More DA*50-135

[snostorm]

mtngal wrote:

There's a quality with the lens that I can't quite describe - the DA 50-200 just doesn't have it (the A*300 has it, too).

Hi Harriet,

Call it Star (*) Quality -- and I know what you mean -- I'm hoping to play with a DA* 50-135 tomorrow -- got a message from my dealer that he just got one in stock, but it's too late to go today. . .


Scott

[mtngal]

Scott - hope you take your checkbook with you. I love this lens, but I'd love to read your reaction to it - you've got far more experience with Pentax fine lenses than I have. This lens will stay on the camera most of the time. Now I want a macro lens that is of equal quality...

[NonEntity1]

mtngal wrote:

Somehow I was disappointed in my post-processing of the pictures, resizing down to this size doesn't do the shots justice. There's a quality with the lens that I can't quite describe - the DA 50-200 just doesn't have it (the A*300 has it, too). Today I took some shots inside my favorite library, but only used the K10 with the 50-135. Using it and looking at the pictures on the computer is humbling - this lens is far better than anything I've taken or processed so far. If I managed to avoid camera shake (was usinglower ISO) I'll post one ortwo. By the way, the last picture was at 135mm but not f2.8 (check the exif information). The lens does an excellent job with DOF.

You are right, judging by the resized pictures it would be hard to say there was much difference between the two lenses. However, your opinion of the lens is much valued and I am glad to hear that you are impressed. When you have time perhaps some 100% crops of the same subject with each lens would be a more accurate comparison. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the 50-135 compared against some of your primes too (again, if you have an interest yourself and when you have time). Thanks for sharing these shots and your impressions.

Tim

[danielchtong]

NonEntity1 wrote:

mtngal wrote:

You are right, judging by the resized pictures it would be hard to say there was much difference between the two lenses. However, your opinion of the lens is much valued and I am glad to hear that you are impressed. When you have time perhaps some 100% crops of the same subject with each lens would be a more accurate comparison. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the 50-135 compared against some of your primes too (again, if you have an interest yourself and when you have time). Thanks for sharing these shots and your impressions.

Tim

Seems this lens is a keeper as Harriet has shown. But is it just people's perception that there is a huge shortage of the new DA* zoom. Just at this moment , between 3:50 and 4:55 pm (EST Thu) the DA*16-50 is available at B&H . I held up clicking on some of the dreadful buttons and you know what are those anyway. I just have to wait and see.
Or people want the mid tele focal length more than 16-50mm?

Daniel

[mtngal]

I doubt if Pentax is interested in doing something like the book publisher did with the latest Harry Potter book, so they've probably been shipping them out as fast as they can with their available labor - think of addressing all those labels, boxing them up, entering orders into their inventory program, etc. There are lots of pre-orders and I'm sure it just takes time for all of the lenses make it through the supply chain. There's been so much anticipation for these lenses that it appears there's a shortage, while its mainly a matter of logistics. Give it 3 months and I'd guess that there will be reasonable stocks at most stores.

I would have thought that the 16-50 focal length would be the more popular lens, as its extra speed would be very useful for interiors. I don't do enough interior shots to make it worth it - I'd rather have the 12-24 and continue to use the kit lens. There will be others who will feel the same way about the 50-200 over the 50-135, while I really wanted a better walk-around lens.