=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: 24/2.8K (was: Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...=
))?=
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
Thanks!
I just wonder if A24/2.8 is better or not. If using with modern bodies it pays to buy
A version since advanced metering is available.
Alek
Użytkownik Paul Franklin Stregevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
>I agree with Jonathan on all his points, especially regarding the 24/2.8K's
>contrast and saturation. Back in 2000, I believe, I voted the SMC 24/2.8K my
>favorite lens, adding that it makes me look like a better photographer than
>I am. Yesterday I mentioned that I sold it, and my Zenitar 20/2.5K, when I
>decided to compromise on a Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8K whose real focal length
>appears to be 22mm. Parting was painful, but happily the winning bidder
>lived in Hong Kong, where, he said, he was unable to find the 24/2.8K. I was
>happy I could transfer it to a happy new owner.
>
>Alek wrote:
> >How do you assess K24/2.8 lens?
>
>Jonathan Donald replied:
>I have not done technical tests of any of my lenses, but my impressions and
>observations of this lens under "real world" use are as follows:
>
>Under magnification, it is not as sharp wide open in the corners as my K
>5/3.5, (albeit 2.8 vs. 3.5). I imagine that this trend continues if examined
>under a microscope, but I find it to be visually very sharp at f4 and above.
>This is complimented by the fact that it has very nice, brilliant, color
>rendition and a ton of contrast. The images ~look~ very crisp with fine
>detail. I am also amazed at how resistent to flare this lens is. It usually
>exhibits those little repeating pentagons ("ghosting" I guess) under really
>bad lighting angles but dosen't tend to flare with the bright haze that
>ruins the whole image. I have used it a number of times to make diffraction
>sun-stars and the like with excellent results.
>
>Lens tests aside, I love this lens and consider it to be an awesome 24mm. I
>would not trade it for the FA* 24/2 because of the weight difference and
>fine build quality and feel of the K 24mm. It is easy to hyperfocal, and
>generally fast enough for most situations. It is my favorite wide angle, and
>probably my most used lens. Period.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
24/2.8K (was: Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...))
I agree with Jonathan on all his points, especially regarding the 24/2.8K's
contrast and saturation. Back in 2000, I believe, I voted the SMC 24/2.8K my
favorite lens, adding that it makes me look like a better photographer than
I am. Yesterday I mentioned that I sold it, and my Zenitar 20/2.5K, when I
decided to compromise on a Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8K whose real focal length
appears to be 22mm. Parting was painful, but happily the winning bidder
lived in Hong Kong, where, he said, he was unable to find the 24/2.8K. I was
happy I could transfer it to a happy new owner.
Alek wrote:
>How do you assess K24/2.8 lens?
Jonathan Donald replied:
I have not done technical tests of any of my lenses, but my impressions and
observations of this lens under "real world" use are as follows:
Under magnification, it is not as sharp wide open in the corners as my K
5/3.5, (albeit 2.8 vs. 3.5). I imagine that this trend continues if examined
under a microscope, but I find it to be visually very sharp at f4 and above.
This is complimented by the fact that it has very nice, brilliant, color
rendition and a ton of contrast. The images ~look~ very crisp with fine
detail. I am also amazed at how resistent to flare this lens is. It usually
exhibits those little repeating pentagons ("ghosting" I guess) under really
bad lighting angles but dosen't tend to flare with the bright haze that
ruins the whole image. I have used it a number of times to make diffraction
sun-stars and the like with excellent results.
Lens tests aside, I love this lens and consider it to be an awesome 24mm. I
would not trade it for the FA* 24/2 because of the weight difference and
fine build quality and feel of the K 24mm. It is easy to hyperfocal, and
generally fast enough for most situations. It is my favorite wide angle, and
probably my most used lens. Period.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
How do you assess K24/2.8 lens? Alek Użytkownik Jonathan Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >I will second the comments Andre made concerning the K >35/3.5. It is one hell of a sharp lens with >practically no flare at all. I have comtemplated >replacing it with one of Pentax's f2 versions, but I >can't really justify two 35's and I'm NOT getting rid >of my K 35/3.5. It is the lightest of their 35's, >albeit slightly larger than the M/A types. The slow >speed is somewhat compensated for by the fact that it >is still amazingly sharp at full aperture. > >I find myself using this lens more and more for the >fine detail and overall brilliance of the pictures it >produces. It is well worth the $95 USD that I paid for >it in like new condition. Admittedly I use my K 24/2.8 >far more often because I like its angle of view and >brighter image in the finder, but the K 35/3.5 ~is~ >indeed in an a special optical class above most other >lenses I've used. > >-Jonathan- > >__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Święta tuż tuż! http://swieta.onet.pl
Re: Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
Hi, I own M35/2.8 and just wondered if K35/3.5 or 2.0 is much better to re-sell M version and think about any other K or FA 35mm. Now I am waiting what Pentax does with digital. maybe it would not pay to stick with him. KSMC 135/2.5 is really very nice performer. I bought it like new in Vienna one year ago for only 40$!!! I was very lucky. Cheers, Alek Użytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Alek, it's hard to compare 2 different lenses like the 35/3.5 and the 135/3.5. > >I have been very well served by the 135/2.5 (in black & white). And >also by the 35/3.5 for the few shots (maybe 20) I took with it. I >have not checked the negatives with a microscope and don't think I >will ever do it as I react to the photographs "globally": are they >interesting or not? > >There are a few factors that can make a photo look uninteresting (bad >timimg, bad composition, flare, etc.) and they are overwhelming >compared to qualities like definition, because all those lenses we >are talking about have a very good resolving power. The difference >between them is very small. > >35/3.5 has indeed a very high resolving power, it is a known fact, so >if you intend to do big enlargments, it might be better to have a bit >more definition (100 lines compared to 80). > >But it could be more important to try to fix other important >parameters like using best lens aperture (and a tripod) or fast >enough speed (if without a tripod), or using a hood (not necessary >with the 35/3.5). > >You can make a photo for the front page of a magazine with 35/3.5 but >also with the supposedly worse 28/2.8 (M or A). These two are still >very good lenses. > >If Salgado got his Leica gear robbed and used,for a few days (before >getting new gear), a locally found Spotmatic + 55/2, he would make as >nice photos and most people wouldn't notice a difference (unless they >knew about it -- a kind of placebo effect...). > >But I understand you would like to grab the best for your photo bag >and feel confident because of that. It's not a bad idea. > >So, do yourself a favor, buy the 35/3.5 and know you can use it at >any aperture and against the light source, and go for the pic, the >one your friends will remember. > >Kind regards, > >Andre > >>Is K35/3.5 better than your K135/2.5? I also own it and wonder. >>Alek >>Uzytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa?: Andre wrote: > Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the > highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot > lights in front of you. But rather big and slow. How is it wide open? Pl´l >>> >>>I used it twice during shows with spot lights in front of me, wide >>>open (with Tri-X at 1000) and still no flare and good contrast. I >>>don't think I have scanned at 2700 dpi any of the photos I did with >>>this lens in order to really check definition. (I took most photos >>>with a 85/1.8 and a 135/2.5). >>> >>>The ultimate test would be a slow slide scanned at 4000 dpi. Anyway, >>>it is probably one of the safest lens to use wide open. In the same >>>league as recent FA wide angles. >>> >>>Andre >>>-- >>> >>--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- >> >>Masz dos´c´ p?acenia prowizji bankowi ? >>mBank - za?óz konto >>http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > >-- > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Święta tuż tuż! http://swieta.onet.pl
Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
Alek, it's hard to compare 2 different lenses like the 35/3.5 and the 135/3.5. I have been very well served by the 135/2.5 (in black & white). And also by the 35/3.5 for the few shots (maybe 20) I took with it. I have not checked the negatives with a microscope and don't think I will ever do it as I react to the photographs "globally": are they interesting or not? There are a few factors that can make a photo look uninteresting (bad timimg, bad composition, flare, etc.) and they are overwhelming compared to qualities like definition, because all those lenses we are talking about have a very good resolving power. The difference between them is very small. 35/3.5 has indeed a very high resolving power, it is a known fact, so if you intend to do big enlargments, it might be better to have a bit more definition (100 lines compared to 80). But it could be more important to try to fix other important parameters like using best lens aperture (and a tripod) or fast enough speed (if without a tripod), or using a hood (not necessary with the 35/3.5). You can make a photo for the front page of a magazine with 35/3.5 but also with the supposedly worse 28/2.8 (M or A). These two are still very good lenses. If Salgado got his Leica gear robbed and used,for a few days (before getting new gear), a locally found Spotmatic + 55/2, he would make as nice photos and most people wouldn't notice a difference (unless they knew about it -- a kind of placebo effect...). But I understand you would like to grab the best for your photo bag and feel confident because of that. It's not a bad idea. So, do yourself a favor, buy the 35/3.5 and know you can use it at any aperture and against the light source, and go for the pic, the one your friends will remember. Kind regards, Andre Is K35/3.5 better than your K135/2.5? I also own it and wonder. Alek Uzytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa?: Andre wrote: Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot lights in front of you. But rather big and slow. How is it wide open? Pl´l I used it twice during shows with spot lights in front of me, wide open (with Tri-X at 1000) and still no flare and good contrast. I don't think I have scanned at 2700 dpi any of the photos I did with this lens in order to really check definition. (I took most photos with a 85/1.8 and a 135/2.5). The ultimate test would be a slow slide scanned at 4000 dpi. Anyway, it is probably one of the safest lens to use wide open. In the same league as recent FA wide angles. Andre -- --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dos´c´ p?acenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za?óz konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank --
Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
So it is better to find FA 35/2.0, or old K 35mm I hope Alek Użytkownik Pal Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Alek wrote: > > >> And it was M35/2.8 lens for sure? test was done about 15 year ago I think. >> Even better than Zeiss? I asked since many people believe K 35mm lenses are >alegedly much better. > > >I find this a bit weird as I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the M 35/2.8 is >optically identical to the A 35/2.8, the latter among Pentax weaker efforts (probably >in the league with the A 28/2.8 and A 135/2.8 lenses). According to tests I've seen >the A 35/2 is apparently even worse. > > >Pal > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
But in Yoshihiko test there is small difference and when I asked him about these lenses he recommended K ones, K35/3.5 and K35/2.0, according to him much better! And new FA35/2.0 is probably very good lens. Alek Użytkownik Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>I find this a bit weird as I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the M >>35/2.8 is optically identical to the A 35/2.8, the latter among >>Pentax weaker efforts (probably in the league with the A 28/2.8 and >>A 135/2.8 lenses). According to tests I've seen the A 35/2 is >>apparently even worse. >Pal > >>And it was M35/2.8 lens for sure? test was done about 15 year ago I think. >>Even better than Zeiss? I asked since many people believe K 35mm >>lenses are alegedly much better. >>Alek > >The K lenses were not part of the "competition" as they had been, at >that time, discontinued. > >Now, again, "much better"? Certainly not. The difference between >these lenses are small. See for yourself: > >http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html > >M35/2.8 is better than K35/2 almost everywhere. But all these >differences are small and may vary from one lens to another. If the >test was done on 5 lenses of each, we would have a better picture... > >I personnally prefer K lenses because they handle better (I have >quite big hands). But if I travel, I use M lenses. The difference >between these lenses optically is very small. > >Having said that, K35/3.5 is in a special class. It is one of the >highest resolution lens ever made, and have no flare even with spot >lights in front of you. But rather big and slow. > >Andre >-- > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
