Pentax Digital SLR Cameras and Lenses

Hello. Thanks for this guide.

As normal prime I'd suggest the much better Pentax A 50 f/1.7 or even f/1.4. Both have much better reputation.

and I'd recommend Pentax A 70-210 f/4 instead of Pentax A 80-200mm f/4.7-5.6 One of the sharpest manual zoom lenses Pentax made. Regards

hi - very good lens review for novice like myself - only problem is that you write that all the D10K cameras are 6 m pixels, where as now they are 10 mil pixels best wishes Inez

Inez,

The Pentax K10D has a 10MP sensor, while the other 3 Pentax bodies (K100D, K100D Super and the K110D) have 6.1MP sensors.

Thanks for reading!

>> The Pentax system is not as effective as in-lens image stabilization

Is there any real world evidence for saying in-lens image stabilization works better than the in-body version? I know the theory behind saying this, but anyone has experience or tests that indicate this is indeed so in real situations?

"in-camera image stabilization (1 or 2 f-stops)"

That is misleading. The K10D is quite proficient with its stabilization system. Canon and Nikon of course, claim other wise, but I normally shoot my 70/2.4 at 1/8" of a second; my 16-45 gets utilized nicely at 1/2", handheld. Pentax claims up to 4 fstops, I've seen it happen-- but 3 would be more accurate.

I am curious to know how old Pentax film lenses work with the K10D. I read about a 2 stop exposure difference that had to be compensated to get a normal exposure. Can you clarify this? Are there other issues with using the older Pentax lenses? I have most of the older Pentax lenses so the K10D seems attractive unless they will be awkward to use.

Hi Ed, you do not need a 2-stop exposure compensation. The 50mm f/1.4 is the same lens whether you mount it on a K1000 or a K10D. The amount of light per square inch that falls on the sensor is the same as on film. K-mount lenses pop right in. The K10D will ask you to enter the focal length for image stabilization every time you turn on the camera. Shutter priority and program modes work with A lenses. Manual and aperture-priority modes work with all lenses. M-mount lenses will require an adaptor.

"The Pentax system is not as effective as in-lens image stabilization"

On what research is this statement based? It's very common for people who prefer Canon/Nikon to talk down of In-body SR, but there seem to be scant "repeatable" tests that prove this point. (Adding that the SR on the K10D and Sony's A100 both rate very highly in most any review.)

I would suggest that it either be marked as an opinion or provide reference material for others to make their mind up, as it is not an "obvious fact that everyone should be aware of."

I'm not entirely sure how the test are done.

For instance, since the test were clearly designed from the days of in lens IS, I wonder if they've updated them.

I mean perhaps the mechanical device used to test doesn't show as good of results on in body stabilization.

I get no worse then 2.5 stops out of the K10D. And I've consistently gotten in the 4 stop range. Even occasionally 5 stops.

I believe the two biggest contributors to magazine and review sites are Nikon and Canon, and rarely do you see a bad thing in those magazines about those companies. Likewise, it would seem fair to say that if a test for in lens or in body stabilization favored the two biggest spenders, no one at the magazine would bother to point this out.

I'm not saying the magazines are lying, I'm just wondering if they've updated there test methods. Really what we are interested in is knowing how many stops the stabilization gets in the real world. Not on some lab bench.

A normal lens is light in weight and approximates the perspective of the human eye.

Perspective does not change with focal length. Only a change in camera location relative to the subject can change perspective. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "magnification"?

A normal lens is light in weight and approximates the perspective of the human eye.

Perspective does not change with focal length. Only a change in camera location relative to the subject can change perspective. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "magnification"?

Arguably the best "normal" lens for the Pentax DSLRs is the 7 ounce FA 35mm f2 AL, (52mm FOV equivalent) which is not officially in production but remains widely available. It is optically superb, the equal of the very expensive and heavy 31mm Limited yet costs about $300.

I wouldn't recommend the 16-50 SWM to a the "Average family". The same applies to the Sigma 30/1.4; they're both BIG lenses and a tremendous overkill for what they do (for the average family, that is). The 16-45/4 is a remarkable performer, and the 35/2 pentax does the sigma better, albeit losing one fstop.

Btw, I own both 16-50 and 16-45, and aside from the extra light gathering capability, I can't say much in favor of the f/2.8 variant. The 16-45 is just as sharp, lighter, and cheaper.

For any new Pentax DSLR user, I would very strongly recommend buying the Pentax 50mm FA f/1.4. It is an incredible lens for the price (approx. $200). Because of its sharpness and low light capability, I can use it at an indoor sporting event with the K10D, at a reasonable ISO setting, and still get great 8x10 shots after cropping significantly. I cannot get anywhere near as good a picture using a larger lens, except for perhaps a telephoto f/2.8, which will cost $1,000 or more. As for older lenses, they work great on the K10D. That is the beauty of Pentax, particularly since Pentax has made some great manual focus lenses over the years.

Prices listed are way out of date! (Pentax currently offers a $100 rebate on K10D and K100D-Super.) I just got a K10D with kit lens and memory card for $586 from a reputable online place. Check slickdeals.net or fatwallet for the deals.

Amazing price, beats the pants off of Nikon D40X and Canon XTI which lack in-body stabilization, weather sealing, and a secondary LCD.

This camera feels great in big hands (heavier than other entry-level models though). The in-body stabilization works great in my first tests, though I haven't quantified it yet. The viewfinder is bigger than any other model I looked at. The LCD screen is protected by plastic (wish I'd had that on my last camera!).

Hi, Maybe someone can clear something up for me once and for all. I am a long time pentax (film) SLR user and really got into photography using my fathers k-1000 with a couple of good prime lenses (50 mm f2 and 135 f2.8). I used to develop B&W myself and achieved some really fine results that I can't seem to reproduce using printing shops. Also, the attempts to get to a digital medium for sharing and printing on my own have been very frustrating both on a minolta film scanner and using commercial services.

In short I would like to move to digital for convenience and ability to experiment alot more. I know everyone says that pentax d-slrs are reverse-compatible and all, but it seems that is not entirely true since my 28mm f1.8 would be a boring 40 something. Also it's not as if my 135 would magically be a 200mm, it would simply be cropping the same 135mm image (same depth of field and all), right?

So, even if I have a bunch of pentax lenses that I am happy with, that doesn't really make a difference. Or am I missing something? If that is the case then maybe all bets are off and Pentax is not necessarily the best option for someone building a system from scratch.

Thanks for any input, Josh

An excellent overview - thanks.

For Josh and any other Pentax users considering the switch from film to digital: your lenses will work but not necessarily as you expect them to. Go to a shop where they will allow you to check each one on a digital body before you commit to buying.

I have been a loyal Pentax user since 1968 (a Spotmatic) and held out through the dry years before they produced the *ist-D, then bought six. That was three years ago; since then, though very happy with those six bodies and having switched 95% of my professional work to them from film, I have in practice replaced most of my lenses.

Only last month did my lens line up really become equivalently complete when compared to the film kit, with the arrival of Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 lens.

You are right, you won't get exact matches - any more than you would when comparing (for example) 35mm with medium format. Your 135mm will become roughly equivalent to 210mm in terms of angle of view, but effective depth of field will not be equivalent to what you are familiar with from either a 135mm or a 210 on film. You have to forget about trying to cling to 35mm ideas, and treat it as a format change.

I've put up a rough guide to angles of view here, if it helps. Other aspects you really only learn from trying them out ... though I plan to put up a set of comparative images sometime soon, to allow side by side comparison of results for a few representative focal lengths.

When I first got my K10D I also purchased an adapter for my Super Takumar M-42 screw mount lenses. The 50mm is absolutely fantastic. I used a few of those old lenses for quite some time until i purchased a sigma 17-70. The sigma has been doing a great job as a walk around lens, I would love a wider lens still, but the old lenses really do a great job.

I've always found the in-camera SR to work fine for me, between 2-3 stops, depending on conditions. I've had a K10D for about a year now, and I am one happy customer.

The old 'M' lenses work just fine when you've sorted out what they do now and have got a good feeling for sorting the exposure. Pentax have re-issued the FA50mm/f1.4 in the past year, and are bringing out new lenses. I'd certainly say Pentax are worth a look if you're just starting out, if only for the price. If you've got a good investment in quality Pentax glass already, I really wouldn't hesitate too much.

If they're mostly MF lenses, look at the Katz Eyes Split Prism focusing screen, it works very well and if you don't use too much spot-metering, you won't suffer at all. Even if you do, you can quickly work out the correct amount of compensation for the given lens in most situations - and I'm guessing if you're still MF, you're not overly fussed about getting your hands dirty.

The future could well be Pentax - it certainly is for me! :)

I am truly interested and intrigued by Pentax and I was leaning toward a k100d. Especially since my mother has several old film lenses from the 1970s. However, looking over the lens list above, it appears that if I want AF or higher aperture, the lenses seem to cost more than Canon -- or at least Canon seems to have a higher variety of lower and middle cost options. Am I missing something?

The Pentax system has numerous advantages over its competitors, many of which were downplayed or simply ignored in this article.

* Backwards compatibility with every K-mount bayonet lens ever produced... and all M42 screw mount lenses too with a simple adapter.

* The cheapest image stabilization system in the world -- that works with all existing lenses. (There is no proof that it's inferior to in-lens systems.)

* The best series of fast full-frame compatible primes in existence, the FA 31, 43 and 77. Popular Photography called the FA 31mm one of "the 3 greatest prime lenses we've ever tested!" (March 2002) but here it's dismissed as "ridiculous overkill for a small sensor camera with a tremendous waste of glass."

* The most cost-effective line of "pancake" limiteds, the DA 21, 40 and 70. These are tiny, light, extremely well-made and almost as fast as their more expensive brethren.

* Fast, silent and surprisingly portable weather-sealed zooms unequaled by other systems. Together the DA* 16-50mm and DA* 50-135mm might be all a photographer needs.

At least this latter lens gets its due in this article, the author stating "Canon and Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for not making a lens like this for their small sensor bodies." It's a pity the other advantages of the Pentax system were not highlighted in the same manner.

宾得K10D在中国大陆的价格现在也就是4800，折美元要500多吧！

whomever wrote that image stabilization is not as good as Nikon?? I have a good friend who is humbled continually by his nikon being outshot by my 1/3 the price K10.

Also i use my ol lenses from my p30 days which take a picture that is sooo clear and unlike the nikon the zoom won't self extend every time the lens faces downward.

a f 2.8 300ish nikon lens in NZ is about $2K whereas the 2nd hand pentax equivelent is about $100.

The K10 or now K20 is the camera that should be recommended on the camera system setup page as it will cost maybe $3K inc bag a couple of lenses and top wireless flash as opposed to at least $6K for the "others" I wish reviews on the sites were written by open minded Non Nikon-Cannon deciples

I am a leica fan using M system, and looking to start my digital one. To me Pentax is the recommended one:

(1) Pixel-wise even higher than Canon 1D Mark III, but less expensive (2) Live view (3) Focus confirmation for manual lenses (4) Picture quality is better than Sony A350 (5) Most importantly - but noody on the web ever mentioned - the new series of Zeiss lenses are fully compatible with it. And it is expected to be expanding!

Cheers

The FA 28-105 f3.2 can be an excellent adjunct. Normal cost is about $209. My first sample had a decentered element that degraded the left 1/3 of the image and was immediately replaced by the vendor, Adorama, without question or hassle. The replacement lens is excellent and shows good sharpness even at 200% It is also very small and light. Tested on the K20d, the replacement Pentax 28-105 f3.2 seemed very sharp even at 200%-300% on the 14.2 MP camera. Lens resolution was essentially equivalent to sensor resolution less about 1 pixel.

I have been using Pentax since the company began and would like to point out that Canon and Nikon got their start by copying Pentax, or should I say Asahi. Before reviewing a product please get your facts straight and not base it on propaganda put out by the advertising geniuses that represent Canon and Nikon. You probably drink bottled water based on the propaganda merchants that are selling you water that is more expensive than gasoline.