"It's all about the glass". Show me examples please


Stuey

Link Posted 14/09/2012 - 22:38
I have too admit to not knowing the exact age of my Tokina 300mm f5.5 m42 lens but I love it - apart from the minimum focus distance of around 5 metres it's cracking - check out my flickr set for it - I probably don't do it justice but at a cost of 16 plus postage I will take the risk
K10D, K5 plus plenty of clueless enthusiasm.

My Flickr site link

screwdriver222

Link Posted 14/09/2012 - 23:08
I have got a Pentax m50 f1.7, Pentax DA 18-55 wr, Pentax DA 55-300, Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

My 30 year old m50 is the sharpest. Maybe its because its a prime, but I can't help thinking that lenses have not gone very far in terms of sharpness over the last 30 years unless you are willing to spend magabucks.

Jeff
Flickr link

amilner

Link Posted 14/09/2012 - 23:34
screwdriver222 wrote:
Maybe its because its a prime

That will be it... Much easier to design a sharp prime - especially at a relatively straightforward focal length such as 50 mm - than a zoom. Compare modern zooms to 30 year old zooms and there is no comparison. Some of the Pentax MF 28-70s and 35-70s of yesteryear are seriously mediocre.
Tony Milner
Super A, ME Super, MZ6, K5II, Ricoh GR & lenses from 8-500mm
www.amilner.org www.flickr.com/photos/tonymilner

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 01:17
robbiec wrote:
Try getting this with a Sigma or Tamron.



As reference, the background is a window & wall roughly 2 feet behind.
K-5 & A50 f/1.2 @ f/1.2 (so yeah, its about the glass )

Love my 50/1.2 and it's basically welded at 1.2

Thing is though I could take a few pics with my sigma 30/1.4 and say try getting these with a Pentax Lens (so yeah, its about the glass )

But seriously it's obviously not ALL about the glass.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

greynolds999

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 05:04
Actually it's not all about the glass. It's all about technique.

It's true that there is no point upgrading your camera if you have a shoddy selection of lenses and you are always going to get better photographs with a good lens on a bad camera than a bad lens on a good camera.

But you're not going to get a good shot if you don't compose it, choose the right settings and know when to press the shutter.
My Photobucket

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 05:47
greynolds999 wrote:
Actually it's not all about the glass. It's all about technique.

It's true that there is no point upgrading your camera if you have a shoddy selection of lenses and you are always going to get better photographs with a good lens on a bad camera than a bad lens on a good camera.

But you're not going to get a good shot if you don't compose it, choose the right settings and know when to press the shutter.

Defining a 'good lens' is going to open up a can of worms
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

johnriley

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 07:58
A good lens is really the one that fits with what the photographer is trying to achieve, be it a gritty architecture shot of a derelict site, or a soft, feminine portrait, or whatever else. So in this sense a technically poor lens could be a good lens.

When we were very young and just starting out in photography, a good lens would have been a technically excellent one, suitable fo a wide variety of uses. It morphs into other requirements once we develop a style.

I have a book from 1963/1964 called "Cameras" and it describes in detail everything on the market. Pentax lenses are described as, "High performance lens of critical definition at full aperture, high colour correction, and resolution."

Just for the record, the camera is described as, "Shutter accurate within close limits of engraved speeds. Quality workmanship of high precision."
Best regards, John

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 08:05
I have the following samples from the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Pentax 35mm f2.4. At web size, the narrower dof of the Sigma is visible, and I like the ability to use narrow dof.







But that's not good glass vs bad glass per se; the Sigma is just faster. Sometimes you upgrade to a new lens because it is faster, longer, wider, etc, but that's not the same as saying it's 'better' - it just has the spec you want or need.

Actually I got rid of the Sigma because, although I liked the extra speed, the bokeh was poor in many situations.



[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

judderman62

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 12:39
cabstar wrote:
Found one here we go...

Tamron 17-50mm




DA* 50-135mm at 50mm



superb shot with the Tamron ... that does look a good performer
- -
Mike

Pentax K5 / Pentax K5 11/ Pentax K200D / Canon Rebel T1 i / Canon 650D / Pentax MX-1 / Fuji XF1 /Fuji X 10 / Canon EOS-M / Canon G10/ Pentax Mz-7 x 2

judderman62

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 12:40
robbiec wrote:
Try getting this with a Sigma or Tamron.



As reference, the background is a window & wall roughly 2 feet behind.
K-5 & A50 f/1.2 @ f/1.2 (so yeah, its about the glass )

maybe a clue what point you are trying to make ? I for one haven't got a clue what point you are attempting (and clearly failing in my case) to make
- -
Mike

Pentax K5 / Pentax K5 11/ Pentax K200D / Canon Rebel T1 i / Canon 650D / Pentax MX-1 / Fuji XF1 /Fuji X 10 / Canon EOS-M / Canon G10/ Pentax Mz-7 x 2

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 13:12
I agree with the general idea that spending money on lenses can give 'more bang per buck'. In the case of upgrading from a K7 to a K5 or buying lenses, then personally I'd opt for new lenses - these will be good for years to come on future bodies and will perform the same.

When upgrading a camera we have to consider exactly what are the benefits specifically in features or performance gains, but its only worth it if you need it for sure. Eg: you should get better high iso noise performance on the K5 I believe, but then again, a new lens might offer an extra stop of light which may give an even better gain in terms of sharpness and noise performance.

Like most here, I also don't have exact comparisons to show, but from reviews, most lenses of the same specs as you refer to, generally show different characteristics such as distortion or abberation performance, which needs to be weighed up along with the prices.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

Algernon

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 13:32
McGregNi wrote:
I agree with the general idea that spending money on lenses can give 'more bang per buck'. In the case of upgrading from a K7 to a K5 or buying lenses, then personally I'd opt for new lenses.....

What's the point of buying new lenses if you can't use them The K7 or K20D is pretty useless at anything over 400ISO which can be in the shade on a bright day. You also can't pull back underexposed shots. Cheap lenses work great on the K-5

I've just shot this in dim light in the kitchen with
the K-5 and an old 1950's Enlarger Lens held onto
some tubes by Blu-Tak...





-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 15/09/2012 - 13:40

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 15:17
I was suggesting that if the lens offered a wider aperture then this could allow a lower iso in these low light situations, but also potentially other benefits (better bokeh, DOF effects, resolution improvements etc) that may all add up and make it more worth it.

More worth it than just upgrading the camera - I'm not so sure that the K5 is such a lightyear leap ahead of the K7? Is is not worth continuing to wait for the K5 II prices to settle, or even hold off for the next big thing?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

Algernon

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 18:26
The K-5 is 3rd generation and is streets ahead of what
was before it. I've kept my K20D as a backup, but I'm
keeping my fingers crossed that I don't ever need it

The Blackbird in my porfolio wouldn't have been possible with
the K20D it's at 800ISO

Have a look at what Bob thought of the K-5 when he moved from
the K-7 link

If I were in the market now I'd wait for a K-5 II to drop
to about 800.

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/09/2012 - 19:29
I understand, I know that the K-5 brought significant gains in its high iso performance, and the burst rate increased, and maybe other sensor related improvements. But the importance of these depends on an individual's style and technical needs. I don't make use a lot of ISO 800 or above (you could say I'm more of a fair weather photographer!)

So it would not make financial sense upgrading from K7 to K5, all else being equal - I think most photos would look exactly the same if shot on either.

But an investment in some serious 'big glass' would definately make a difference, and continue to make a difference in the future when these lenses are used on any newer body. For example, I spent a minimal amount of money on an old (1976) Tamron Adaptal 135mm f2.8, and I can produce completely different shots with it than I can with my 'K' 75-150 f4.0 zoom, just because of the extra stop, the finer manual focusing and the extra sharpness. Likewise the new Samyang 14mm f2.8 - this could change my photography for ever as it opens up so many new possibities.

I agree that at present the K5 II is an enticing prospect at the right price - the advances to autofocus look significant, and that could make a difference in many situations.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.