Lightweight telephoto: Pentax-D 70-210mm F4 sample gallery

@Smiler

Yeah, nothing screams "professional photographer" more than a bunch of blurry and then oversharpened photos at f16-f32. But I can't deny it takes a lot of confidence to shoot that way. 😉

Maybe but the DPR samples are not exactly "useful". The other stuff on the oh so not good photo spam blog that never really reviews stuff anyway, sure they are better, still at F4 wide open not too good IMO. Still least you didn't link to phoblographer ;-D

Final stage of survival attempt.

Pentax is a poor man Leica. ;)

@SonyX - I know you are just trolling, but in general Pentax users don't pay double for Tamron-based lenses. For example, according to B&H pricing, the price differential between the Tamron 24-70 and Pentax version is $28, and the difference between the 15-30 is $97.

Eventually, the large difference between the 70-210's will diminish.

Sony is the mirror-less messiah with many blind following disciples.

Pentax re-uses very old, cheap technology. For example, the K-1 uses the same old Sony sensor of the Nikon D800e (of 2012).
Same is true for Tamron lenses. Pentax are re-using the old ~ 10 years old first Tamron generation, not the 2nd generation (with "G2" in the lens name). The new G2 Tamrons are newer and better than the Pentax = the old Tamrons.

Amazon.com:
24-70 2.8
... Pentax: $1,127
... = Old Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD (not "G2"): $800
... so, Pentax: 140% of the Tamron original
... even though Pentax had ripped out the optical IS.
15-30 2.8
... Pentax: $1,300
... = Old Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD: $985
... so, Pentax: 130% of the Tamron original
... even though Pentax had ripped out the optical IS.
70-210 4.0
... Pentax: $1,100
... = Tamron: $600
... so, Pentax: 185% of the Tamron original
... even though Pentax had ripped out the optical IS.

Eventually, the large difference between the 70-210s will be infinite, because Pentax will be dead by then.

@dpthougths "For example, the K-1 uses the same old Sony sensor of the Nikon D800e (of 2012)"
well not sure if you have any kind of evidence to proof what are you stating or is pure rant. However, if that the case, then I must say they did a fantastic job with that sensor. I have a K-1 and is just fantastic, lovely, awesome, and i have never seen any reviewer complaining about it either, even comparing it to more "modern" cameras.
I do agree that using Pentax is getting more expensive due to the lack of third party lenses.

@Polacofede. Everyone knows that Pentax and Nikon use Sony sensors. So K1 and D800E has exactly the same pixel count and identical DXO scores. K1 was optimized for a better DR and lower light, Nikon for colors, but the total score is 96 for both.

K1-II uses the same sensor as K1, so the above statement is correct. Pentax it does use a sensor technology from 2012.

I agree with you, K1 is an excellent camera that combines IQ of 2020 with the best of the DSLR technology from 2015. What you are really missing is unprecedented AF accuracy, the magic of eye AF, and video capabilities. But yes, you can take great photos with any camera. Don't need the latest tech for that.

@Placofede K-1 can take photos well above the level of most of the people that use it today, which is not difficult considering that there are not that many professionals that still use Pentax.

The trend in the industry is however pretty clear. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic almost everyone go mirrorless these days. Is Pentax the last one standing with their DSLR technology?

Anyway, let's get back to the original question, even though K1 is quite a capable camera, why do Pentax users have to pay double prices for the 5-8 year old technology?

As said, the Pentax 15-30 (of 2016) is the old Tamron of 2015 (without "G2", all black without the silver ring at the bottom). Not the newer and better Tamron ("G2" of 2018, with the silver ring).
... Pentax: $1,300
... = Old Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD (not G2): $985
... so, Pentax: 130% of the Tamron original
... even though Pentax had ripped out the optical IS.

So with Pentax, you pay from 130 up to ca. 200% of Tamron prices, and get obsolete (superseeded) Tamron stuff for your Pentax money, wherever this is possible.

Likewise, the Pentax 24-70 2.8 is the old (outdated = superseeded) Tamron 1st gen, not "G2".

@Polacofede G2 improves AF speed and more importantly the AF accuracy over G1. No change in IQ when everything is in focus, however G2 has a better focus hit ratio.

Tamron commands $200 more for the G2 version, and still the market seems to prefer the G2 over G1, even though G2 is more expensive. Amazon sales ranks for Canon mount are
...G1: #643
...G2: #305 (lower rank number is better = more sales).
Assuming that sales ranks translate to absolute sales figures non-linearly, let's assume, that the market buys 4 times as much G2 than G1, even though G2 is more expensive. This indicates, that the perceived G2 benefits over the old G1 are much more, than a + $200 price difference would indicate.

Regarding AF, everything is lost with Pentax anyway, so yes, for Pentax, everything which is AF related wouldn't matter anyway.

@tinez
1. Actually Tamron gives 5 years warranty in EU, Pentax - only two, so for support and warranty Tamron is a better choice.

2. Pentax also has unacceptable practice to sell broken products and never admitting/fixing them under warranty. They like selling fixes as upgraded models (low light AF on K10D that was fixed on K20D, or on K5 that was only solved in K5II). Or sometimes they rectify problems without admitting them, while leaking info about fixes through their technicians or sales (SDM lens failures). Tamron has a way better credibility and support.

Tamron is also a much more credible company.

@tinetz
- Pentax is very future proof with no mirrorless cameras at all.
- All tamron lenses are working with current cameras like D850/D780/D6.
- You can update firmware on all latest Tamron lenses to work on Z6/7 including 70-210/4

The K-1 reviews I'm aware of also complain about the AF-S mode, not only about the indeed almost useless AF-C.
Some AF-S findings from the dpreview review:
"The autofocus tends to hesitate, even in AF-S mode with the center point"
"The final point of frustration came when we reviewed the K-1's images"
"Acquisition speeds in dark and low contrast shooting scenarios can be sluggish"
"AF-S too slow to keep up with the movement of the subjects, or to nail the decisive moment as soon as it happened"
"AF points do not illuminate until focus is confirmed. This is incredibly problematic"
"low light AF sensitivity [...] the Nikon [D750] did so significantly quicker and more reliably, which meant the difference between a focused and missed shot."
"[The D750] is a class leader in terms of low light AF speed and performance. Even a Canon 6D focused more quickly and confidently [than the K-1] in and around -2 to -3 EV (in AF-S)."

@SonyX, at least the first part of the question can be answered. All AF lens makers have abandoned any hope for Pentax since many years by now, so they stopped issuing their latest & greatest lenses since many years.
- Sigma was the last one who gave up, their last lens for Pentax was 6 years ago.
- Tamron gave up earlier, probably because they had more insider knowledge? Pentax' lens designer, Yun Hirakawa, did quit Pentax many years ago, maybe also he as an insider perceived Pentax as a sinking ship, and switched over to Tamron as a new employer with a brighter future. Tamron stopped issuing new lenses for Pentax 12 years ago AFAIK.
- Tokina stopped issuing Pentax-mount lenses already earlier than Tamron or Sigma.

Sigma even stopped production for Pentax completely by now, i.e. even all the older lens models. Consequently I suspect that smaller Tamron and Tokina did so as well, maybe again even earlier than Sigma, but then they didn't tell the press like Sigma did.

@polacofede It surely does work fine for you, but it will stop feeling "fine" at the very moment you try a better system.

"not sure how to understand that situation. how the camera knows the decisive moment has happened? really no clue what that phrase means."

Hope this little video will help you to understand what the decisive moment in every-day photography is. I doubt K1 will give you any usable photos at all in this situation, may be one or two when the girl freezes for a second or may be when K1 is too slow to detect the movement and will accidentally take a photo of a girl moving back to where K1's focus was few seconds ago.

You get as many as you want with Sony. All sharp.

https://youtu.be/u-1SRqVoksA

@tinetz Looks like you are now advocating Pentax AF being closer to manual focus of rangefinders than to the 21st century eye-AF technology. Well, we are making a good progress; if you look at my posts above you will actually see me saying that "Pentax is a poor man Leica", so we are in alignment here, though I still think Penta'x AF is a bit better.

Anyway, trying to win an argument by personal attacks on the opponent is a well know Ad Hominem fallacy. It normally indicates that either a lack of valid arguments or a simple lack of ability to maintain an intelligent conversation without being offended by losing the argument.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-ad-hominem/

So, I normally don't return such favors but it is " getting so cute" here, as you said... Shouldn't you learn how to spell HCB's name before you start quoting him? Let's see how long will it take you to spot your mistake. ;)

i think you are attacking a strawman here, i never said Pentax K-1 af system was on par with sony eyefocus tracking or class lead or anything similar.
Just said, it was pretty able to focus in low light, that meant pointing to an object in low light and focusing on it. If K-1 af capabilities is enough for your kind of photography is a different matter.
As a K-1 user, i find it more than enough for me for family moments, bif, wildlife, landscape, street, astro. if they improve AF in upcoming models that would be great, it has lot of room to improve, but that's totally different than saying AF is broken / useless.
That said, i guess i have nothing else to add to this non productive thread.

I find it so cute, that HCB (or sometimes also Ansel Adams) are always pulled out of the hat, as the last line of self-defense when someone lost an argument. Essentially it sais, "my camera, e.g. its autofocus, is so miserable, it is in the league of decades old MF camera technology of some old photographic heros".

This is the mis-perception, that a photo can be good either technically, or content-wise, but never both. So that these two properties would be mutually exclusive. However, this is not the case. A photo can be good content-wise AND technically. So I think it is always a good idea to have good camera technology which takes care of the technical side of image quality (such as focus precision).

And preferably technology which doesn't hinder you to make superior content (e.g. not hindered by a sluggish Pentax AF-S, which makes you lose decisive moments, making the image content worse).

Eye-AF is actually a very special advancement in photo history, because it also affects the quality of content directly. This is because it frees the photographer from being captured in his tunnel vision of checking and controlling his camera's focusing job. Instead, now he is freed for free interaction with his subjects, and he can direct his attention towards content and creativity directly. This is a major change and breakthrough in the way, how pople photography takes place. Maybe more revolutionary than the invention of the classical AF.

I'm just explaining some basics here. Outside of the Pentax fan bubble, people know that stuff already, so it's not worth setting up a vlog ;)
A hard-core Pentaxian is just like someone who has been driven a Ford model T (the Tin Lizzy of 1908) all his life, and sais, "that is the perfect car experience in terms of luxury and safety for me, and it gets me everywhere I want to. I couldn't imagine any reason, how a car could ever be better than that".
I believe, sometimes it is worth just telling, that the world has moved on a little by now ;)

There has been some discussion of the differences over on Pentaxforums, and since you are a member there, why not check it out?

@TheRealYeats
I tend to gather info from as many sources as possible, and am very wary of the "echo chamber" phenomenon.
This site here is - if anything - pro-everything-else, so pro-Pentax bias is not an issue :-P
When I have a "pro" and a "con" opinion, I can then form my own with much greater objectivity.

Pentax version has focus limiter instead of optical stabilizer. It also focuses much faster than the Tamron, as AF system is not reverse engineered.

The elements are the very same, although named differently for Pentax. You cannot just change a single lens type inside a lens without adjusting everything.
So differences are mainly coating, focus limiter, and missing image stabilization.
AF motor is the same, just a different protocol. I did not test it, but I would not expect it to be faster on Pentax, as other lenses by Tamron focus faster at Nikon bodies than the Pentax lenses.

Yep, many shots have intentionally high apertures because we're demonstrating every available aperture of the lens, among other things. And with a limit to how many shots can meaningfully go in the gallery -- nobody has time to sift through hundreds of them -- I had to use much narrower apertures than I'd ordinarily choose for some subjects.

@Mike Tomkins

Nobody shoots at f20-f22 because of diffractions, not sure why this gallery has so many of these. Most of the shots are done between wide-open and f8/f11 so all the blurry shots at f/22 aren't that useful for uncovering the true lens capabilities.

May be the AF wasn't good and it was a cheap trick to keep everything in focus. well it didn't add to the sharpness.

But then again, photos of the race at at 100-200mm with shutter speeds of 1/80-1/100 makes me think the photographer lacks some basic training.

@il_alexk: I've said as much elsewhere in these comments, but briefly, one of the requirements of my brief for the gallery was to provide shots at *every* aperture, so I had to shoot numerous subjects at apertures I wouldn't ordinarily choose myself.

As for the go-kart shots at low shutter speeds, that was quite intentional to emphasize motion. Sure, high shutter speeds would get everything sharper, but they'd also present the illusion that the karts were actually stationary.

@Mike, Honestly, a photo of a fast gokart 1/80, f20 is absolutely pointless for demosntrting the quality of the lens.

Similarly, the photo of the man on a bench. F22, ISO 6400? Everything is so noisy, that it's not clear where the AF is and if the result is blurry because of the lens or because of the AF, high ISO, difractions or all of the above.

Could you simply find a simple target like a brick wall, a building and shoot the same thing at all apertures? Then a few portraits wide open, a few landscapes at f8, job done.

That'd already be 20-ish shots of the exact same thing, and I'm also supposed to show shots across the entire focal range, shots with different kinds of flare, bokeh, etc., etc. And still stay within a manageable size for the gallery. And preferably, be attractive / visually interesting / represent the varied kinds of photos people are likely to be shooting themselves, too.

Realistically, I can't please everyone and also make a gallery that's not in the hundreds of shots that nobody has the time to sift through. I'm very happy to take the feedback onboard (and indeed, will be doing so), but I can't promise you'll personally be happy with every shot in every gallery, I'm afraid.

@Mike The proof is in the pudding. Had you come up with nice sharp images nobody would care what was your strategy behind matching apertures and shutter speeds. But as I said, blurry photos at slow shutter speeds, high ISOs and difractions combined together into the same image are not fit for purpose of providing a useful information about the lens.

Anway, it was ok for Tamron 70-180/2.8 samples to have the same object to be shot at all apertures. It was also ok to have 144 photos int the Leica Q2 samples gallery. So I am also not sure I understand why you chose to impose such strict restrictions on your own samples.

@alexk I agree 100% with what you said. @Mike if you defend yourself like that, by looking for all kinds of excuses afterwards why those and those pictures are so bad... ...then you also admit that you've done your job very badly and uninterestedly. There are some good photographers here, Mike, who take a critical look at your work, a sensible person can admit that he or she makes mistakes. And you've really made a mess of this, I can't put it any other way. Even that picture of that door is out of focus. How do you get it done? I don't think Pentax is happy with your work.

I am indeed freelancing for DPR these days. Thanks for the kind words, @Photodog2!

@DheelBoy: Correct, I've personally shot Pentax ever since switching to them when they launched the K-7. I also own cameras from other brands as well, but have quite an investment in the K-mount now, and prefer DSLR ergonomics over mirrorless -- I'm 6'1" and have huge hands -- so I'm not likely to change mounts in the foreseeable future.

Oh, and thanks for the kind words!

To make such photos one does not need a "Pentax expert". Pentax cameras are quite simple to use, nothing much you can do wrong when following the general technical rules and bits all brands' cameras have in common.

Yep, my brief for the gallery was (in part) to include shots at every available aperture, as well as the entire focal range and with a variety of subjects / showing specific attributes like bokeh, flare, etc. That's a lot to manage and even though I filed close to double the requested number of shots, I still had to use much narrower apertures than I'd ordinarily have chosen for many of them.

@JasonTheBirder
iin other words 80.4% arent un the usual aperatures

My brief for the gallery was to get shots at *every* aperture, as well as across the entire focal range of the lens, and also demonstrating a variety of specific characteristics of the lens, and with a variety of different subjects too.

That's a *lot* to capture in a single gallery, and so out of necessity I had to include a lot of shots at apertures I wouldn't ordinarily use with those subjects. I submitted close to double the number of images requested (and honestly, struggled to whittle it down to that number), and the DPR team whittled it down a bit more.

Edit: Oh, and the go kart shots were among the very last I shot, so in part some of those were at narrow apertures simply because I needed more shots to choose from for those specific apertures.

Thank you Mike. This is what always impresses me about DP Review, the staff always takes time to explain the method behind the madness. Just one of the reasons DPR has informed and influenced my photography purchases more than any other website.