Need schooling in *, Limited, and normal lenses

So I can get that the * series and the limited series are more expensive. They are brighter (i.e. 200mm f2.8 ) than the other lenses, and people say they are sharper and have better colour rendition. They also cost a lot more.

Now if someone had the exact same focal length, shot the same scene with a * / Limited / Regular (DA, FA, F, or A) at f/8 in a perfectly exposed situation - what kind of differences are we talking about. Is it point and shoot versus SLR type difference in the quality of the images? Can any of this quality be made up for with post-processing?

Also, what are we talking about quality wise: * > Limited > DA > FA > A, or more like * >= Limited >> DA,FA,A

No.

Buy good glass, it will keep its value. The lenses are not expensive because they are necessarily sharp, it is because they render a scene in a way which suits it and is pleasing to the eye. That means seperation, bokeh, rendering overall, colour saturation and feel.

Take a shot from my icetrack series from last year and another one from this year. Most of last year's have a seventies feel, as they were done with an M 135. This year's I used the 50-200 and the difference is significant.
Light is also not to be underestimated. Difference between f4 and f2.8 is four times as much light let in IIRC... that can make the difference between blur and sharp.

Bret

So, my FA 50mm f/1.4 versus the DA* 55mm f1.4 - both are as bright, is there really that much of a difference? I see resolution charts showing that there is little to none. It almost makes me think its that good photographers buy good glass - thus most good photographs you see come from good glass.

Also, how bout when comparing lenses - which is better: Limited or * series?

What I would say is that a good photographer with the normal lenses will achieve things that others will struggle to match with the * or Limited range.

It does seem to be the main way to get fast glass though - I have an old K series 120mm f2.8 which I think is probably one of the fastest normal telephotos (aside from the 135mm f2.5 of the same era), I'm not aware of anything longer with a similar aperture unless you get into the * or Limited ranges.

Having something worth hundreds of pounds screwed to the front of my camera or lying about in the boot of the car would give me sleepless nights.

I'd sooner have your Miranda 24mm. I've seen what it can do... Can't find one for sensible money, though!

Regards,

Andrew

Try a 70 ltd - it's exceptional and as I understand it by no means the best Pentax lens. I'd be surprised if any older lens came within reaching distance of that and I'd expect my 21 ltd (which I bought used at moderate cost) to blow the Miranda away but I will be happy to be proved wrong - examples?

I have a 135M and while it's nice it simply is not in the same league as the 70 taken overall.

Insurance allows sleep. I checked with my home insurer and I'm covered anywhere in the world according to them.

Mike

It's true, I do like my lil Miranda. [IMG]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7442/faucetlittle.jpg[/IMG]

Now when you say not in the same league - this is what I'm going for. What is it that makes the images different? If things are composed the same way, how does a higher quality lens impact the image? We're all able to do histogram analysis afterwards, shoot in raw to make sure the colours are great. Hell, we can do HDR to make sure that we have the full range of colours. The only thing I can think of is pixel-wise sharpness - but when you stop down to f/8 is there a real noticeable difference? I realize for sport / animal life you need speed. But if you've got a good flash, or a mono/tripod you can always stop it down to go on the cheap to get the most of the images.

Also, back to my previous question, which is better: limited or the * series?

They are both good

As for everything can be fixed with the computer that's not true, of course you can fix things but that means destroying information/pixels that aren't good so you're lowering the quality of your photo.
Than something like bokeh, try making that into a good looking one

Ah yes, but you've shot the photo you're showing on F/2.8 for other reasons that has nothing to do with sharpness and I don't need to tell you which.

All I know is that I have several lenses. I have the go to lens which is the 35mm f2 which just delivers whatever I want on the button. Sharp, colours, quick to AF, no known faults.

Who shoots at f8 anyhow If I have a lens I don't want to think I must stop down to get acceptable quality I just use it. This sounds arrogant and pompous but it's the truth. I can't think of a lens I use regularly where I worry about shooting wide open but the 135M can't do that nor can the Pentax 50-200 although I treat it the same and dump the duff shots. With respect I doubt the Miranda can be treated that way although every time I say this someone pops up and says how wonderful these older lenses are and proves me wrong. I recall the tests in AP 30 years ago on these third party lenses and they didn't perform that well on film then and I don't believe they are any better now.

That's an excellent image but at that size I can't assess how good the image is, the water looks good but isn't that the flash? I'm looking at the tap and I wondering just how sharp it is. Also I have no idea how it renders colour which Pentax lenses do so well.

To answer your question about DA and * - I have no idea I can't afford * lenses. I don't even care really. I bought a 30mm Sigma on recommendation and it's superb. I bought the 10-20 Sigma because I wanted it and I am fortunate that it is superb. I got the 21 and 70 ltd mostly because they were a good price and I wanted to extend my range of primes. The 70 is amazing and the 21 is very good but not as good. I have an old Vivitar macro that is terrific and a more modern Sigma 50 macro that is excellent but cost 7 times more than the Vivitar - you'd be pressed to tell the results apart.

I bought a 50, 28, 35 Pentax A lenses and sold them all. In part because they were awkward to use being non AF. In part because they didn't give the same colour rendition the more modern lenses do and in part they didn't match the 35 f2 for sharpness.

I'm rambling! I think really your question is without meaning. Just get the best lens you can to meet your needs and what best means for each of us is different.

Permit me to ramble some more - you say you can always use flash to allow you to stop down. But I deliberately shoot at f1.4 for limited DOF or I am out and about and flash isn't appropriate. If I use the 135 at f3.5 it is a different lens giving a different quality of image which is OK if you know that and work around it. By and large the 30/1.4 is consistent all the way.

Apologies for length.

Mike

I'll admit to using older primes in Av mode (so shooting wide open), at longer distances it often doesn't make much difference. I recently photographed a stage show from the back of the hall with the 120mm and at f2.8 and 1600 ISO it was somewhat amazing - very sharp results even when cropped.

Don't get me wrong, if all the numbers ever come up I'll be ordering a full set of DA and FA Limiteds (and *s) along with a KX and K7, but the cream of my K and M primes would still be used. They just offer amazing performance for the money.

I never said older primes aren't good value for money just that if I want a no compromise go to lens then it will be a modern prime.

I bought a Vivitar zoom for a fiver. It's adequate and nothing more and I was interested to see what qualities it could offer. None was the answer but it could still offer some value for money.

Mike

Mike

I'm following this thread knowing that LBA is about to hit me

Having said that I need a definition from you please

You said What's a 'go to lens' ?

It's the lens you know will 'deliver the goods' in a given situation - the one you 'go to' for, say, macro shots, or low light shooting.

I've got to agree, I love my Zeiss Flek for the quality it offers for next to no money, but if I had the cash I'd buy a DA Ltd 35 macro in an instant. The same goes for my Tamron Adaptall 2 Macro, fantastic lens, but given half a chance it'd be replaced by a DFA 100.

those would both be "ease of use" replacements rather than anything else, which is why the older lenses stay in my kit bag.

Technoidiot - Pentaxophile (whatever happened to real names that are easy type?) has it right. If I need to select one lens for an outing then it's almost always the 35/f2 I 'go to' although the 30/1.4 gives it a run for its money.

Mongoose - the Zeiss Flektagon, I am sure I recall AP and others sneering at that lens years ago. I am right that it's quite old aren't I? Wasn't it basically a kit lens with an Exacta? That said I am sure yours is an excellent example but I would hope the modern lenses would be somewhat better in most cases.

Oddly for me I had the chance of a bargain Pentax 100 DFA and thought nope the 40 quid Vivitar delivers, why change.

Mike