Pentax lens selection

DarylK wrote:

If you want a faster zoom and don't need to go too wide, you could opt for the Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 which was designed for full frame but should work fine for APSC. Just throwing out another thought/option.

...or even the DA* 16-50 wich may not be as long but gives you a constant f2.8 and is a lot better lens than many make out.  Match that up with the superb 50-135 f2.8 and you have all your bases covered.

Historicity wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Well yes but at the same time if you are going to compare brand X and Y doing it in either the X forum or the Y forum is a logic place

Nothing wrong with being aware of what the other systems have to offer. As long as we keep in mind that this place is dedicated to Pentax.

Yes the DA limited are for the most part very good lenses and great options in terms of size. Hopefully Pentax will continue to develop such lenses

I hope for some D FA Limiteds, or rather that the new D FA primes won't be too big.

With APS-C, it was amazing what I could fit into a tiny LowePro Nova 1 lens.

Alex

Alex,

If blame is to be assigned,

My apologies if this is what my post read - we're nowhere near the point where blame could be assigned. This is not bashing (using the definition from the forum's rules) nor trolling nor anything like that.

I'm just trying to suggest a more Pentax-centric approach, if this discussion is to be continued. We all know a DSLR + wide is at a size&weight disadvantage, yet we see such comparisons all the time. But, how to cope with it might be a more interesting subject...

Alex

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

To complete on what I wrote

the Pentax K70 +16-85mm is 1,176 grs . The Olympus Em-5 II with the new Zuiko 4/12-100 is not only 100 grs lighter but is brighter and covers focal length up to 200mm ( in 35mm equivalent) instead of 130mm for the Pentax

Well, a DSLR kit would be doubly penalized in such a comparison - first, the camera is larger due to having a mirror box, then the lens is larger because it needs to be a retrofocus design.

They are both weather sealed and both featured high res mode which is very useful for still landscapes shot with a tripod

You should mention the prices, too The EM-5 II is $900 ($1100 at launch), while the K-70 is $620 ($650 at launch, it's a newer camera); but the biggest difference is with lenses: while the Pentax 16-85 is a $520 lens, the Olympus 12-100 is more than double - $1300.

If I wanted a light travel combo I would go with the K70 along with the 20-40 ideal for most snap shooting done when traveling, fast enough for most conditions and small enough to carry around all day. I would carry separately the 18-270 in a bag, pocket or leave it where you are staying as a special needs lens for the times I might need it.

Harold66 wrote:

Historicity wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Well yes but at the same time if you are going to compare brand X and Y doing it in either the X forum or the Y forum is a logic place

Nothing wrong with being aware of what the other systems have to offer. As long as we keep in mind that this place is dedicated to Pentax.

Yes the DA limited are for the most part very good lenses and great options in terms of size. Hopefully Pentax will continue to develop such lenses

I hope for some D FA Limiteds, or rather that the new D FA primes won't be too big.

With APS-C, it was amazing what I could fit into a tiny LowePro Nova 1 lens.

Alex

Alex,

If blame is to be assigned, I must share it with Harold, for I drew him out on his initial recommendation, not understanding precisely what he meant. Then when he explained himself I wasn't able to agree with him.

Hi Lawrence

Would you be so kind in explaining to me what you did not agree with in the first reply to YOUR question ? I would appreciate your input

I didn't think anyone would be bothered by our exchange remembering a number of discussions where other brands were recommended when for example an OP indicated he wanted to do X and the respondents though owning Pentax gear didn't think Pentax was the best system to accomplish X. After drawing him out a bit I took Harold to be assuming that X for Pedro involved first of all, being as light as possible, and indeed the Olympus mirrorless system is lighter in most instances than Pentax APSC combinations.

Yes I did not think so either and as you correctly mentioned it , It is all based on what the OP needs are. I thought I was being clear I was making some statements based on the little information provided by Pedro in his initial message

I notice that he didn't respond to my previous comment in which I describe a DPReview test which rates the OMD5 Mark ii poorly in comparison with all but a few APSC cameras in regard to Raw. Perhaps you would think he wouldn't respond to that because he wishes to push mirrorless 4/3 systems no matter what and hence in violation of the custom against coming onto a systems' forum and hawking a favorite system of one's own.

Well thank you for giving me the benefit of the. As one can see I was busy answering other replies on this thread. If anyone reads my first reply carefully , one will notice that I made distinction between better or better looking at image IQ

I may have an advantage over you in having glanced at Harold's blog. He seems a well-balanced reasonable fellow; so I can't believe that he intended anything Trollish.

Indeed I was not . Each camera system and each camera body within its system has pluses and minuses. It is up to each person to discern and keep in mind what is the most important to him/her.
In my case for instance, my choice for the M4/3 system is based ABOVE anything else on the image ratio. I grew up with medium format cameras ( never liked the 3;2 ratio even when I was shooting film) and today I will never buy a camera which would only have a 3;2 ratio REGARDLESS of the image quality

That being said, I am fully aware that a for a majority of people here, this is not a criteria very high on their list when making their choices

You give me 10 different photogs asking me for a camera advice with different needs I priorities , I probably would end up recommending a different camera in different brand for each one .

Thank you Lawrence for your offer " to share the blame with me "

Harold

Harold,

I probably wasn't being fair, but my prejudice has to do with image quality.  After reading the DPReview review of the Olympus OM5 Mark ii, I would never be tempted to buy or own it.  If the quality of the raw image of the OM5 is surpassed by that of the Nikon D5500 and the D5500 is surpassed by the K70 (which three comparison reviews say that it is), what could tempt me to ever buy a OM5 Mark ii?

I read your blog where you say that reviews are heavily influenced by the reviewers prejudices (or words to that effect) and I agree, but raw images are subject to scientific analysis and while I didn't see the analysis I assume it was done.  DPReview always rates the quality of Raw and JPEG files in their evaluations. . . at least I hope the evaluation of these files is scientific and not subjective.

I see you used to have a blog discussing light-weight travel gear.  In another couple of threads recently some of us discussed the value of the light-weight K-S1.  I bought one to have it on hand the next time I tweak a shoulder or knee and want to hike light (being an old fellow, 82, it happens from time to time).  My previous "go-light" camera was the Olympus EPN-2 with the kit 14-42mm lens; which I discovered had controls to small and fiddly for me to want to use with a bunged up knee or arm and so I left it in P mode.  After discovering that I didn't like K-S1's having only one dial I decided I'd have to use it the same way I used the EPN2, in the P mode.  And then I bought a K-S2 which I  dearly loved it.  I (subjectively I grant you) can't tell any difference between the IQ of the K-S2 and the K3; so Pentax must have done something wonderful with the software.

In reading the reviews, I don't really care about every criterion.  I love the Pentax K3 because it has excellent image quality.  The K3 is lighter than my Olympus E5 while providing superior image quality.

In reading reviews since Olympus began building mirrorless cameras and I gave up on them and switched to Pentax, Pentax has been as good as it gets in regard to image quality.

Lawrence

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

To complete on what I wrote

the Pentax K70 +16-85mm is 1,176 grs . The Olympus Em-5 II with the new Zuiko 4/12-100 is not only 100 grs lighter but is brighter and covers focal length up to 200mm ( in 35mm equivalent) instead of 130mm for the Pentax

Well, a DSLR kit would be doubly penalized in such a comparison - first, the camera is larger due to having a mirror box, then the lens is larger because it needs to be a retrofocus design.

They are both weather sealed and both featured high res mode which is very useful for still landscapes shot with a tripod

You should mention the prices, too The EM-5 II is $900 ($1100 at launch), while the K-70 is $620 ($650 at launch, it's a newer camera); but the biggest difference is with lenses: while the Pentax 16-85 is a $520 lens, the Olympus 12-100 is more than double - $1300.

If I wanted a light travel combo I would go with the K70 along with the 20-40 ideal for most snap shooting done when traveling, fast enough for most conditions and small enough to carry around all day. I would carry separately the 18-270 in a bag, pocket or leave it where you are staying as a special needs lens for the times I might need it.

The 20-40 Limited was one of the two lenses I considered buying, before deciding that FF is coming (the other being the 15mm). At 283g, it is indeed light.

Instead of a 18-270, what do you think about the new 55-300 RE PLM? It has the new speedy AF, it's compact and light; and apparently optically better than its predecessor.

Alex

Historicity wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Historicity wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Well yes but at the same time if you are going to compare brand X and Y doing it in either the X forum or the Y forum is a logic place

Nothing wrong with being aware of what the other systems have to offer. As long as we keep in mind that this place is dedicated to Pentax.

Yes the DA limited are for the most part very good lenses and great options in terms of size. Hopefully Pentax will continue to develop such lenses

I hope for some D FA Limiteds, or rather that the new D FA primes won't be too big.

With APS-C, it was amazing what I could fit into a tiny LowePro Nova 1 lens.

Alex

Alex,

If blame is to be assigned, I must share it with Harold, for I drew him out on his initial recommendation, not understanding precisely what he meant. Then when he explained himself I wasn't able to agree with him.

Hi Lawrence

Would you be so kind in explaining to me what you did not agree with in the first reply to YOUR question ? I would appreciate your input

I didn't think anyone would be bothered by our exchange remembering a number of discussions where other brands were recommended when for example an OP indicated he wanted to do X and the respondents though owning Pentax gear didn't think Pentax was the best system to accomplish X. After drawing him out a bit I took Harold to be assuming that X for Pedro involved first of all, being as light as possible, and indeed the Olympus mirrorless system is lighter in most instances than Pentax APSC combinations.

Yes I did not think so either and as you correctly mentioned it , It is all based on what the OP needs are. I thought I was being clear I was making some statements based on the little information provided by Pedro in his initial message

I notice that he didn't respond to my previous comment in which I describe a DPReview test which rates the OMD5 Mark ii poorly in comparison with all but a few APSC cameras in regard to Raw. Perhaps you would think he wouldn't respond to that because he wishes to push mirrorless 4/3 systems no matter what and hence in violation of the custom against coming onto a systems' forum and hawking a favorite system of one's own.

Well thank you for giving me the benefit of the. As one can see I was busy answering other replies on this thread. If anyone reads my first reply carefully , one will notice that I made distinction between better or better looking at image IQ

I may have an advantage over you in having glanced at Harold's blog. He seems a well-balanced reasonable fellow; so I can't believe that he intended anything Trollish.

Indeed I was not . Each camera system and each camera body within its system has pluses and minuses. It is up to each person to discern and keep in mind what is the most important to him/her.
In my case for instance, my choice for the M4/3 system is based ABOVE anything else on the image ratio. I grew up with medium format cameras ( never liked the 3;2 ratio even when I was shooting film) and today I will never buy a camera which would only have a 3;2 ratio REGARDLESS of the image quality

That being said, I am fully aware that a for a majority of people here, this is not a criteria very high on their list when making their choices

You give me 10 different photogs asking me for a camera advice with different needs I priorities , I probably would end up recommending a different camera in different brand for each one .

Thank you Lawrence for your offer " to share the blame with me "

Harold

Harold,

Hi again Lawrence

I probably wasn't being fair, but my prejudice has to do with image quality.

That s not a prejudice IMO

After reading the DPReview review of the Olympus OM5 Mark ii, I would never be tempted to buy or own it. If the quality of the raw image of the OM5 is surpassed by that of the Nikon D5500 and the D5500 is surpassed by the K70 (which three comparison reviews say that it is), what could tempt me to ever buy a OM5 Mark ii?

Fair enough. If I may offer a piece of advice though is to Never rely on ONLY ONE review, regardless of where it comes from, to form a definite opinion on a given product ( digital camera or something else entirely).

As for me ( and I am not saying you should necessarily follow my example) most of the cameras with lid to large size sensors offer good to excellent image quality in most situations and certainly good enough for non professionals in terms of image quality

For me in my 25 years as a photographer, I cannot remember many cases where I could not market or present an image , which had interesting content, because of lack of image quality based on the pure IQ ( short of an misuse of yours truly) where I can think of times where I miss a great image because of a camera flaw , even if the ilage was razorsharo

I read your blog where you say that reviews are heavily influenced by the reviewers prejudices (or words to that effect) and I agree, but raw images are subject to scientific analysis and while I didn't see the analysis I assume it was done. DPReview always rates the quality of Raw and JPEG files in their evaluations. . . at least I hope the evaluation of these files is scientific and not subjective.

Fine. I am not saying that people should not buy the Pentax K70 or the Nikon  over an olympus. As I always say, having options is ALWAYS better

I am saying that depending on the buyers need image IQ at norlal ISO is close enough that one may  want at other factors before laking a decision. That s all

I see you used to have a blog discussing light-weight travel gear.

Oups that hurts  . I still have it. But yes I have not been very active on it lately ( although I did write an article last week

In another couple of threads recently some of us discussed the value of the light-weight K-n't like K-S1's having

In reading the reviews, I don't really care about every criterion.

I do not think anyone does. The idea is just determining which ones are important to YOU

Iand I gave up on them and switched to Pentax, Pentax has been as good as it gets in regard to image quality.

Well pentax is a great company. My first SLR was a pentax, my favorite medium format camera was a pentax , my first digital camera was a Pentax and if I wanted a 35 mm DSLR and weight and size were not an issue, I would probably buy a K1  so you will get no argument from regarding the Pentax brand

Harold

I am afraid that you will have to wait until Ricoh decided to put that lens on the roadmap. In the meantime you can either suit yourself with the 16-85, otherwise I would suggest to switch to the camera system where your desires are met.

0.02

pedro1 wrote:

Hi All,

thanks for interesting discussion. Just so you know I have not bought camera yet and I a..Also, didn't like ergonomics of it and there is no good grip for it

This is why it is always better to handle the camera before any purchase

- available one requires removal for battery change ( those little things can be irritating sometimes)...I have been looking lately at FZ 300 which would give me same size sensor, much brighter lens and great zoom and probably push my satisfaction level to 98% in outdoors and 90-95% indoor situations. Regardless, I enjoy reading your comments ..there is always something one can learn and get different angle on subject...:-)

It depends on how serious you want to get with your photography but this sensor is tiny so outside the zoom range it  does not bring anything in terms of IQ

If you already have a Panasonic and like their ergonomy and user interface I suggest you look at the Panasonic Fz 2000/2500 which is a MUCH better camera but still a all-in-one solution with a very large zoom range

If this is too expensive for your budget , how about a FZ1000 used ?

Hope this helps

Harold

I got a good collection of lenses, but it seems that now I shoot almost exclusively with the Da 16-85 it's so versatile, and the picture quality is excellent!

Check out this Flickr group.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax_da_16-85/