news and confuse

Given our timing on several fronts, I let go of some lenses this past week.  Timing is personal (soon but not-yet home refinance = 1 more month of bills) and camera-specific (the 36×34 'full frame' nonsense will make people forget DA lenses, for a while, and old coatings are getting to me).

So farewell to the not-quite-mind-controlling DA15, the large and unused JCPenney 80-200; perhaps the 24, 100 and 180 will follow but no strong bites yet.  When I need small the K-s1 and 18-55 will cover the bases, with 55-300 for long shots and the Sigma 18-50 for lowest light and video (its internal OS works better than digital stuff in Pentax cameras  for video).  For more bulk the K-r is still here, though I've also had a nibble on that.  Doing that deal would force my hand more quickly on the next body.

Coming next in lenses: ..well probably not the 16-85mm that the last post implied.  Maybe and maybe not.  The 20-40 LimiZoom has pushed its way back to the forefront as its 55mm filters step up easily to 58, which is the 55-300's filter size.  Handy!  And its size is quite nice too especially on a smaller body.

The confusion comes from letting the DA15 go in that case - but it brought in a decent infusion of cash to get us through the refinance month so I won't weep openly on its departure.  In fact the Rokinon 16mm f/2 or 10mm f/2.8 would be better for stargazing, although prices for those are DA15-ish right now and overall they are far bulkier.  That brings the F17-28FE back into play, as it's available for around $200 now.  We'll see about that.

And as to the next body?  No surprise, the body and lens decisions are connected. The K-s2 would prefer the Limited zoom but the larger K-3 types would make the 16-85mm feel less front-heavy.   Deals on the K-3 are quite impressive now, and if I do jump more into interval shooting the 200k-rated  shutter life is a real plus.  It can use the Flucard from my K-s1 so WiFi and sensors are similarly excellent.

Even more clear to me is the jump to the K-3 II model though, with an extra stop of stabilization and the chance to pixel-shift some images.  Not a frequent use, perhaps, but I've now seen examples of what it can do.. and it is quite the real improvement.  Pentax was quoted as strongly implying that the pixel shift system could be sent back into firmware for recent models.. like the K-s1 most likely!  Well OK .. to be more precise, during a chat about pixel-shift tech (with imaging-resource.com) they said this:

• "But Ricoh believes in taking care of their customers" - and encouraged me to quote him on that. :-) 

So that might say pixel shift is coming to other bodies, or perhaps something else entirely.. camera shows are fun and all that, but they are not always the Ultimate Source of Truth about future intentions.

So here we sit: fewer (though seldom-used) lenses in hand, two different plans for post-home-refi kit improvement - and a current setup that does just fine even if those two plans don't happen for a while!  The fact that the holiday sales are a month or so away could make for excellent timing though..

Perhaps I should say something to that effect at the Fall Camera Gathering in some famous faraway city?

stop dreaming by the computer!!

At the end of my previous post I spoke of my dream Pentax lens set: 14 or 15mm prime, 20-40wr Limited, DA* 50-135, and 55-300. I recently bought the 55-300 and hoped to stop for a while and buy the rest later - starting no sooner than Christmas 2015.

Well, today I bought one of the big ones.  Ooops!
Dreams run on their own schedule.

 My sanity would be less in question from my reader were I to simply erase the entire "simplify" blog entry! In truth though, the price I just paid a working DA* 50-135 may never go lower (it might of course, but not by much).  I can sell or return a few recent acquisitions for nearly an even swap, so it's not a financial pain.

It's quite embarrassing that I allowed this deal to catch my attention though, right after saying "Time Out! Simplify!" to the world - but I'll forgive myself this once.  It makes me wonder, though - how long before I sheepishly announce that I've acquired an HD 20-40 or DA 14/15 prime••, and forgive myself again?

This lens has pestered me (and many Pentaxians) for years.  At f2.8 through its range, it is the 70-200mm equivalent for DA users.  Bulky yes, at 765 grams it's not my ideal - but it replaces many other lenses in a useful range and is weather sealed.  And when compared to a true 70-200mm f2.8 lens it's quite small!

I owned its cousin (Sigma's 50-150) for a brief time and quickly learned to tolerate the extra bulk in return for hi-IQ results, so I expect I to like this lens a lot!  It may even be the One Lens to Rule the kit, which would diminish any efforts to tweak what's in the bag.  That would be quite excellent since my efforts truly need to diminish!

The one concern for DA* lenses is the SDM motor, which has been deemed unreliable by many - especially if the lens isn't exercised regularly.  The seller pointed out that this copy had been sluggish recently, an ominous sign; given the discounted price I shall cross my fingers and I expect that we'll get along fine.  Pentax claims its repair rate is comparable to other brands, so it could be the owners of malfunctioning DA*s are just really good at spreading the word.

This definitely changes plans for my collection of classic teleprimes and also the 18-200 for kit simplification.  It was a great idea but trumped by poor timing.

My Updated updated set will be:

• K24, A50 and M135 primes
• 18-55wr, 50-135 and 55-300 zooms
• 400mm prime and manual 80-200/3.5 (in the closet)

The new macro plan is to rummage around for my old 49mm diopter set and attach it to the 50 or 135.. for now, that'll do.  The mini kit is now the NX300, 16+30 pancakes and the K adapter.

•• It's possible that I have acquired three of the dream foursome already; I will hear from Adorama soon about whether they have set aside their used, slightly-damaged DA14 that I sought to acquire in trade!  I never heard back from them but it vanished from their website.  Again an amazing deal - yet again, why am I looking in places where these deals can snare me?!?

more 20-40 tests

angled view of test.  I centered my test image on
the brightly-colored recessed books in the middle.

A few more test-shots give comfort that this copy of the LimiZoom has minimal decentering if any, as test images look pretty symmetrical in appearance.  Colors and contrast are great, bokeh marvelous as advertised, and center sharpness is excellent.

Testing up close it's clear to me that field curvature is in play - at 20mm from a foot away, the center of an image looks great but not the sides.  I convinced myself of the issue by shooting a bookshelf with books at the edges pulled forward; by doing this I can have both center and edge books in focus.  Considering this only appears when shooting really close + wide and shooting a flat-plane surface, it is not a real-life kind of image for me; I'll let the Tamron 90/2.5 take care of those shots!

20-40 LimiZoom and friends

A quick outdoor test yielded little data of value.  All four lenses produced images with great colors and decent sharpness.  Color fringing was most visible on the 17-28 but its image was also the widest so you gain more view but it's not the best part of the field.  The tests were three wide (18-55@18, 17-28@17+ and 20-40@20, then all four lenses at 28mm; all were shot iso80 f/5.6, shade WB.

The one noteworthy point was between the 20-40 and Tamron 28-75 at 28mm.  Exposure data is shown as identical but the Tamron is darker by a notch; it is clear in the leaves against the tree trunk and especially in the skyline clouds.   The other images look like the LimiZoom, only the Tamron has cloud detail.  These all were jpeg/bright so processing was the same, and focus was obtained on the notch in the left-side tree trunk.  Honestly though, these clouds were moving fast... some changes just happen with outdoor scenes.  I was not planning to shoot these but the sun came out with no early notice, so I used it!

These two shots were cropped by Picasa when converted to a collage so 

more of the scene is visible on my screen for all the images.

DA 20-40 LimiZoom - 1st images

are quite impressive.  Standing on their own the landscape images are very nice.  This copy does not show any large-scale issues that have plagued some users, but more rigorous tests will come soon.  The scene below would look good with a pinhole camera, but the 20-40 certainly caught it nicely!

Lake Sacagawea in Longview - jpeg 'bright' setting on K-5 IIs, 30mm f/8

Colors are great, details are well defined.  Some say the focus is slow, but shots like this are not big-time torture on focus speeds.  Later tests on power lines and back-lit tree branches showed very little color fringing, though I could find it near the edge at 20mm & f/2.8.  At 30 and 40mm I saw nothing of note even wide open.

comparing good lenses

It's easy to pick out a bad lens with a few revealing tests.  Focus is inconsistent, or results not sharp from one side to another.  Perhaps contrast is weak or colors appear warmer or cooler than expected.  Maybe the images are fine but areas beyond focus distract or otherwise detract from the overall shot.

If a lens passes these tests, and you pick up another design, then it gets interesting.  How does one compare lenses that each pass the basic tests?  For most of us, it becomes a balancing act between what else we already own and use, features like weather seals, the weight of one lens over another, compatible  filters, or simple cost.  If a lens costs four times as much but both give great results, was that cash well spent?

I own Pentax' 18-55 WR "kit lens" for foul-weather shooting.  It's a decent lens, can focus close and go out in the rain.  Yes it has more distortion than many at the wide end, and it's f/5.6 past maybe 40mm; these concerns will make a big difference to some, not so much to others.

Other options are available, which brings up the Big Question: if a lens costs several times as much as the 18-55, how many times 'better' should it be?  Faster, smaller, more seals, incredible optics - some combination of these or other factors will be in play.  No two people will weigh these factors quite the same, nor can they quantify  'twice as good' - so like every lens ever made the better / faster / more expensive lens is not for everyone.

I have owned Pentax' 18-135 DC WR, two or three times in fact.  Its specs are compelling relative to the 18-55: more telephoto range, a quiet focus motor, still f/5.6 but not until longer focal lengths.  Good points - yet I sold it each time.  I found issues with image quality above 100mm and did not wish to carry a bulkier, more expensive lens that I only found useful for 2/3 of its range.  I could choose to correct most of its issues in the camera with a speed penalty, or fix them on my computer which also takes time.  Or I could own the 18-55.  Many others disagree strongly that this lens has any more problems than other lenses and is better than most; that's OK as their needs are different, just as their copies are different from mine.

So it comes to this: a Limited 20-40mm zoom has arrived on my doorstep, and tests against my other lenses will commence.  It's a new open-box lens obtained for over $100 less than any price I'd seen, but still cost about six times what I paid for the used DA18-55 - all that for a narrower focal range!  Why would anyone pay that much more for this lens?

Well, it has the weather seals but includes a DC motor.  It's faster at f/2.8-4.0.  Stopping at 20mm avoids the worst of zoom distortions.  Primarily though, it's a Limited lens which means great build and superior image quality.  Until now it also meant primes; this is the first Limited zoom so it's the proverbial odd duck.  Many current Limited users cannot bring themselves to accept a zoom as deserving the Limited label while others have found it too expensive to bother with.  Let's pretend that I replaced both the DA21/3.2 Limited (slightly faster at f/2.8) and the DA40/2.8 Limited (slower at f/4) for less money.  You could say I replaced the 35 Limited too but it's a 1:1 macro, so not quite an even trade - but the Limited primes have no weather seals.

Given its uniqe nature, should the LimiZoom be tested against primes, zooms, Limited lenses only?  That's a problem for pro review websites,  professional users or geeked-by-gear folks; I'll skip that question and just compare it with what I have.  Its 'competition' in my bag comes from the 18-55WR and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, with a Pentax F 17-28mm fish-eye thrown in despite its fishiness.  I shall also just let the 20-40 be itself on a solo jaunt or two, unencumbered by the abilities of other lenses.

How do these four zooms compare?
17-28: really wide fisheye view, fairly slow at f/3.5-4.5, compact & light, fairly inexpensive
18-55: weather seals, 1:3ish close focus, ~$100, slow f/3.5-5.6
20-40: Limited metal build, weather seals, 9 aperture blades, DC silent focus, f/2.8-4
28-75: fast f/2.8 = relatively large and bulky, 7 aperture blades

On to the 'tests', at which I'm pretty poor.  I shall try to keep them on common levels re. shooting parameters but I always leave something out that makes a difference.  Oh well...