Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 5 Jul 2004 at 12:22, Arnold Stark wrote: Hi, I confirm that wide open the FA43 is as sharp as the other Pentax normal lenses. Stopped down to f5.6-11 it is on the same level, too. However, at f2.8 an f4 it seems to be sharper. However, the magic of this lens is not only about sharpness, its compactness, or its build quality. The magic is also about the vividness and three-dimensionality of the images, the ghostless SMC coating, and the circular rendering of light sources at night. Plus it is the perfect match for my silver MZ-S. My current lens kit has been formed by a process of distillation and the 43mm LTD wasn't magic enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
RS My current lens kit has been formed by a process of distillation and the 43mm RS LTD wasn't magic enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black. De gustibus non est disputandum. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
So what is the lens that survived the distillation process in the 40-55mm focal length range? Actually, the choice of a lens depends much on the choice of the other lenses. If you like the 35/f2, the 43 would be too close, wouldn't it? If you have a 28mm wide-angle, the 43 fits much better. Naturally, the type of camera is important, too. Arnold Rob Studdert wrote: My current lens kit has been formed by a process of distillation and the 43mm LTD wasn't magic enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black.
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 5 Jul 2004 at 18:47, Arnold Stark wrote: So what is the lens that survived the distillation process in the 40-55mm focal length range? I retained the 31, and a series of 50mm lenses, the 43 would have filled a gap that really wasn't there for me photographically. 24mm is a problem FL for me now. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Rob wrote: The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Pål
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Pål, The problem with these people who put down a lens like this, is that if it isn't tack sharp wide open they can't find a reason to like it... People spend too much time comparing F stops. Obviously the F4 on a 50mm and the F4 on a 300mm are two completely different things in terms of light transmission... The 43 may be a touch soft wide-open, but it has other qualities that allow it to shine, not to mention that it is tack sharp stopped down. My honest opinion is that people who put down a lens like this have opinions that aren't worth trusting -That Guy -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 9:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90) Rob wrote: The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Pål
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Pål wrote: Rob wrote: The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Pål In fact ist is my favorite lens. I even dare to say that its characteristics are unique among standard lenses. Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
That Guy wrote: The problem with these people who put down a lens like this, is that if it isn't tack sharp wide open they can't find a reason to like it... Well, TG, it depends on how one uses the gear. I own several very high quality primes, and am considering others. I use them, though, mainly in low light, so I need them to be useable wide open. For shooting in adequate light I use very high quality zooms. I'll probably never buy the 43 because of its reputation for performance wide open. I do own the 31 and would like to get the 77. Prime users who shoot in normal light may have good reasons to love the 43. Joe
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Joseph wrote: Well, TG, it depends on how one uses the gear. I own several very high quality primes, and am considering others. I use them, though, mainly in low light, so I need them to be useable wide open. REPLY: This is an example where a minor criticsm is blown out of porpotion. I have used many Pentax prime lenses although I admit I haven't used them all. Of all fast Pentax lenses I've own the only ones clearly better wide open than the 43mm are the two other Limiteds. By Pentax standards the 43mm is very good wide open. And lets face it, Pentax lenses are known for being damn good except wide open. In this respect the 43mm follows Pentax tradition whereas the two other Limited lenses are atypical. Pål
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90) This is an example where a minor criticsm is blown out of porpotion. I have used many Pentax prime lenses although I admit I haven't used them all. Of all fast Pentax lenses I've own the only ones clearly better wide open than the 43mm are the two other Limiteds. By Pentax standards the 43mm is very good wide open. And lets face it, Pentax lenses are known for being damn good except wide open. In this respect the 43mm follows Pentax tradition whereas the two other Limited lenses are atypical. The 31 and 77 both pleasantly surprised me with their open aperture performance. I had gotten quite used to having to stop down a bit to get the best out of my lenses William Robb
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 4 Jul 2004 at 15:07, Pål Jensen wrote: Rob wrote: The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Well I do know what a good lens is so there must be extreme variation between pieces. It's got to have more redeeming qualities than to be sharp by f5.6 or to have a so called 3D quality to make it a good lens from my perspective. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
My honest opinion is that people who put down a lens like this have opinions that aren't worth trusting So you are the judge? Besides, almost all prime lenses are tack sharp when stopped down. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Right, the sharpest. Oh you meant FA43??? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Alan wrote: Besides, almost all prime lenses are tack sharp when stopped down. I just wish any of my other Pentax lenses were as sharp as the 43mm stopped down Pål
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Rob wrote: It's got to have more redeeming qualities than to be sharp by f5.6 or to have a so called 3D quality to make it a good lens from my perspective. Mine is tack sharp from F:2.8 and breathtaking from F:4 to F:8. Pål
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 5 Jul 2004 at 2:48, Pål Jensen wrote: Mine is tack sharp from F:2.8 and breathtaking from F:4 to F:8. OK, I've got some tack sharp lenses but I don't know if any of mine are breathtaking. Are the 31mm and 77mm LTD lenses also breathtaking stopped down? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Alan wrote: It is surprising they did not design the optics of the FA43 properly consider it is quite expensive, and their 50/1.7 is quite good. REPLY: Oh really? The 43 Limited is my favourite Pentax lens. It is a fantastic performer. It's wide open performance is not as good as the 31 or the 77 but similar to Pentax 50mm lenses. Pål
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
When it first came out the 43mm f/1.9 ltd was crowned as the world's best standard lens by Amateur Photographer in the UK, displacing their previous best, the Contax 50mm f/1.4 Planar. Nick -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03/07/04 12:40:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90) Alan wrote: It is surprising they did not design the optics of the FA43 properly consider it is quite expensive, and their 50/1.7 is quite good. REPLY: Oh really? The 43 Limited is my favourite Pentax lens. It is a fantastic performer. It's wide open performance is not as good as the 31 or the 77 but similar to Pentax 50mm lenses. Pål
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Other than the wide open sharpness (really a f2 lens in practice), distortion was a little high as well. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Oh really? The 43 Limited is my favourite Pentax lens. It is a fantastic performer. It's wide open performance is not as good as the 31 or the 77 but similar to Pentax 50mm lenses. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
But photodo CAPA Japan do not rate it that well. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan When it first came out the 43mm f/1.9 ltd was crowned as the world's best standard lens by Amateur Photographer in the UK, displacing their previous best, the Contax 50mm f/1.4 Planar. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco queried: How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. It handles fine. The zoom ring is quite large and easy. The focus ring seems fine to me. I don't have the FA 24-90 here, but my recollection is that the 24-90 may be smaller than the 16-45 at shortest length. I am not sure how they compare extended. They both have the extending barrel design, except that the 16-45 is shortest at its long end. The 16-45, anyway, is not a compact lens. I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that it is a constant f4.0. Joe
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Pretty much what I have felt about these 2 lenses too. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Hi guys and gals, I'm in the mood to purchase a 16-45, but I'd like to hear some first hand experiences from those who own it and made a side by side comparison with at least one of the lenses above. I recall somebody said that the 16-45 is definitely sharper than the 24-90 at similar FL, is it true? I'm mainly interested in the performance wide open. Another thing: the Italian importer has no 16-45 readily available, but I've found a shop in Naples that has a couple of *ist D and, among several lenses, at least a 16-45. They ask 469 Euro for the lens alone. Is it good? As usual, many thanks in advance. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
on 02.07.04 16:54, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys and gals, I'm in the mood to purchase a 16-45, but I'd like to hear some first hand experiences from those who own it and made a side by side comparison with at least one of the lenses above. I recall somebody said that the 16-45 is definitely sharper than the 24-90 at similar FL, is it true? I'm mainly interested in the performance wide open. Another thing: the Italian importer has no 16-45 readily available, but I've found a shop in Naples that has a couple of *ist D and, among several lenses, at least a 16-45. They ask 469 Euro for the lens alone. Is it good? As usual, many thanks in advance. Hi Giafranco, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). It is also worth looking at the tests of FA 43/1.9 limited, FA 35/2 and FA* 85/1.4 (on following page) and compare results. Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Joe
RE: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
The 43 is widely known to be soft wide-open -That Guy -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90 Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Giafranco, Hi Sylwek, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Thanks!! I was looking for something of that kind too. And I'm even able to read French... :-) Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). Good. I guess there is almost no alternative. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. Hi Joe, I too own the 20-35 and the Sigma EX 70-200. If it is in the same league I'll buy the 16-45 as soon as I can. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. I have found that the 24-90 is fine (in the centre, at least) wide open on the *ist D, although not extraordinary. The fact that it performs that well wide open is vry interesting, as I shot a lot wide open. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. That's good. How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Surprisingly, I thought that the price was a bit high; the shop where I saw the lens yesterday has almost only grey market stuff (the people were a bit rude too: they refused to show me the lens if I wasn't going to buy it). In another shop (where I ordered the lens at first, before the importer told us it was not available yet) the price was 415 Euro with the Italian warranty. Tough decisions... Thanks again for the enablement... :-) Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
