Pentax F70-200/4-5.6

This is NOT the famous F70-210 version (rumor that the 70-210 has ED elements inside). I saw this F70-200 at a local 2nd hand shop, mistaken it to be the famous, and unfortunately paid my money without further checking. Too bad Pentax gears are too hot in the 2nd hand market and you really have to act fast. You just don't have the time to go back home and google it for a while and go back to the shop the next day - the lens won't be there anymore.

Thou the F70-200/4-5.6 should be the chicken version of the 70-210, it's still not a bad lens. It's not cripsy sharp, and tends to be softer at tele end. However, the sharpness is good enough to give me a decent full screen view, which is somewhat bigger than a 8x12" print. I remember this is a really a cheap zoom, so I think it's good enough. I don't have a detail comparision with my other tele-lens, but I think it's on par with my Tamron 70-300/4-5.6.

Color tone is the best part of this lens. It's a bit warm and very vivid in color, and the skin tone in portrait is just great! It beats the Tamron hands-down in color tone.

Bokeh is a very important aspect in tele-lens. The out-of-focus area of F70-200 is good, at least it don't render the lines into ugly double-lines like the Tamron. Since it is not a large apeature lens, you should not expect the out-of-focus to be creamy - ie. don't expect the bokeh to be excellent.

Pentax is a very strange company that it's F lens are better than the FA lens, especially in the cheap zoom ranges. I am quite sure F70-200 is still better than the dog-tele-zooms in the FA or FAJ range. I have not test the DA50-200 yet, but my gut feel is that the DA will be sharper and higher-contrast than the F version.

Child portrait with DA21/3.2

It's not a very good lens choice for portrait, but the Pentax color doesn't let me down in the skin tone.

Macau Fragments with DA21

It's a family trip, not meant for photography. So I only took 3 lens with me in this short trip: DA21/3.2, DA16-45/4, and M50/1.4.

Besides using the zoom for a few shots, I shot 99% of this trip photos with the DA21/3.2. I never border to change lens, and the nice view is good for snaps, food, family group shot, and children photos. The DA21 makes me forget my other lens - that's my main complain about this lens.

Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD macro

"Butterfly" was the only reason I purchase this lens. But it became my most used long zoom after I get it (well, I don't have much good long zooms).

At that time, I want to get a handy lens for taking butterflies, but Sigma 180 macro was the only reasonable choice for me. The Sigma was not cheap, and it is Sigma. I hesitated for a long time. Until I chatted with a shop manager in a camera shop, he recommended this Tamron because it's cheap, and it can give reasonable result.

So I get it at a little over HK$1,000. It's cheap indeed.

The lens is very plastic, very cheap in construction. It doesn't not give a good displacement turn for focusing, so the Pentax may mis-focus it at long focal length, and it's a pain in the ass to focus manually. At it's price, the image quality is not bad, but don't expect razor sharp image from it.

I don't care all these disadvantages. The lens can focus to 0.95m at macro mode, and it's 1:2 at 300mm. It's the macro function I want from it, and it can deliver.

In use, I seldom zoom all the way-up to 300mm because it's quite soft there. But that's the common problem with cheap long zooms. I can still take butterflies or other inserts very comfortably at 180mm (the shortest focal length allowed at macro mode), or zoom up to a bit over 200mm. The result very not bad if you are do a correct job at Photoshop.

Because of it's versatility, I carry this lens together with my DA16-45/4 for traveling. Not that it's very good (I indeed think the DA 50-200 will be better), only because it's the better long zoom I have on hand.

It's not a Pentax lens, so don't expect it can give you the natural tones legendary for SMC lens. The colors from Tamron is a bit too saturated and high in contrast, but I don't have much complain.

A snap photo with Pentax A28/2.8

Snaping around with my A28, I use non-finder shots most of the time, and by that I don't have much really in-focus shots. With this shot, I am able to slow down and focus on the subject. Wow, it's very sharp. This shot was shot at f/5.6, not really the sharpest apeature.

I have no doubt about this lens's optics performance.

DA21/3.2 - two more test shots

Unprocessed 100% crop (click on the image to see full size):


The color is very good, staturated by not overly cartoon.

I only shot jpeg in this two shots, and my istD is infamous of it's soft jpeg. See the cloth texture is rendered in the unprocessed 100% crop: it's nice and I am sure it will be much better with later Pentax DSLR's jpeg.

one side commend: I don't have any complain with the 'soft' jpeg. I agreed with luminous-landscape that the 'softness' is actually non-aggressive (and non-distruction) approach of the istD's in camera processing. It just leave the photofrapher more room in post editing.

Will post more sample when I've shot some better picture in RAW.

Snap with Pentax A28/2.8

On a Pentax DSLR, the view angle of the A28/2.8 is equilvant to a 42mm on 135 film body, which is a very classic focal length. A 40 or something focal length is the 'normal' lens in the old days and many camera such as Rollei 35S or a lot fixed lens rangefinders were equipped with a lens of similar focal length.

Still remember how Pentax advertised when it launch the FA43/1.8 limited? Pentax said the 43 is the true normal lens for 135 film. To the same reckoning, 28mm should be the true standard lens on DSLR body.

Before I get the DA21/3.2, I very often use my old A28/2.8 as a small lurk snap setup. My snap with this lens are not very successful because the streets in Hong Kong is quite tightly packed, and I often wanted a wider lens. In a spacious environment, however, the view angle of the 28mm is just great.

Another problem is MF. To me, AF is important in snap shots because I take a lot of off-finder shots. I can adjust the focus to approx. 3m or 2m without looking at the camera or lens, that just took me a little practice. But that's only an approximation. I still took a lot of out-focus shots.

Someone said you can use zone focus technique with the 28mm on a DSLR. I tell you, you will not be satisfy with the image quality. First of all, the Depth-Of-Field scale on the lens was for film, not APS size CCD. A quick calculation of DOF tell me I should give 1 more stop down (ie. when read the f/8 scale on the lens, I should use f/11 to shot). secondly, the DOF pinciple only hold true when you view the photo 'normally'. ie. at approx. 4R size on your screen. Don't you have the temptation to view the image at 100% pixel view? I did. The DOF is much more strict at 100% view and even it's within the DOF, it's not sharp enough.

So how good or bad is the image from the Pentax A28/2.8? I am sorry that I cannot conclude about this. I mainly use this lens for street snap (st. doc), which I always shot in jpeg. My quick shoting habit in snap and the softness of my istD's jpeg prevent me to judge the image quality.

I will try to dig out some correctly focus picture and post in this blog again as sample photos.

Pentax DA 16-45/4 EDAL

 

  

3 Years ago, I almost jump to Nikon when I decided to buy a DSLR. The Nikon D70 was much cheaper than the istD I am using now, and I always Nikon as a good system for digital.

the DA 16-45/4 changed my mind. I opt for the Pentax DSLR just because of this lens.

It was and still is the widest affordable standard zoom lens for digital. Yes you can choose a 17-40 with the full frame Canon DSLRs, but the price is out of question for me.

It gives very good image quality. Maybe it cannot beat a real good prime lens, but there is not much difference especially in terms of resolution. Before I bought it, I google it and find someone did a very scientific test with it against the Canon 17-40/4 L and concluded they are on par. But the Pentax is half the price of the Canon.

On the negative side, the DA16-45/4 is high contrast, so don't expect too much with the shadow details. It also tends to underexposure more serious than my other lens, but that's just my feeling - no test done. It quite heavy, and it's big.

I seldom use this lens on serious landscape or sceneic shots. But this is my most used lens in travelling and family / social gathering. It spent some great moment with me, and it's part of my daily life. Ain't that's what photography meant for?

I have briefly compare it with the DA 18-55/3-5-5.6 kit lens. It beat the kit lens in image quality, hands down. A lot of people can't understand the difference between 16mm and 18mm. I tell you, it's a lot. The relationship between shoting angle and focal length is not linear, it a tangent scale.

I will use my DA21/3.2 or FA*24/2 when I lurk around and snapping. But I will definitely use DA16-45/4 at family, social gathering, hiking or business trips, and add a tele-zoom when I go to travel with my family.

Pentax DA14/2.8

 
 
 

Why I buy this? The Pentax DA 14/2.8 is smaller and cheaper than all competitors. Period. Yes, all other compeitors are designed for a full-frame coverage on 35mm film. But I will not use the lens on film anyway. Why should I care?

I get this lens immediately when I knew it arrived Hong Kong (and paid a premium price natually).

The legendary SMC coating on Pentax lens can substatially reduce flares and ghost images, which is particularly important in ultra-wide lens. The DA14/2.8 isn't 100% flare free, but it's already excellent. The sample photos clearly demonstrate how good this lens handles direct sunlight.

Just as other DA lens, the DA14/2.8 is a bit contrasty than old-days Pentax MF lens. It's not a problem, it's just the characteristic of the DA lens. I personally don't find any problem with this because it actually looks better screen.

Distortion control is also very good. But that's pretty much expected for a fix-focal length ultra-wide lens. If not, everyone will goes for a ultra-wide zoom instead.

My only complain is the size and weight. But how can I expect more from a ultra-wide lens? So it's only my personal comment.

Many people compare this lens with the Pentax DA12-24/4 zoom lens. I havn't use the 12-24, so can't really comment. Judge from the photos I've seen on the web, the 12-24 is also a great lens with very good distortion and flare control. In general, ultra-wide lens are difficult to frame (when you wants a really good picture), and it's certainly much easily to frame with a zoom than a fix-focal length. Fix focal length has advantage over zoom lens in distortion, flare control, and larger apeature.

My advise for those who can't decide between 12-24 or 14 is: go for the zoom if you can decide. If you really appreciate the advantage of a ultra-wide fix-focal lens, you won't be un-decided. And, congratulations! You are a real master photographer! For the record, I will be unable to decide between the 12-24 and the 14 if both were available 2 years ago, when I purchase the DA14. 

FA*24/2 wide open

At wide open, the 24/2 is quite soft. The bokeh render the light source into slightly donut shape, which is normally not desireable. However, the lens still give very good color and the vignetting is acceptable. Nevertheless, f/2 at 24mm is considered as very fast, and the little drawback should be acceptable because when you need the speed at wide angle, it's the only choice in Pentax.

I havn't compare it with other 24/2 lens thou.