Lens Comparison - Advice needed
Posted 24/08/2009 - 15:33
Link
To be honest, there's so little difference in these tests that I would go for the versatility of the zoom.
However, there may be more differnce in a richly detailed A3 print that could make the 31mm Limited more valuable as a result.
Only Nathan can decide.....
However, there may be more differnce in a richly detailed A3 print that could make the 31mm Limited more valuable as a result.
Only Nathan can decide.....
Best regards, John
Posted 24/08/2009 - 16:21
Link
nathanever82 wrote:
It is a very difficult one indeed. ANd Matt, as you say, the conditions to assess the quality produced by a lens are so varied, that it is very very hard to make a fair decision.
So the story goes like this;
Lens number 2 is the DA*16-50 @ 31mm. I have bought this lens for work, without even thinking about it. I was immediately shocked at the quality across the focal lenghts, and since i've had it, I very often use it for work, and leisure shooting. Its a versatile lens, it does the job, and I love it!
The other lens (Number 1 in all test shots) is the 31mm ltd. I have lusted after it for a long long time, and saved for years to buy it. And I find myself not using it enough. I enjoy shooting with it, and I really enjoy the rendtion of the photographs it produces. But I am not in love with it.
POint is that I don't feel like i'm using it enough, and when I do need that focal lenght (photo-shoots or live-music) I always prefer the versatility of the DA*. The results are only marginally different, and whilst the 31 is IMO better at f2.8 and f.4, it is not sharp enough at f1.8, f2. If I take the lens out for a walk I will struggle to find difference wide open...
All this makes it a very expensive luxury to have...
From the second set of pictures I move more in favour of lens 1.It is a very difficult one indeed. ANd Matt, as you say, the conditions to assess the quality produced by a lens are so varied, that it is very very hard to make a fair decision.
So the story goes like this;
Lens number 2 is the DA*16-50 @ 31mm. I have bought this lens for work, without even thinking about it. I was immediately shocked at the quality across the focal lenghts, and since i've had it, I very often use it for work, and leisure shooting. Its a versatile lens, it does the job, and I love it!
The other lens (Number 1 in all test shots) is the 31mm ltd. I have lusted after it for a long long time, and saved for years to buy it. And I find myself not using it enough. I enjoy shooting with it, and I really enjoy the rendtion of the photographs it produces. But I am not in love with it.
POint is that I don't feel like i'm using it enough, and when I do need that focal lenght (photo-shoots or live-music) I always prefer the versatility of the DA*. The results are only marginally different, and whilst the 31 is IMO better at f2.8 and f.4, it is not sharp enough at f1.8, f2. If I take the lens out for a walk I will struggle to find difference wide open...
All this makes it a very expensive luxury to have...
I too have have the 31 ltd and whilst it is a remarkable lens, my tests at F 5.6 - F8.0 have shown only small improvements in IQ over less highly rated lenses.
Regards - Steve
Posted 24/08/2009 - 16:55
Link
I must say I am surprised to learn lens 2 is the DA* 16-50 . I really didn't expect that lens to be so good.
I'd be tempted to let the 31Ltd go...... to fund some other lenses
I'd be tempted to let the 31Ltd go...... to fund some other lenses
.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)
Posted 24/08/2009 - 18:22
Link
In the 2nd test series at f2.8, the "George Lucas" is very slightly sharper from lens #2 than lens #1.
The difference however is so minimal that the versatility of the DA* 16-50mm wins the day for me, even though I prefer the images from the 31mm Ltd.
Sell the 31m Ltd is my recommendation, which has pi$$ed me off because I have those two lenses also, and the 16-50 is my "on the camera at all times" lens. In fact, I bought a 2nd K20D for the DA* 60-250mm.
Thank you very much for a very interesting topic Nathan.
The difference however is so minimal that the versatility of the DA* 16-50mm wins the day for me, even though I prefer the images from the 31mm Ltd.
Sell the 31m Ltd is my recommendation, which has pi$$ed me off because I have those two lenses also, and the 16-50 is my "on the camera at all times" lens. In fact, I bought a 2nd K20D for the DA* 60-250mm.
Thank you very much for a very interesting topic Nathan.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 24/08/2009 - 18:41
Link
These things are personal decisions, really. Sharpnness is only one aspect of lens performance.
I don't think that any 1000px wide picture tells you anything, even a compact can look superb at that size.
For example, this is from my Panasonic compact. At 1000px cross, I doubt there's any difference between this and what my GX20 could do.
Best to keep them both - as a professional photographer, if your zoom jams, you've always got the 31mm as a back up.
I don't think that any 1000px wide picture tells you anything, even a compact can look superb at that size.
For example, this is from my Panasonic compact. At 1000px cross, I doubt there's any difference between this and what my GX20 could do.
Best to keep them both - as a professional photographer, if your zoom jams, you've always got the 31mm as a back up.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1030 posts
17 years
South Wales,
UK
I think both are equally sharp up to f8 but #1 provides a little more contrast which could be interpreted as more detail I suppose. At f22 though #1 is quite soft.
#2 seems worse for chromatic aberration. #1 has some sharp ca at f2.8 but is almost clear at f8 & f22, #2 has substantial diffused ca at f2.8 which is somewhat lessened at f8 but quite sharp in the high contrast areas & still present at f22.
I'm not going to comment on bokeh as I don't think this test frame is the best to judge & it's subjective as ever anyway.
If it were my choice and all other things were equal, I'd go for #1 as it provides more contrast & less CA. Unless you shoot at f22 alot of course, in which case the softness of #1 would be off-putting & maybe you need to find a #3 ?
Bob
edit: Disclaimer, I didn't even notice page 2 so these are from the first set of samples.