K-5 DR, E-5 Lenses

Ergo607 said:

Jeff Tokayer said:

Franka T.L. said:

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

Click to expand...

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Click to expand...

Having had both the 77 and 70 ltd's (and now the ZD 50), I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Both have jaw dropping resolution, no matter what f/ you put it on. Don't get me wrong, the ZD 50 is an excellent lens, but both the limiteds (especially the 77) is well regarded among Pentaxians and with justification. As for build quality, the limiteds beat the ZD 50 fairly and squarely...

Just goes to show that a review only has so much value...

Click to expand...

It doesn't show that, it shows that he can't read reviews. The Lenstip tests are system tests, not just lens tests. The Zuiko was tested on a E-3 with 4.65 micron pixels, the Pentax on a K-20 with 4.99 - simply, the lpmm scores for the Zuiko will test higher than the pentax because of the larger pixels. Lenstip explain this here:
http://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#14

'Why do Olympus lenses have the best resolution results, Nikkor, Pentax and Sony lenses – average and Canons – the worst?

It’s an effect of testing lenses on different bodies. The Canon 20D has the smallest number of pixels so the maximum results, that a lens can reach on it, exceed slightly the level of 44 lpmm. Lenses tested on 10-megapixel sensors of a Nikon D200, a Sony A100 or a Pentax K10D achieve maximum results of 47 lpmm. Olympus’s sensors are the most densely packed with pixels so in tests conducted on an E-3 we can see results exceeding even 50 lpmm. Small wonder, though, because 10 megapixels of an E-3 on a small format 4/3 sensor gives the same density as 16 million cells on a DX format sensor.'

In addition, the interesting figure is not lpmm but lpph, and since the Pentax has a larger sensor for the same lpmm it will produce a better lpph. If I look at the lenstip results, the indicate to me that the Pentax is probably giving more resolution in the centre but its closer at the edges, with perhaps the advantage to the Olympus. Different design goals.
--
Bob

Ergo607 said:

You have used these two lenses, did you? You speak out of own experience, don't you?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, but just looking at images and several reviews on the net (which are all pretty similar in their thoughts about those lenses) and those same reviewers praise 50mm as one of the optically best lenses.

Ergo607 said:

As for the price, where the hell did you get the 2-2,5x more expensive? Did you ever look at the price...?

Click to expand...

77mm 1.8 goes for about $850+

70mm 2.4 about $600+

(source B&H and ebay)

ZD 50mm goes for about $450-500 new but you can easily get second hand ones for $300-350, plus it's a great macro lens while it covers similar AoV as those 2 on Pentax.

Keep in mind that part of the appeal of the Pentax ltd primes is how compact they are, especially the DA ltds. That naturally entails some optical compromises. The 70/2.4 ltd is much smaller than the ZD50/2. Personally, I think the combination of IQ and size makes the 70/2.4 ltd is a very compelling offering. (That isn't to say the ZD50/2 isn't compelling in its own regard, of course).

A closer match to the ZD50/2 would be the Sigma 70/2.8 macro. Very sharp, but larger since it's designed for FF and goes 1:1.

msusic said:

msusic said:

As for the price, where the hell did you get the 2-2,5x more expensive? Did you ever look at the price...?

Click to expand...

70mm 2.4 about $600+

(source B&H and ebay)

Click to expand...

B&H is selling the 70/2.4 ltd for $550 now.

There is the Tamron PZ teleconverter, but I don't think it is being produced anymore, so availability is varying. And I don't know anything about quality either. It's weird though, that Pentax do not produce teleconverters.

I'm not sure I believe in teleconverters though. Won't a bigma at 400/7.1 outperform a 50-200 with a ec-20?

Or should I buy a ec-20?

From what I can see the OP's premise is that although the K-5 has an awful lot going for it, that fact is somewhat trumped by the lack of available, quality lenses. Now, I will concede Pentax really can't match lenses like the 12-60 and 50-200, especially considering Oly's weather sealing capabilities. There's just more happening with Oly than Pentax on the zoom lens front. Oly also has a few very nice primes. But the premise that the K5 is let down by lens selection, especially considering third party availibility, is incorrect IMO.
Larry

dark goob said:

So we keep seeing all this talk about the Pentax K-5's dynamic range. Can I also add that it's a wonderfully lightweight camera, has a whisper-quiet shutter, and feels solid in the hand? OK.

Honestly I almost got a K20D instead of the E-3 originally.

But here's the thing. What does Pentax have for glass? Really?
...
-=DG=-

Click to expand...

i do not disagree,

but one should note that whatever zuiko or panasonic FT lens you buy, you will get one (not talking about defective samples) with very good resolution across the frame, even if it is a cheap zuiko or kit lens. you can rely on a high minimum standard of optical performance if you buy any zuiko. and top zuikos are top performer.

sure, you can get good lenses from any supplier. but if you do not study lens tests, you may get a cheap lens of bad design with a lot of flaws. and hobbyists tend to buy the cheap lenses ... the chance that they get something I would never touch is rather high ...

best regards
gusti

Rriley said:

i hear what you say about nikon D300 and TC, i thought i read they couldnt AF with stacks at f/8? (ref Thom Hogan), did i misread something or ? .....

Click to expand...

Good point. Basically you are right and altough it works in some cases, it is unreliable.

But there is something even more important for TC users - on Nikon, there are only particular matching combinations of TC's and lenses allowed (and you can harm lens when not respecting that). This is a huge difference from Oly, where you can simply couple virtually any lens with any converter. During the years of using Oly, I coupled TC's to most of my lenses - with standard zoom to get lightweight travel combo, with macro lenses to achieve bigger magnification, even with fisheye to play with interesting effect provided. No way on Nikon, my current TC works with only one lens in my current setup.
--
http://www.intopicture.com

I can read them as well as you. The difference in pixel pitch is about 5%, where the performance difference is way beyond that. That would relate to absolute resolution differences.

Aside from that, the Zuiko lens has all other aberrations in better check than the Pentax. That has nothing to do with sensor size or pixel pitch.

And thirdly, the Zuiko was not designed as an FF lens, it's just that good.

You don't have to reply to me, I just turned the ignore switch on.

Jeff.

WGArts wrote:
....

Guy, you can only compare lens not just by the resolution, but all other aspects of it all.

OM lens of course can be used via adapter on 4/3, so do many others, but they are not native as the STF on the Alpha, nor those good old Pentax on Pentax. And speaking of it, the Nikon 35/2.0 on the D700 would be ( as a setup ) cheaper and more compact, give excellent result vs that of the 14-35/2.0 with the E5. Saying the 14-35/2.0 is equivalent of that of the AF-Nikkor 35/2.0 is a blind faith in the ZD lens. No I am not saying imaging wise the 14-35 cannot do wonder. what I am saying is that they are not equivalent. Especially when you consider their bulk, their weight, and their price ... I am sure the day when Olympus would release the 14-35 with the size, bulk, and price as that of the AF-Nikkor 35/2.0, then we would consider that equivalent, and unlikely to be ... and comparing Macro lens to portrait lens and saying the macro lens is sharper or so ... what an amusement .... I happen to use multiple system including that of 4/3, and also Pentax and Nikon. I am planning on adding Sony Alpha 9 ( I used to use Minolta MD ). What manifest is as I stated in my privious thread. Sure there is no equivalent of many 4/3 lens on others, but this is likevise for 4/3 when other lens are asked for. In fact the most comparable lens if we might like to compare is the ZD 25/2.8 vs Pentax DA 40/2.8, both standard lens of pancake design and of 2.8 speed. Does the ZD come out superior, NO, but neither is the DA-40, their figure ( if one want to put the review data to the say goes ) would favor one over the other depend on which media , which area you want to apply. Its not absolute.

Its easy to bent the argument and say all bla bla bla ...... but taking one specifics and blow it all up all high and say that all others are inferior is too much prejudice and loop sided to say

--

• Franka -

Have a look at the LensTip test results for the Pentax 70/2.4 ltd. (Not a FF lens, BTW.) It was tested on a K10D with pixel pitch of 5.97 µm and sensor height of 15.7mm. Compare to the ZD50/2 tested on a E-510 with a pixel pitch of 4.84 µm and sensor height of 13mm. Adjusting for pixel pitch, the Pentax does very well on a lpph basis. The Olympus bests it on other measures, but that's a tradeoff Pentax chose for making the lens so compact.

Actually its not one media, also Asahi Camera of Japan also do their test of lens on bench instead of the RAW file , they even publish thew whole set of data on their lens test, quite a read if you can read Japanese

--

• Franka -

Larry MacKinnon said:

But the premise that the K5 is let down by lens selection, especially considering third party availibility, is incorrect IMO

Click to expand...

Very well stated, Larry. Unfortunately its that very mentality that's going not to benefit the 4/3.

--

• Franka -

Greetings

Hope everyone had a great holiday.

Ok, for me Pentax makes a very nice camera and lenses. I was able to shoot with their camera and lenses for awhile but Pentax USA is a company in disarray sense Hoya did the hostile take over. Their waiting for the other shoe to drop. I hope a good company buys them. They do no more in house repairs and the company they contract out to doesn't have that good of a reputation here in the USA. Talking to Pentax on the phone is no fun. As for Olympus they do not have all the lenses Pentax has and their prices are higher sometimes but the quality is there and they have two repair faculties one on the west coast and one on the east coast, they do all in house repairs. They're a pleasure to talk to on the phone. The E3 and E5 have the best built quality and if one needs repair under warranty Olympus doesn't give you the run around or ask questions. Even out of warranty their very good to deal with. I'm waiting for they're new m4/3 professional camera to come out. Both cameras are very nice but Olympus is a much more stable company right now. I hope that doesn't change and wish they some how tie the OM system in to new m4/3 system without an adapter.

enjoy
Roger J.

dark goob said:

So we keep seeing all this talk about the Pentax K-5's dynamic range. Can I also add that it's a wonderfully lightweight camera, has a whisper-quiet shutter, and feels solid in the hand? OK.

Honestly I almost got a K20D instead of the E-3 originally.

But here's the thing. What does Pentax have for glass? Really?

Click to expand...

They have a set of very small nice primes. They also have weather sealed glass almost in the same amount of Olympus, they have all the legacy glass they have produced during the entire lifetime of the K- mount along with specific Carl Zeis, Cosina, Tamron and Sigma lenses made for it.

The Carl Zeis stuff is certainly pricey but really good.

dark goob said:

Am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Pentax has very good primes along with very interesting 3rd party lenses. I will give you another example- remember the telephoto macro Olympus was working on that they zapped because they stopped 4/3rd lens development? that exist on Pentax and current and weather sealed. It's also relatively new even.

dark goob said:

What Pentax lens compares at all to the 50-200 SWD? I'd like to mention that NOBODY has a lens that compares favorably to the 50-200 SWD when it comes to an APS-C, weatherproof telephoto lens for with a tripod shoe that AFs with a doubler on it, is relatively light, and gives 2.8-3.5 type brightness.

Click to expand...

Hmm they sure have a ball park equivalent in F4. Given the ISO difference it's quite comparable. Also it's weather sealed. That said the Olympus lenses is very nice for sure.

On the other hand where's the Olympus high quality small primes? There's the F2.0 50mm.. though that's not exactly too small. And umm I think that's it.

dark goob said:

Also I've tried the 16-50 2.8 and honestly, I'm sorry but it does not hold a candle to the 12-60mm SWD. I mean what good is dynamic range if your lens sucks? I'm just saying. And look, I know Olympus' lenses are not perfect, but I'll soon be renting a 90-250 and taking it up to the mountain and out to the woods. I'm not sure what Pentax might have that is in that realm.

Click to expand...

I don't think that "lens suck" but certainly Olympus lenses are good. But you seem to be completely ignorant that Pentax has some very high quality primes, along with lenses form Carl Zeiss. Conversely, what good are good lenses if the dynamic range and ISO s*ck? You seem to want to paint this in a one sided way regarding the lenses. There are pros and cons on both lenses lineups.

dark goob said:

-=DG=-

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)

these are also different lenses.

I can vouch both the ZD50/2 and the DA 70 Limited are both very good (hell I have both). The DA 70 limited is much smaller and focuses far faster . The ZD50/2 is a macro lens, very nice and sharp and weather sealed.

Both are pretty nice.

Jeff Tokayer said:

Franka T.L. said:

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

Click to expand...

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Jeff.

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

msusic said:

Looking at various reviews on the internet, those 2 LTDs are not that special at all, certainly not for the price and optically 50mm macro is better than 77mm while costing 2-2.5x less money and being a macro lens which makes it more useful too.

If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't have weather sealing either.

Certainly two interesting lenses for Pentax users, but for the price of those two, I'd rather get 14-35mm or 35-100mm thank you very much, or just 50mm macro if I was on a budget.

Click to expand...

Show me where you can get the 14-35 for the price of those two. Surely I am missing something there.

Also yes, you are comparing a lens that is a macro vs non macro. The ZD 50 is weather sealed, the DA 70 is far smaller and focuses far faster. Both are good. Both have their use and strengths.

Where is the Olympus delivering the small mantra? The pancakes are sure very small and very high quality optics also.

(yes, I have both).

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

msusic said:

msusic said:

You have used these two lenses, did you? You speak out of own experience, don't you?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, but just looking at images and several reviews on the net (which are all pretty similar in their thoughts about those lenses) and those same reviewers praise 50mm as one of the optically best lenses.

Click to expand...

Hmm the pentax pancakes are pretty praised as pretty good optics too. But like he said- you don't have experience with both. I do, he does.

msusic said:

msusic said:

As for the price, where the hell did you get the 2-2,5x more expensive? Did you ever look at the price...?

Click to expand...

77mm 1.8 goes for about $850+

70mm 2.4 about $600+

(source B&H and ebay)

ZD 50mm goes for about $450-500 new but you can easily get second hand ones for $300-350, plus it's a great macro lens while it covers similar AoV as those 2 on Pentax.

Click to expand...

Wait hold on. You said you could get the 14-35 or 35-100 for the price of both lenses. Where?

The 70mm F2.4 goes for $549 at Amazon. The 77mm F1.8 goes for $785 at BH Photo Video. That's far less than a 14-35 or 35-100. You can also get 2nd hand lenses for cheaper. And you are stopping short of what's convenient.

The truth is both the F2 50mm and the DA 70 mm are good for different reasons. The DA 70 focuses substantially much faster than the F2. 50mm. As you say that lens is a macro. Hey, Pentax does make a pancake macro prime which has been praised has having superb resolution too. Of course you could also go FA 100 F2.8 MM WR which is also weather sealed, cost almost the same as the F2.0 and it's a telephoto macro which has its own advantages too.

The point here is that there are good Pentax lenses out there . I think that point is quite proven. You don't need 1 for 1 of equivalence, because as I said, there is a set of pros/cons to both the lineups on that end.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

across systems that way.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

that you can use on the K-5.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Pentax+Carl+Zeiss&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'