the usual quandry
Posted 11/11/2009 - 19:31
Link
bladerunneruk wrote:
talking yourself into buying another lens, nooo !!!
I do rate the 16-45 having used it for a about two years, for many of the same reasons as yourself Richard (7 is great for candids !) wobbly barrel was always a bit disconcerting though.
Come to think of it the 24-90 I have is similarly 'loose?' build qual and web reports of 24-90 do seem to suggest it's build quality isn't top notch, so that's what I expected. It seems a bit hit and miss wrt IQ of pics I get which is what bugs me, I'm not sure I can trust it to get te job done, hence the angst. Perhaps I should go all scientific with it and give it the test chart treatment
I'm just hoping I could avoid buying 2 new lenses, fill the 45-60 gap with some overlap to the 60-250, and use it indoors for family and nieces&nephews in motion, hence the dilemma.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
PS how's that 60-250 working out for you, I remember the test pics when you got it ?
Yes, the 16-45 is a bit wobbly, but mine always stayed the same over many thousands of shots and 4 years of use.talking yourself into buying another lens, nooo !!!
I do rate the 16-45 having used it for a about two years, for many of the same reasons as yourself Richard (7 is great for candids !) wobbly barrel was always a bit disconcerting though.
Come to think of it the 24-90 I have is similarly 'loose?' build qual and web reports of 24-90 do seem to suggest it's build quality isn't top notch, so that's what I expected. It seems a bit hit and miss wrt IQ of pics I get which is what bugs me, I'm not sure I can trust it to get te job done, hence the angst. Perhaps I should go all scientific with it and give it the test chart treatment
I'm just hoping I could avoid buying 2 new lenses, fill the 45-60 gap with some overlap to the 60-250, and use it indoors for family and nieces&nephews in motion, hence the dilemma.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
PS how's that 60-250 working out for you, I remember the test pics when you got it ?
The 24-90 is also a "loose" construction. I compared Steve Jacobs with my FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 (which was also loose, but a bit less) and the latter was a bit more contrasty (which I liked) but the 24-90 was sharper overall and also across the frame. I suspect that yours needs a look at by Asahi Photo. Hopefully they would be able to fix it, Steve took his there recently for servicing, but they couldn't help it was knackered, so it's done for, apparently they weren't built that well.
I prefer the 17-70 for the usual reasons (bokeh, reach overlap etc.,) to partner with my 60-250 (yes, I'm very happy with it! ), I just wish it had the same IQ as the 60-250. I think that some ED glass, and stretched to 16mm would make it perfect, but I shudder to think how much more it would cost with Pentax's new (Rip-off?) pricing strategy!
Due to the increased barrel distortion, you lose a slight amount of FOV when you correct for it, and coupled with the loss of that all important 1mm, I'm looking more seriously at getting a wider lens, so I haven't avoided the need/desire for another lens . I would prefer a DA 12-24, but at £899 compared with the Tamron 10-24 at £359, I suspect I will get the Tamron if I can find a very good copy, I tried four on a D90 locally and one was a cracker, so they do exist! I just have to find one in Pentax mount, so it's off to SRS soon, probably next month.
Posted 12/11/2009 - 07:36
Link
My 24-90 is very loose and is definitely the worst made Pentax lens I have.
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
Posted 13/11/2009 - 12:55
Link
MattMatic wrote:
My FA24-90 got damaged and I had it repaired by Asahi Photo. When it came back it was soooo much better than it ever was
You might want to see if the FA24-90 could be economically calibrated.
The bokeh on the FA24-90 is similar to the DA 17-70, and much smoother than the 16-45 IMO.
That said, the 16-45 is a brilliant lens for landscapes - and can still be had new from SRS at a reasonable price (if you hurry!)
Matt
Hi matt, thanks for your thoughts, nice to hear you feel the bokeh is acceptable. My FA24-90 got damaged and I had it repaired by Asahi Photo. When it came back it was soooo much better than it ever was
You might want to see if the FA24-90 could be economically calibrated.
The bokeh on the FA24-90 is similar to the DA 17-70, and much smoother than the 16-45 IMO.
That said, the 16-45 is a brilliant lens for landscapes - and can still be had new from SRS at a reasonable price (if you hurry!)
Matt
Might be worth considering sending the 24-90 to Asahi Photo...
however I sent my damaged 16-45 there, it landed nose first onto grass and now the barrel is slightly out of alignment, pics are now sharp on one side and soft on the other, they were unable to fix it and gave me the impression that they couldn't get it back to factory cal std
perhaps the FA's are easier to mend than DA's ??
They suggested it might cost around £150 to fix it if I sent it to pentax. I could send the 16-45 to pentax for repair quote, but at that price I thinking I may as well buy a new one to replace it, and thus the thoughts about different lenses.
Does anyone know if this type of damage is generally repairable - and if pentax uk's new repair agent are up to the job ?
Posted 13/11/2009 - 13:01
Link
Reuben0 wrote:
My 24-90 is very loose and is definitely the worst made Pentax lens I have.
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
barrel droop !My 24-90 is very loose and is definitely the worst made Pentax lens I have.
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
If I have a bit of time free this weekend I'll try and post some test shots I took whilst away on hols, show folks the FA24-90 problem.
Posted 13/11/2009 - 13:23
Link
RichardDay wrote:
Yes, the 16-45 is a bit wobbly, but mine always stayed the same over many thousands of shots and 4 years of use.
The 24-90 is also a "loose" construction. I compared Steve Jacobs with my FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 (which was also loose, but a bit less) and the latter was a bit more contrasty (which I liked) but the 24-90 was sharper overall and also across the frame. I suspect that yours needs a look at by Asahi Photo. Hopefully they would be able to fix it, Steve took his there recently for servicing, but they couldn't help it was knackered, so it's done for, apparently they weren't built that well.
I prefer the 17-70 for the usual reasons (bokeh, reach overlap etc.,) to partner with my 60-250 (yes, I'm very happy with it! ), I just wish it had the same IQ as the 60-250. I think that some ED glass, and stretched to 16mm would make it perfect, but I shudder to think how much more it would cost with Pentax's new (Rip-off?) pricing strategy!
Due to the increased barrel distortion, you lose a slight amount of FOV when you correct for it, and coupled with the loss of that all important 1mm, I'm looking more seriously at getting a wider lens, so I haven't avoided the need/desire for another lens . I would prefer a DA 12-24, but at £899 compared with the Tamron 10-24 at £359, I suspect I will get the Tamron if I can find a very good copy, I tried four on a D90 locally and one was a cracker, so they do exist! I just have to find one in Pentax mount, so it's off to SRS soon, probably next month.
mmm, my 16-45 didn't degrade either, my wife was a bit puzzled by the barrel play 'at that price!' though.Yes, the 16-45 is a bit wobbly, but mine always stayed the same over many thousands of shots and 4 years of use.
The 24-90 is also a "loose" construction. I compared Steve Jacobs with my FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 (which was also loose, but a bit less) and the latter was a bit more contrasty (which I liked) but the 24-90 was sharper overall and also across the frame. I suspect that yours needs a look at by Asahi Photo. Hopefully they would be able to fix it, Steve took his there recently for servicing, but they couldn't help it was knackered, so it's done for, apparently they weren't built that well.
I prefer the 17-70 for the usual reasons (bokeh, reach overlap etc.,) to partner with my 60-250 (yes, I'm very happy with it! ), I just wish it had the same IQ as the 60-250. I think that some ED glass, and stretched to 16mm would make it perfect, but I shudder to think how much more it would cost with Pentax's new (Rip-off?) pricing strategy!
Due to the increased barrel distortion, you lose a slight amount of FOV when you correct for it, and coupled with the loss of that all important 1mm, I'm looking more seriously at getting a wider lens, so I haven't avoided the need/desire for another lens . I would prefer a DA 12-24, but at £899 compared with the Tamron 10-24 at £359, I suspect I will get the Tamron if I can find a very good copy, I tried four on a D90 locally and one was a cracker, so they do exist! I just have to find one in Pentax mount, so it's off to SRS soon, probably next month.
asahi photo is worth a thought, I'll try and post some pics of the problem over the weekend if I have time, see what people think.
yes the 12-24 is now in silly money territory, prices on some other pentax lenses have been improving slowly over the past few months, not this one yet though. A few samples here just to give you a nudge in the right direction https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/da12-24-examples--3img--10867
12mm isn't always wide enough as you can see from one of my pics - if I'd moved any further back for #3 I would have been over the barrier and in the moat ! I haven't looked at the 10-24 so can't comment on it I'm afraid. (it did cross my mind to climb over the barrier and cling on in mid air about 20ft above the water to take the pic - technically feasible but as my mrs pointed out not that wise...!)
there's always another lens, enjoy the trip down the M4... !
Posted 13/11/2009 - 13:25
Link
bladerunneruk wrote:
Hi folks
I wonder if some of you could indulge me with your thoughts on this....
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
thanks for lending me a few grey cells temporarily.
any views regarding c) or e) ?
Hi folks
I wonder if some of you could indulge me with your thoughts on this....
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
thanks for lending me a few grey cells temporarily.
Posted 13/11/2009 - 13:40
Link
bladerunneruk wrote:
For a short zoom that's going to be on the camera a lot, I don't think 24mm is wide enough, let alone 28.
bladerunneruk wrote:
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
any views regarding c) or e) ?c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 27/11/2009 - 13:44
Link
Just wanted to stop by and say thanks to all for your thoughts.
Sorry I haven't posted any example 24-90 pics as intended, I've not had much spare time recently due to some family illnesses - haven't even managed to print out anything bigger than 7x5 from my new B9180 printer yet !
Sorry I haven't posted any example 24-90 pics as intended, I've not had much spare time recently due to some family illnesses - haven't even managed to print out anything bigger than 7x5 from my new B9180 printer yet !
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
5870 posts
24 years
Sussex,
UK
You might want to see if the FA24-90 could be economically calibrated.
The bokeh on the FA24-90 is similar to the DA 17-70, and much smoother than the 16-45 IMO.
That said, the 16-45 is a brilliant lens for landscapes - and can still be had new from SRS at a reasonable price (if you hurry!)
Matt
(For gallery, tips and links)