lens is an overriding factor. In those situations 1 good zoom is better than 1 POS zoom. DS 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: YEAH, BUT REALLY GOOD PRIMES, EVEN OLD K SERIES, KICK ALL ZOOMS ASS. BETTER RESOLUTION AND CONTRAST. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:40 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
oh, and never foget, depending on the subject, image size and and print size, the loss of resolution of a zoom compared to a prime may be meaningless, but better contrast/less flare is always visible no matter what size image or print you do. Its kinda like TVs. If you get far away enough or go to a tiny screen they eventually will look sharp enough, but no matter how far away or how small a screen you use, you can always see bad color. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC OConnell Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:01 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux The problem with those 16-55s or a 24-70 on FF is too many elements, it affects contrast/flare. With really good zoom lenses you can get lulled into thinking they are just as good as primes, because they do look so damn good, but then you put on a great prime and they look spectacular which is even better than damn good in comparison. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Yeah, but sometimes the convenience of carrying just 1 lens is an overriding factor. In those situations 1 good zoom is better than 1 POS zoom. DS 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: YEAH, BUT REALLY GOOD PRIMES, EVEN OLD K SERIES, KICK ALL ZOOMS ASS. BETTER RESOLUTION AND CONTRAST. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:40 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux In general I agree with that sentiment, but the older FA* and newer the DA* zooms aren't too bad. Cheers, Dave 2008/11/16 JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Well, Christine, I suppose I ought to clarify here. Christine Aguila wrote: Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I've a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I bought from a fellow PDMLer (well, PDMLeress, in fact, but that's beside the point). It is just shines. It has certain problems as well, but they are minor. If Pentax comes up with full frame body, all my problems will be solved then. I will have moderate wide to moderate tele walk around lens at the ready. Above Tamron is the only 3rd party zoom lens that I'd be willing to put on my bodies knowing that I'd get superb image quality from it. We had a company fun day just several days ago. Unfortunately the other photo fellow ;-) couldn't bring his wide angle lens (Nikon 12-24 or something like that) due to battery problems with his camera. So I shot some very fine images, but no wide ones. That's why I am started again on my search for a wider lens. So in a sense, I am looking to replicate speed, sharpness, low distortion (at 28 mm cropped it is not difficult though) and AF precision of Tamron 28-75/2.8. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Hi! Dave, I agree. I generally look for sample photos, say on PBase or on Pixel-Peeper. I have to read the reviews in order to have at least minimal idea of ergonomics and other basic things. It won't hurt to look at the thing before you buy it. The thought of my intent to buy yet another 3rd party lens occurred to me too. So far I haven't come up with any answer here. Ideally of course I should prefer DA* 16-50, but I am not in position to start cherry picking one locally. For certain reasons if I don't hit it from the first shot, I am basically screwed. Boris David Savage wrote: I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd party lenses. I have both the DA 16-45mm the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of the 16-45 when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never regretted the decision. My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your head find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Bill, I've DA 21/3.2 which is excellent as well. I am looking for a quality every-day most-situations-covered moderate wide to moderate tele reasonably fast zoom lens. Boris William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I noticed the very excellent DA14/2.8 is not on your list. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Hi! Carlos Royo wrote: 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names There are two versions of that lens. I have the newest, Sigma DC EX 18-50 2.8 macro. This one has a 72 mm. filter ring, instead of 67 mm. in the oldest version, and focuses closer. This lens is a very good one, at least the copy I have. Very good sharpness, except at 18 2.8, where it has good centre sharpness and acceptable resolution at the corners of the frame. Barrel distortion at 18 mm. is noticeable when there are straight lines close to the periphery of the picture, but if it bothers you it can be straightened easily in postprocessing. Interesting. So the older one has 67 mm filter ring... I thought it was the other way around. In Europe, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is about 15% cheaper than the Sigma. I went for the Sigma because I could buy a LN in box lens for a low price (200 euros). Fascinating. I mean, 200 euros is really affordable for such a lens. As you see, nowadays quality controls seem to be a thing of the past. Nikon users also have reported problems with the Nikkor 17-55 2.8. I am not trying to say that QC should prevent 100% of lemons. But the number of complaints about DA* 16-50/2.8 make it very worrisome proposition for me. I will probably inquire further especially if it would be possible to exchange it should the one I might buy would be faulty. I think you have made a good choice with the Tamron you have ordered. If its AF doesn't work as expected, you can always have it replaced. In fact, I am also thinking about buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8, although I would keep the Sigma, then my wife and me would have a fast walk around zoom for each. Brand new Tamron costs here order of $450, which considering that I already have it shipped, taxes paid and also covered with at least 1 year warranty, I reckon is a good price. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
I too have the DA16-45: I used it extensively on a trip to Egypt last year, and found it very well-suited: fast enough, sharp edge-to-edge, and wide enough in the admittedly good light to shoot at wider apertures and still retain good definition. CA, or colour fringing, I found only occurred when shooting twigs against very bright blue skies or white clouds. Overall, I was well pleased with it, and it's a solid lens too. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 7:46 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I'd just like to agree with Jack on DA 16-45; Boris wrote: No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux #3(DA16~45) has been a pleasure to use since receiving it, along with the K20D, about a month ago. Quality images all, except a slight bit of f/4 softness although f/22 is surprisingly sharp. I shoot almost no architecture, so haven't noticed any distortion. Have to say I haven't noticed any CA, but haven't really looked for it either and sharpen very conservatively. Jack --- On Sat, 11/15/08, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 10:42 AM Hi! So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people call Sigma really nasty names 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature of field 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to become quite rare these days. No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. Boris P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of completeness. P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots as well. P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down considerably now... 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact on my reasoning... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
Fair enough, Boris. I wish you the best in your new lens purchase. :-) Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:11 PM Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux Well, Christine, I suppose I ought to clarify here. Christine Aguila wrote: Boris: I don't mean to nit-pick here, and maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but you seem to assess any drawback as a serious drawback. You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some drawbacks are more serious than others? If so, it seems to me the DA 16-45 would fair fairly well in lens assessment. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. If so, just ignore. :-) Cheers, Christine I've a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I bought from a fellow PDMLer (well, PDMLeress, in fact, but that's beside the point). It is just shines. It has certain problems as well, but they are minor. If Pentax comes up with full frame body, all my problems will be solved then. I will have moderate wide to moderate tele walk around lens at the ready. Above Tamron is the only 3rd party zoom lens that I'd be willing to put on my bodies knowing that I'd get superb image quality from it. We had a company fun day just several days ago. Unfortunately the other photo fellow ;-) couldn't bring his wide angle lens (Nikon 12-24 or something like that) due to battery problems with his camera. So I shot some very fine images, but no wide ones. That's why I am started again on my search for a wider lens. So in a sense, I am looking to replicate speed, sharpness, low distortion (at 28 mm cropped it is not difficult though) and AF precision of Tamron 28-75/2.8. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no point is using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy Pentax Zooms. Go prime young man! :) What he said. The 21mm Limited is so obviously the class of that list, on top of which it's smaller and lighter and indestructible. You'll just have to get a little further away from your subject. -Tim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
