lenses designed for digital
Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:02
Link
Anvh wrote:
Other way around, I think.stevejcoe wrote:
The DA 200 and 300 are reworked FA lenses so, they are FF.
I thought so to Steve but only the DA*200 is redisgned.The DA 200 and 300 are reworked FA lenses so, they are FF.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:18
Link
Thanks for the link Stefan, quite a lot of information there, but having read quickly through the thread and followed several of the links it appears that the DA 55 and DA 60 - 250 give quite respectable performance on a 35mm film body.
This gives some weight to my thought that sometime after these 2 lenses first appeared on the roadmap, a review and rethink took place the result of which are lenses that could well be have designed for a larger sensor. I accept that this is conjecture, but it would explain why there was a long delay before the lenses became available.
Steve
This gives some weight to my thought that sometime after these 2 lenses first appeared on the roadmap, a review and rethink took place the result of which are lenses that could well be have designed for a larger sensor. I accept that this is conjecture, but it would explain why there was a long delay before the lenses became available.
Steve
Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:35
Link
I only have one DA lens - the 16-50 - and it vignettes noticeably at every focal length.
But interesting speculation.
G
But interesting speculation.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:51
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
I only have one DA lens - the 16-50 - and it vignettes noticeably at every focal length.
But interesting speculation.
G
George the thread on Pentax forums states that both the DA 16-50 and 50-135 show vignetting, not too surprised by this as they are older reworked Tokina designs. Speculating further, it may be why the Tokina 11-16 has not made its way over to Pentax.I only have one DA lens - the 16-50 - and it vignettes noticeably at every focal length.
But interesting speculation.
G
Steve
Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:20
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
Other way around, I think.
G
Yep Other way around, I think.
G
Was thinking about that they redesigned body around the Lens elements.
Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:21
Link
The 300 is totally different optically. The 200 has the same number of elements and groups, and the arrangement looks the same. See the lens diagrams on Boz's site.
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
G
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:25
Link
stevejcoe wrote:
George the thread on Pentax forums states that both the DA 16-50 and 50-135 show vignetting, not too surprised by this as they are older reworked Tokina designs. Speculating further, it may be why the Tokina 11-16 has not made its way over to Pentax.
Don't think we will see a FF though.George the thread on Pentax forums states that both the DA 16-50 and 50-135 show vignetting, not too surprised by this as they are older reworked Tokina designs. Speculating further, it may be why the Tokina 11-16 has not made its way over to Pentax.
With the upcoming 645D they need to maintain 3 lens lines.
Lenses for APS-C, FF and also 645 don't see them do that since the 645D would need some new lenses fast to make it attractive.
And we have DA markings now meaning that they are for APS-C sensor so they need to rebadge the lot then to make clear they also work on FF.
the DFA lenses are digital lenses that was designed for digital and FF so why didn't they used that then for their lenses that also work on FF?
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:26
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
The 300 is totally different optically. The 200 has the same number of elements and groups, and the arrangement looks the same. See the lens diagrams on Boz's site.
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
Yes, yes I know George, just make a mistake in wording myself
The 300 is totally different optically. The 200 has the same number of elements and groups, and the arrangement looks the same. See the lens diagrams on Boz's site.
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:35
Link
Anvh wrote:
We're all human!George Lazarette wrote:
The 300 is totally different optically. The 200 has the same number of elements and groups, and the arrangement looks the same. See the lens diagrams on Boz's site.
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
Yes, yes I know George, just make a mistake in wording myself The 300 is totally different optically. The 200 has the same number of elements and groups, and the arrangement looks the same. See the lens diagrams on Boz's site.
Obviously the bodies are different in both cases.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 17/07/2009 - 07:35
Link
Thanks to everyone who replied to my question, i will take the advice and ignore the prblem and just get on with it.
Best Regards
Les
Best Regards
Les
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
5688 posts
18 years
Bradford,Yorkshire,
UK
It might be an idea to create a thread that shows DA lens performance on 35mm. I think we can rule out the 18-55 and the 50-200 as both show significant vignetting.
Samples on second page.
Above 24mm the lens works fine on my P30 bodies.
K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.
Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...
PPG entries.