Pentax * Lenses

I've been a Pentax user for many years. While I've learned my trade. So to speak. Because I like most types of photography a have amassed various lenses. Some Pentax some third party manufacture. But I have now reached the point where I feel I can get the shots I want and I;m ready to look for better quality in my images. Which brings me to my point of discussion.

How much better in terms of image quality are the DA* range of lenses compared to the normal DA range ? Given that they are considerably more expensive.. I posting this discussion on the zoom range rather than the limited lens range.

I've only ever owned one DA* lens.. the 55mm which I still have.

Its a masterpiece, it delivers very high IQ.

I've heard nothing but good things about the DA* 50-135mm, with many saying its the best zoom in the pentax system.

I think they probably justify their premium to some extent, given that the sealing on the DA* is also better than DA WR lenses.

I have the DA*300 and the DA*50-135. The * really is justified. I have thought about selling the latter lens as I haven't had that much occasion to use it - that's more to do with the place I have lived and the limited opportunities for what to me is an event lens. But every now and again just before I decide to sell it I give it one last outing and decide to keep it because the image quality is so special. The 300 never fails to bring a smile to my face, recent prices have made it an absolute bargain.

I have the same two lenses as the Doc plus the 16-50 and 55 all of them are superb, I use the 50-135 for karting and sold a Sigma 70-200 because the image quality of the Pentax meant I never used the Sigma even though it has the better (faster) focusing system. I don't think I will ever get rid of my stars.
The 300 is simply epic too

The DA*50-135 is stonkingly special. Incredible sharpness, colour, and bokeh. Weather sealed, non-extending zoom (wish the DA*16-50 was too!) and highly portable. Every time I use it there's pixie dust all over it

The DA*16-50 is lovely, but has a different quality about it.

If I could only have three lenses, it'd be the DA12-24, DA*16-50, and DA*50-135. (The DA12-24 has the IQ to match the others, but not the WR or quite the same finish).

Matt

Does anyone actually have any like for like images I could compare.

Compare what with what?

Look on the US forum for samples/reviews might help

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Lenses-c34.html

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Zoom-Lenses-c43.html

Yes Steve, My comment was a little ambiguous as there isn't so much of a direct comparison. The * lenses seem to be faster. Also not quite the same focal lengths. But I was trying to get an angle on how much better is the actual image quality compared to say a DA lens ? As the price hike is quite considerable.

The DA* 50 135mm is the best lens I've ever worked with. I have taken over 200 portraits with it

Someone once summed it up perfectly "a bag of primes"

Whilst you may see only a slight difference in quality between the star and non star lenses, the added creativity from faster lenses is a major factor in their cost appreciation.

I owned bother 16-50 and 50-135 and they where both a joy to own.

It's the usual story of diminishing returns. You can get a decent image from a lens costing a few hundred quid and you will notice the difference if you spend a few hundred more on a * lens, but the extent of the difference depends on the particular lenses involved. I actively decided to go for a DA17-70 rather than a DA*16-50, but willingly plumped for the DA*50-135. My favourite lens in many ways is the FA31, which is superior to the well-regarded DA35 ... but (at retail price) the extra quality is delivered at a cost. And I could go on to say that the FA31 may be near the top of the tree in Pentaxland but is outclassed by other lenses from other makers (eg Leica). But where do you draw the line? The Leica is four times more expensive.

The best way to minimise the actual outlay involved with a * lens is to buy second-hand of course.

Since acquiring the DA*300 and the DA*50-135, I rarely use any other lenses, except at times when I'm doing landscapes or I need a general walkaround lens. The 12-24 then comes into its own for landscape and this too is a special lens.

My favourite is the DA*300, such superb IQ and a pleasure to use. It makes possible shots I couldn't take with a Sigma 150-500 due to the faster max aperture and more compact design and despite the lack of zoom I actually find it more flexible for my needs. I'm not planning on ditching my DA*'s any time soon.

Regards
David

As pointed above....some DA lenses may be close in terms of optical quality, but have advantage in being faster and having more solid build. I owned only one DA* lens - 50-135 and I was very positive about it. Great lens, it was so good, that my FA77Limited stayed at home since I got that lens. On the other hand - I wasn't impressed by 16-50 (which i have borrowed for a week or so), maybe because I have quite good 17-70. 16-50 might have been tiny little bit sharper in the centre, but you really have to pixelpeep. Definitely I wasn't so impressed by it as in case of DA*50-135.
Held DA*300 for the first time yesterday.....rugged heavy and beautiful lens. Feel of confidence, but I didn't take any photos to comment on its output.

mind there are good alternatives like Sigma EX 50-150/2.8 (hard to find, but very similar to Pentax)

I have owned the 55, 50-135, 60-250 and the 300. The image quality from all them was just stunning, to me.
The 55 was ridiculously slow to focus, but super iq the others were fantastic. Dont own any of them anymore and i regret having had to sell them. You're not likely to be disapointed with the performance of any of them.