Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Thanks for all the feedback and especially the 'visual proof' Now the decision is the hard partcontendents (putting price aside for a moment) are: Pentax FA 20 - 35 Pentax 17-35 Tokina 20-35 f2.8 Sigma 20-40 f2.8 but it would be nice if it were Pentax.. thanks again Michele Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
MPozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the feedback and especially the 'visual proof' Now the decision is the hard partcontendents (putting price aside for a moment) are: Pentax FA 20 - 35 Pentax 17-35 Tokina 20-35 f2.8 Sigma 20-40 f2.8 Have you considered the Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4? Don't know anything about it myself but I've been ery impressed with the one EX series Sigma I own. I was considering the 17-35 but didn't like the 82mm filter thread because I already have an expensive collection of 77mm filters (and Canon and Nikon seem to be able to make *their* 17-35 zooms accept 77mm filters). -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
MPozzi wrote: No have not really considered the Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4 because I had seen some tests done with it and they did not really shine compered to the ones mentioned below. They were the users feedback from the photozone site, and MTF tests done on one of the magazines. Ah, glad to hear it! I didn't *want* to want this lens (mainly because of the filter size) so I'm pleased to learn it isn't very good. Unluckily, I haven't seen any actual pictures taken by that lens. I have 2 sigma ex and very happy with those, but the shortlis made below purposely left that sigma out in favour of its newer constant wide angle, the value for money and build quality of the Tokina and, well, Pentax ìcos its Pentax! Now if only Pentax would make a 17-35 (rectilinear) zoom... -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. The only reason I see for choosing the Pentax over this is flare protection. Weigh this up against the wider range and aperture and its a tough choce though... If you look on http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html you will see the 20-35 slightly ahead, but the Pentax 17-35 behind. You will notice also that the Tokina 20-35 2.8 is lower still, behind even the 'non-pro' tokina 3.5! Check out the reviews on www.photographyreview.com , but with Sigma bear in mind that some people just plain dont want to like the company either because of older experiences with cheap consumer lenses or personal bias due to the name (bit like Skoda - nice cars now, but do you want to be seen with one?). Still this lens gets great reviews... -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 March 2002 14:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF MPozzi wrote: No have not really considered the Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4 because I had seen some tests done with it and they did not really shine compered to the ones mentioned below. They were the users feedback from the photozone site, and MTF tests done on one of the magazines. Ah, glad to hear it! I didn't *want* to want this lens (mainly because of the filter size) so I'm pleased to learn it isn't very good. Unluckily, I haven't seen any actual pictures taken by that lens. I have 2 sigma ex and very happy with those, but the shortlis made below purposely left that sigma out in favour of its newer constant wide angle, the value for money and build quality of the Tokina and, well, Pentax ìcos its Pentax! Now if only Pentax would make a 17-35 (rectilinear) zoom... -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
I am not sure it isn't very good, however it is not as good as the others I feel... however, when price sets in, I believe Out goes the Sigma 20-40 Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
On 6 Mar 2002 at 15:03, Rob Brigham wrote: I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. I find this hard to believe. The Pentax FA 20-35/4 is on par (at least) with any other lens I own, and that includes some star lenses and Limiteds. I regular make 8x10's and 11x14's from shots taken wide open. It's very sharp. Having said that, there was a report a couple years ago stating that there were some sample variation problems. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Fair enough comment about the Sigma, as I said, I have no experience with this (or any lenses) just go by what I read on mage and this list and saw (eg tom's pics) which seemed very shap indeed, across tha whole frame, at least good enough for me. Michele Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
I didnt say the Pantax wasnt good - but so is the Sigma. Its a toss up between a wider angle and aperture and SMC protection. Thus your choice depends on your personal criteria. -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 March 2002 15:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF On 6 Mar 2002 at 15:03, Rob Brigham wrote: I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. I find this hard to believe. The Pentax FA 20-35/4 is on par (at least) with any other lens I own, and that includes some star lenses and Limiteds. I regular make 8x10's and 11x14's from shots taken wide open. It's very sharp. Having said that, there was a report a couple years ago stating that there were some sample variation problems. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
On 6 Mar 2002 at 16:05, Rob Brigham wrote: I didnt say the Pantax wasnt good - but so is the Sigma. You said, The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax, although the edges tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
At 03:03 PM 3/6/02 +, you wrote: I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. The only reason I see for choosing the Pentax over this is flare protection. Weigh this up against the wider range and aperture and its a tough choce though... I just took a quick look and was surprised to see that Sigma has a lot of offerings in the ultra wide angle zoom category - 15 - 30, 17 - 35, and 20 - 40. Flare control is a major issue for me and I have confidence in the FA 20 - 35 on that point, but the two Sigma EX's I (70 - 200 f2.8 and 50 f2.8 macro) do quite well in the flare dept. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Michele wonders Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was wondring how these 2 lenses fared. If you get in close enough for a short focus distance and use a wide enough aperture, even a fisheye will go out of focus behind the subject. Whether such positioning and apertures will give the desired result can only be determined by looking thru the viewfinder - such an arrangment may well produce a more abstract/perspective distorted image than you may desire. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF increases with increased angles Of course the level of blur or 'bokeh'(i believe)is subjective, I just wanted to knoe whether it is somewhat achieveabke, say equivalent to an f4 on a 50mm, or f5.6? etc. --- Bill D. Casselberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michele wonders Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was wondring how these 2 lenses fared. If you get in close enough for a short focus distance and use a wide enough aperture, even a fisheye will go out of focus behind the subject. Whether such positioning and apertures will give the desired result can only be determined by looking thru the viewfinder - such an arrangment may well produce a more abstract/perspective distorted image than you may desire. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Michele, You stand a better chance of doing what you want with a f/2.8 constant aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8 lenses at those focal lengths are pretty expensive. Not that the FA 20-35 f/4 is exactly cheap, either. If cost is a major consideration, you could go with a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 and save a lot of money. Don't like fisheyes? Correct the perspective with PhotoShop, assuming that you have a scanner and a computer available. Len --- -Original Message- From: MPozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF Sorry to interject but as someone's already asked about this lens (which I am really interested in) I am also curious about the depth of field for FA 20 - 35 in particular, but also the 17-35. Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was wondring how these 2 lenses fared. Michele - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Fisheye is fine, but for the work I do, The wide angle zoom would be better. --- Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michele, You stand a better chance of doing what you want with a f/2.8 constant aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8 lenses at those focal lengths are pretty expensive. Not that the FA 20-35 f/4 is exactly cheap, either. If cost is a major consideration, you could go with a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 and save a lot of money. Don't like fisheyes? Correct the perspective with PhotoShop, assuming that you have a scanner and a computer available. Len --- -Original Message- From: MPozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF Sorry to interject but as someone's already asked about this lens (which I am really interested in) I am also curious about the depth of field for FA 20 - 35 in particular, but also the 17-35. Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was wondring how these 2 lenses fared. Michele - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
On 5 Mar 2002 at 8:00, MPozzi wrote: Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF increases with increased angles It depends on how close to your subject you are and how far away the background is Here's a few examples, though I don't think they're all shot wide open: All the wide stuff on this page was shot with the 20-35: http://wwwbigdayphotocom/tom/derek/ (It's possible that *every* shot on that page is from that zoom) Here are some others: http://bigdayphotocom/tom/pow/week8html http://bigdayphotocom/tom/pow/week2html http://bigdayphotocom/tom/pow/week1html tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe, go to http://wwwpdmlnet and follow the directions Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pugkomkonorg
RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
I have the FA 20-35 f/4 and find it to be an excellent lens but, when I need the 35mm end, I switch to the FA 35 f/2. No question about achieving background blur with that one. Len --- -Original Message- From: MPozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF Fisheye is fine, but for the work I do, The wide angle zoom would be better. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF
Michele wrote ... Point taken Bill, thanks - but is the aperture on these lenses wide enough?, seeing that the DOF increases with increased angles My FishEye is an f4 and the 20mm is the infamous f4.5 Both will do this, although focus distance is, like, a foot or two. Not sure of apertures on lenses you are considering. DOF scales will tell the story, if they have them.... going to get my 24mm OK -- @ f4 and 4ft focus DOF from ~3ft to ~6ft and the infamous colored DOF markings give 4ft-infinity depth of field w/ f8 at 9ft focus distance Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
