•  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
HD PENTAX-D FA 21mm F2.4ED Limited DC WR announced
#41
(10-17-2021, 06:08 PM)Rover Wrote: LOL, I'm not sure what (still) gives you an idea that anyone builds lenses "for lab testing". Big Grin There are millions of users and only two of them are Klaus and Markus. Smile It's that different designers choose different things to prioritize within the bracket given to them by their superiors, and when they're allowed not to hold back in any way we're getting something like the Sigma 40/1.4 Art. Big Grin
Nonsense, I never said they're built for lab testing. I said I have the impression they're optimized for test charts and reviews; that is, made to get peak results in such tests. Which is an understandable prioritization; but lenses purposely built for a more uniform performance (at a higher cost) won't get extra points.
Instead of just a few reviewers, you should think of the people reading the reviews. And we're back to the million of users.

(10-17-2021, 06:08 PM)Rover Wrote: Of course film was more forgiving and many lenses considered decent in that era tanked immediately after they started being used on digital, especially high pixel density. I have three holdovers from the film era in my kit (mind you, I never shot film, it's just these lenses are of the mid- to late-90s designs), and I wouldn't want to see how badly at least two of them would be annihilated by a modern FF sensor (actually I've seen what happens to one, cursorily, and it wasn't pretty). Smile
The FA Limiteds did reasonably well for film lenses, IMO. The 31mm in particular. It's not like the "digital" lenses are automatically better.
But not long ago - and I did mention that - everyone upped their game at lens design, and even older "digital" lenses aren't quite up to par.

(10-17-2021, 06:08 PM)Rover Wrote: Well speaking of replacements... there was that Pentax 50/1.4 and, last I checked, even the 85/1.4 but I'm not sure if the latter has become available, and in any case, they don't look like direct replacements.
Direct replacement to what? The D FA* 50mm had no predecessor, as the previous 50mm lenses were budget oriented; the D FA* 85mm can be said to be a successor for the FA* 85mm f/1.4 but there was quite a gap between the FA* being discontinued to the introduction of the D FA*.
Both are in the market, the 85mm for more than a year. Both are excellent.

(10-17-2021, 06:08 PM)Rover Wrote: Somehow I don't see Klaus returning to test Pentax DSLR gear. Sad
Yeah, too bad about that.
#42
You are right, Kuznite, I lied. I wrote that the Sony is much cheaper (almost 1/3rd of the price), when I should have written that it is cheaper more than 1/3rd of the price. I should have checked that the Sony is even cheaper..  Big Grin

I am with  Rover, built in hoods are a bit silly, for a very obvious reason. Hoods have a protective role against impact, next to protecting the front element from bright light from outside the FOV. When you ding or break an add on hood, you can just replace it easily. When you ding the built in hood, you have to get the lens repaired. Luckily I have not had my 135mm Nikkor with built in hood get into an accident (it has a built in hood), but my 70-200mm Canon's hood saved my lens when I dropped the lens, and only the hood needed replacing.

And why I make fun of Pentax' misuse of the word "limited"? Because the word actually means something. And the way Pentax now caries it is silly. You could use it as a nickname just fine?
#43
Wink 
(10-18-2021, 06:57 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: I am with  Rover, built in hoods are a bit silly, for a very obvious reason. Hoods have a protective role against impact, next to protecting the front element from bright light from outside the FOV. When you ding or break an add on hood, you can just replace it easily. When you ding the built in hood, you have to get the lens repaired. Luckily I have not had my 135mm Nikkor with built in hood get into an accident (it has a built in hood), but my 70-200mm Canon's hood saved my lens when I dropped the lens, and only the hood needed replacing.
The main reason to use a hood is to avoid flare and this is exactly why I use my lenses' hoods for [Image: wink.png]
I've never banged a hood or replaced one due to damage.
I'm not sure what you guys you do with your gear, wrestling or Spartan races maybe? [Image: biggrin.png]
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#44
(10-18-2021, 06:57 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are right, Kuznite, I lied. I wrote that the Sony is much cheaper (almost 1/3rd of the price), when I should have written that it is cheaper more than 1/3rd of the price. I should have checked that the Sony is even cheaper..  Big Grin
 
    No, this is not lying ...... this is a small error !! 
  
   A decent response for such an error ...... (if it was one?) .......would be to point out the mistake and correct it .... without any slants .....

 ........ apart from anything else we know nothing other than what Pentax's publicity team have published ....... and I have seen quite a few pre marketing errors from them when I was shooting Pentax ....... 
 ......... note I said errors not lies .....

It's worth remembering that unfounded accusations of lying can be subject to civil court proceedings .......
Dave's clichés
#45
(10-18-2021, 08:26 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(10-18-2021, 06:57 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: I am with  Rover, built in hoods are a bit silly, for a very obvious reason. Hoods have a protective role against impact, next to protecting the front element from bright light from outside the FOV. When you ding or break an add on hood, you can just replace it easily. When you ding the built in hood, you have to get the lens repaired. Luckily I have not had my 135mm Nikkor with built in hood get into an accident (it has a built in hood), but my 70-200mm Canon's hood saved my lens when I dropped the lens, and only the hood needed replacing.
The main reason to use a hood is to avoid flare and this is exactly why I use my lenses' hoods for [Image: wink.png]
I've never banged a hood or replaced one due to damage.
I'm not sure what you guys you do with your gear, wrestling or Spartan races maybe? [Image: biggrin.png]
With long years of working in the field, or even without one, stuff tends to be dropped or banged around something. In my time, I've needed repairs for impact damage 4 or 5 times, and had at least three smashed filters. Several more with glass knocked out of alignment within the frame.

Just today when shooting on a construction site I've seen the gate swing with the wind and do a nasty thing on a chick photographer. She ended up knocked off her feet, bruised and at least the filter on her Nikon 24-70/2.8 got blown to smithereens. Maybe the lens is damaged too. Smartphone screen also likely smashed. The D4 (or similar) body has, conversely, blown a hole in the pavement, in all likelihood. Smile She had no hood on the lens.
#46
In my case, I was just changing lenses and was a bit careless where I rested the 70-200mm while doing that, so it dropped to the concrete. Yay for the plastic detachable hood!
#47
(10-18-2021, 06:57 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: And why I make fun of Pentax' misuse of the word "limited"?
Because you're a troll.

(10-18-2021, 08:58 AM)davidmanze Wrote: No, this is not lying ...... this is a small error !! 
  
   A decent response for such an error ...... (if it was one?) .......would be to point out the mistake and correct it .... without any slants .....
The difference between an error and a lie is the author's ability to admit his mistakes. If he doesn't, it's a lie. If, when pointed to facts, he attacks, it's a lie.
Such is the case with insisting the Sony does not rely on software corrections (it does, for vignetting), or how samples were not available (they were).

(10-18-2021, 08:58 AM)davidmanze Wrote: It's worth remembering that unfounded accusations of lying can be subject to civil court proceedings .......
Sue me then.

(10-18-2021, 06:57 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are right, Kuznite, I lied.
[...] You could use it as a nickname just fine?
Speaking of nicknames, you continue to misspell mine.
If it's to complicated, just don't write it, OK? Since you're quoting me it'll be fine.
#48
(10-18-2021, 09:05 AM)Rover Wrote: With long years of working in the field, or even without one, stuff tends to be dropped or banged around something. In my time, I've needed repairs for impact damage 4 or 5 times, and had at least three smashed filters. Several more with glass knocked out of alignment within the frame.

Just today when shooting on a construction site I've seen the gate swing with the wind and do a nasty thing on a chick photographer. She ended up knocked off her feet, bruised and at least the filter on her Nikon 24-70/2.8 got blown to smithereens. Maybe the lens is damaged too. Smartphone screen also likely smashed. The D4 (or similar) body has, conversely, blown a hole in the pavement, in all likelihood. Smile She had no hood on the lens.

For your particular use, a traditional removable hood makes more sense, indeed. Much cheaper to replace.
However, for more mainstream uses, I really think built-in hoods are very convenient.

Like when buying a car, we need customizable cameras and lenses at the time of purchase ;-)
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#49
Lol kuznite.

I pointed out that Sony is not relying on digital corrections, that it is not a function of a under-engineered lens but rather a function of it being wide angle and the angle the light rays hit the sensor.
"If, when pointed to facts, he attacks, it's a lie." You silly LIAR.
#50
(10-19-2021, 06:44 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(10-18-2021, 09:05 AM)Rover Wrote: With long years of working in the field, or even without one, stuff tends to be dropped or banged around something. In my time, I've needed repairs for impact damage 4 or 5 times, and had at least three smashed filters. Several more with glass knocked out of alignment within the frame.

Just today when shooting on a construction site I've seen the gate swing with the wind and do a nasty thing on a chick photographer. She ended up knocked off her feet, bruised and at least the filter on her Nikon 24-70/2.8 got blown to smithereens. Maybe the lens is damaged too. Smartphone screen also likely smashed. The D4 (or similar) body has, conversely, blown a hole in the pavement, in all likelihood. Smile She had no hood on the lens.

For your particular use, a traditional removable hood makes more sense, indeed. Much cheaper to replace.
However, for more mainstream uses, I really think built-in hoods are very convenient.

Like when buying a car, we need customizable cameras and lenses at the time of purchase ;-)

 When staying in Barcelona a youth tried to steal my camera from my bag, the Samsung GX10 as it was then (Pentax K10) .........  fell to the ground, luckily onto the front of the lens-hood ...... I studied for damage and there was just a scuff on the lens-hood ........
  Realistically if you can afford the DA* 21mm F2.4 ....... and it gets dropped and bends the aluminium hood and barrel, rendering the lens unusable , no worries, it's likely you have the money to have the barrel and integrated hood assembly replaced ...... !

I mean that's what service departments are there for ..... isn't it ??

   dave's clichés
Dave's clichés
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
3 Guest(s)