piratejabez: Beautiful location! Where were you?
I like it too. Very exotic locations for us, Central Europeans.
iudex: I see no reason for critisizing the photographer; the pictures are OK given the light situation. Shooting RAW is also desirable, since OOC JPEGs can hide a lot of flaws and I want to see exactly how the lens performs, not showing the most pleasing pictures I can get out of the cameraMaybe if I desired something it would be more portraits at maximum FL and f2,8.Anyhow the performance of the lens seems fine, but not extraordinary, just slightly above the average. And I think we can expect more from a lens of this cathegory (a lot of glass and high-end features), especially considering the high pricetag. Costing 50% more than the Sigma 18-35 Art it should also perform better, but according to these pics it does not. But I am considering only few real world shots, so I better wait for judgement for regular studio test.
Marc: no doubt about that. Obviously the smaller, rangefinder-styled bodies are not that suitable for these new fast zooms, they are better off with primer or smaller zooms.
FamlilyPhotographer: hahaa....my sigma 35 art has smaller filter size :D
What is here to wonder? Obviously a single focal length lens (especially normal FL) will have smaller filter thread than a zoom starting at wideangle. It´s more about focal range and the start of it than about speed. My Sigma 18-35 with f1,8 has 72mm thread, the same as Pentax 16-85 with slow f3,5-5,6.
I see no reason for critisizing the photographer; the pictures are OK given the light situation. Shooting RAW is also desirable, since OOC JPEGs can hide a lot of flaws and I want to see exactly how the lens performs, not showing the most pleasing pictures I can get out of the cameraMaybe if I desired something it would be more portraits at maximum FL and f2,8.Anyhow the performance of the lens seems fine, but not extraordinary, just slightly above the average. And I think we can expect more from a lens of this cathegory (a lot of glass and high-end features), especially considering the high pricetag. Costing 50% more than the Sigma 18-35 Art it should also perform better, but according to these pics it does not. But I am considering only few real world shots, so I better wait for judgement for regular studio test.
Poweruser: Another demonstration of how little "bokeh" is going on in a 2.8 midrange zoom on APS-C. Which is why most people should be happier with either a slower, cheaper, lighter standard zoom or a set of fast primes.
This could have been a winner if as fast as Sigmas 18-35.
If it was f1,8 like the Sigma, it would weigh cca. 2 kg. ;-) I own the Sigma and it is pretty heavy already with it´s mere 1,94 zoom. As regards the bokeh: the Sigma has appealing f1,8 and you might think that makes perfect bokeh, but it is actually no different from 50mm at f2,8. Out-of-focus blur is influenced not only by luminosity, but also by focal length and the longer FL compensates for slower speed. I think DPR made a comparison of Sigma 18-35 and came to the conclusion that 35mm at f1,8 makes similar background blur as 50mm at f2,8.
Here is a picture comparing the FF prototype with existing K-S2: http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p1522/_IGP6275.JPGIt is obvious the FF is bigger, but not by much and considering the K-S2 is one of the smallest APSC DSLRs it is clear the FF will be no beast (what is a good newws for me, since I have no interest in FF Behemoth like the D800).
Peiasdf: There is a lot of repetition in Pentax's line up. There are 11 primes covering the 30-55mm range, 6 standard zooms from 16mm-50/85/135, etc. I'd imagine Nikon and Canon might be the same but either company sold ten times more cameras than Pentax.
jpino: FF is obviously a step up, but considering APSC segment what exactly you disliked about K-50 with DA 50/1,8 (kit lens is, well, a kit lens nad Tamron superzoom is also far from excellent)? Small, light and inexpensive combo, yet providing a lot of bang for the buck, actually I cannot thing of a better alternative for that money.
jpino: a DSLR camera of course cannot be as small as a CSC, but that does not mean it is big. And if a camera does not fit into a pocket that does not mean the size doesn´t matter at all. I can tell you it is a huge difference if I carry my K-30 all day with tiny 140g prime and if I put a 810g zoom. Especially Pentax APSC cameras are quite small, smaller than competition (save for the Canon 100D), see K-3 vs. competition (D7100, 70D, 7D, a77 II). As regards the Limiteds: if they wer f2,8 or faster, they wouldn´t be this small. My 15mm Limited is so small that I do not even notice it is in my pocket. If it was 1 or 2 EV faster, it would weigh much more and the appeal of tiny and light Limited would be lost.
wildkat: really? So I shouldn´t have sold it. ;-) Anyhow it´s the cheapest prime so if I go FF it´s no problem to buy it again.As regards the 40mm: I meant that it is pointless to have two identical lenses: the only difference is that the one is very small and the other is even smaller.
iudex: Great job Pentax!By the time of announcement of final FF camera there should be 12 FF lenses, 7 primes and 5 zooms, covering the range from 15 to 450mm. So basically immediately from the start there will be lenses covering most of the needs and situations. :-)
Now with the FF coming I believe your work will get more appreciation. ;-)
Rutterbutter: Lets see what would we want...- 36+ Megapixel- 1/250th / sec flash sync or faster- wifi- focus peaking- Dx lens compatibility- Faster Focus speed and sensitivity- 4K video/30+fps- Touch screen with toggle to de-activate- 7+FPS- ISO Native 50-102400 or higher- 100% viewfinder- Weather sealed/magnesium body- Digital focus crop. Like D7100 for maximizing focus coverage- Better in camera HDR and live preview of filters- No AA filter- 1000 shot battery approx- Swivel screen and articulating.
Feel free to add to this. but this would probably be the best selling camera ever..
There are no DX lenses for Pentax. DX is a name only Nikon uses for designation of APSC sensor (DX lenses = Nikon lenses for APSC). Pentax lenses for APSC sensor are called DA.
ogl: OVF 100% 0.8x - not lower36 MP sensor wider AF points than in APS-C cameras No AA filter It's enough for me
There is no real difference, see dxo:36 MPx in D810: 97 pts, DR: 14,8 EV, high ISO: 285324 MPx in D610: 94 pts, DR: 14,4 EV, high ISO: 292524 MPx in D750: 93 pts, DR: 14,5 EV, high ISO: 2956 So the 3 MPx has slightly better DR, but slightly worse high ISO.But no matter the studio tests, for me 36 MPx pictures are not only useless, but most importantly too big (more space, slower postprocess, slower fps, smaller buffer...).
Barry: had a look at it. Nice job, you really took a lot of time to do it that thoroughly.
And my opinion:1. please no, 36 MPx is too much, 24 MPX max (16 MPx even better)2. nice, but not probable and for me not that important/needed3. probable and tecnically no problem, nice to have, even if not crucial4. obvious5. Pentax already said that6. yes, focusing speed is crucial7. forget it, technically hard (with 24 MPx) or impossible (with 36 MPx)8. there won´t be for sure9. the more MPx, the less probable, I guess 6 fps with 24 MPx and sub-5 fps with 36 MPx10. I guess 100-51200 native, 50-102400 extended11. sure thing12. sure thing13. there will be crop mode with DA lenses14. irrelevant for FF15. sure thing16. not probable, I guess 600 max.17. no full articulation, only tiltable up and down.
Please no 36 MPx sensor, 24 MPx is enough (16 MPX would be the best for me, but I understand it does not have marketing potential).
Petroglyph: Is the 25-70 f/2.8 a typo? Maybe it should be 24-70?
Itś not a typo, DPR only guessed from the blurred lines on the roadmap. But obviously standard for FF is 24-70mm so it is almost sure the lens will be like this.
Yeah, I am aware of the fact some DA* lenses are said to cover FF and I believe this. Anyhow it´s not official and we cannot count them to true FF lenses.What is more important is the crop mode which means we don´t have to sell our APSC lenses, basically with APSC lenses I will still have a normally usable APSC camera.
iudex: Nice. Actually if it had more than 5,5 fps, it would be a great K-50 successor with improvements in all aspects.
Sure f5,5 is not an issue, I just wanted to point on the fact the K-50 has more (6 fps), so in this aspect it is a slight downgrade. But as you say, no real issue.
It may look like a useless repeating, but the lenses differ a lot. E.g. there are 3 50mm primes, but they cannot be more differet:FA 50/1,4 - standard prime, really fast, decent priceDFA 50/2,8 - macro lens, relatively slow (large aperture is not needed when shooting macro)DA 50/1,8 - plastic fantastic, APSC only, light (cca. 140g) cheap and affordable (the cheapest Pentax prime), yet still fast.So the purpose of those lenses is very different, as is the speed and price. Of course there are lenses I consider pointless (like two DA 40mm/2,8 primes), but most of the lenses stil differ (DA only, DFA or FA), belong to different lines (Limited, standard DA, premium DA*), quality levels, technology (SDM, DC motor, screw-drive) and price.