04-16-2011, 08:35 AM
04-16-2011, 10:13 AM
With that "opener" ... I would expect something in the
quality of the EFS 18-135 ... a just about satisfying
everyday-lens ... no more ... but no less.
Since you emphasize that it is within factory specs ... I expect
to see abysmal bad corners at some focal length along
with hefty barrel distortion at the wide end plus vignetting.
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
quality of the EFS 18-135 ... a just about satisfying
everyday-lens ... no more ... but no less.
Since you emphasize that it is within factory specs ... I expect
to see abysmal bad corners at some focal length along
with hefty barrel distortion at the wide end plus vignetting.
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
04-16-2011, 10:49 AM
Hi,
Ok, I now expect a performance on the level of the 50-200. Klaus when are you examining the 18-55 WR <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
The entire thing leaves me wondering about Pentax. Their K-7 and K-5 receive(d) very good reviews on various site, putting them clearly ahead of what I perceive are the key Nikon competirors (D90 / D7000). What these reviews never tell you, is which lenses you should use for theses Pentax bodies. I am under the impression that with the Nikons you have a choice of roughly 3 quality levels. At Pentax you might argue there are also 3 levels, but it seems to me it is 3 levels of "uncompetiviness" regarding price/performance.
Where, in my view Pentax has an edge is low light. Their in-body SR seems to be the worse system on offer, though if you team a Nikon with a f/1.4 lens you have none at all. For a standard zoom in the f/4 to f/5.6 range it seems the Nikon in lens system is superior.
Enough of a rant, here comes a question: Which "standard-zoom" lens would people recommend for a Pentax K-5 for someone who would choose either of the 18-105 or 16-85 in Nikon land. FYI: In my country the Pentax 17-70 is 30% more than the Nikon 16-85.
Ok, I now expect a performance on the level of the 50-200. Klaus when are you examining the 18-55 WR <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
The entire thing leaves me wondering about Pentax. Their K-7 and K-5 receive(d) very good reviews on various site, putting them clearly ahead of what I perceive are the key Nikon competirors (D90 / D7000). What these reviews never tell you, is which lenses you should use for theses Pentax bodies. I am under the impression that with the Nikons you have a choice of roughly 3 quality levels. At Pentax you might argue there are also 3 levels, but it seems to me it is 3 levels of "uncompetiviness" regarding price/performance.
Where, in my view Pentax has an edge is low light. Their in-body SR seems to be the worse system on offer, though if you team a Nikon with a f/1.4 lens you have none at all. For a standard zoom in the f/4 to f/5.6 range it seems the Nikon in lens system is superior.
Enough of a rant, here comes a question: Which "standard-zoom" lens would people recommend for a Pentax K-5 for someone who would choose either of the 18-105 or 16-85 in Nikon land. FYI: In my country the Pentax 17-70 is 30% more than the Nikon 16-85.
04-16-2011, 02:17 PM
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1302950992' post='7676']
Where, in my view Pentax has an edge is low light. Their in-body SR seems to be the worse system on offer, though if you team a Nikon with a f/1.4 lens you have none at all.
[/quote]
Pentax' SR doesn't seem to do well in tests, but in real-life it's superb.
[url="http://dave9t5.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v4/p843061584-5.jpg"]Example 1[/url]
Focal length:35 mm
Focal length (35mm):52 mm
Exposure:1/8 at f/2.8
Lens: Pentax DA 35/2.8 Macro Ltd
[url="http://dave9t5.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v3/p349656413-5.jpg"]Example 2[/url]
Focal length:85 mm
Focal length (35mm):127 mm
Exposure:1/10 at f/4
Lens: Voigtlaender APO-Lanthar 90m/3.5 SL
...and like you say, the best stabilization is the one you have with you. With in-body stabilization you always have it, like the Voigtlaender example above.
Where, in my view Pentax has an edge is low light. Their in-body SR seems to be the worse system on offer, though if you team a Nikon with a f/1.4 lens you have none at all.
[/quote]
Pentax' SR doesn't seem to do well in tests, but in real-life it's superb.
[url="http://dave9t5.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v4/p843061584-5.jpg"]Example 1[/url]
Focal length:35 mm
Focal length (35mm):52 mm
Exposure:1/8 at f/2.8
Lens: Pentax DA 35/2.8 Macro Ltd
[url="http://dave9t5.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v3/p349656413-5.jpg"]Example 2[/url]
Focal length:85 mm
Focal length (35mm):127 mm
Exposure:1/10 at f/4
Lens: Voigtlaender APO-Lanthar 90m/3.5 SL
...and like you say, the best stabilization is the one you have with you. With in-body stabilization you always have it, like the Voigtlaender example above.