an example of why the 50-135* doesn't suck

[jgredline]

Lloyd,
What kind of body do you have?

[Lloydy]

I'm using a K10 with the 18 - 55 kit lens at the moment. I've been trying to decide, or rather rationalise the purchase of an expensive lens over the relatively cheap 18 - 250 Tamron.

One of the big considerations is that off road motor sport here in the UK is generally a muddy affair! When I'm competing the camera rides on the passenger seat or on the floor between competitive sections, so I like the weatherproofing. Which the 50 - 135 has and the non Pentax lens' don't.

While I'm using it I like to take sequence shots of the other competitors on an 'obstacle' such as a hump, it's something I got used to when I used a Canon EOS 600 - and a lot of film!

Here's two pic's from the last weekend.

Taken at
55mm f5.6 1/350. ISO 100


18mm f4 1/350. ISO 100


Which demonstrate the kind of pictures I like to take, and the need for a rapid change of focal length.
Also, if I use a slightly longer zoom I can stand a bit further back from the other lunatics - sorry, drivers.

[f8]

Originally Posted by f/8

I have no example shots to explain what I've experienced with the DA* 50-135mm lens but yesterday I was shooting my friends' soccer game. The ease of use ment for me that I could follow the game through the lens for the entire game at 50mm and when I noticed something interesting was about to happen I just zoomed to 100-135mm and the focus was instantly spot on and I could take my shot.

Damn! I just love this lense!

Well, I do have a picture now... The players tend to be in motion and standing right next to the side line it is really hard to keep up with them as they run around. The thing that makes it especially hard is that you have to zoom from far side to the near almost constantly. Thanks to the 50-135mm it's now a breeze...

[jgredline]

Lloydy
I shoot allot of off road and racing myself...Get the DA*50-135 and your set...You will have a weather resistant set up that mud and dust will not bother...

F/8,
Thats what I am talking about....Great capture and sharp as a tack...

By the way the lens also works great as a baseball bat.... So you can fire it at the same time your swinging for the ball and catch a sequence of events that is not possible with other lenses...

[Lloydy]

Javier
yeah, I've just got to get the wife a night job as well then she can buy me that lens!

I like the buggy in those pic's of yours, is that a competition one or just a fun thing?

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by Lloydy

Javier
yeah, I've just got to get the wife a night job as well then she can buy me that lens!

I like the buggy in those pic's of yours, is that a competition one or just a fun thing?

Oh, Thats a pro super buggy that competes in CORR...That was a private test day.

[JCorwin]

why........why did I read this thread? Guess I know what I'm going to buy with my amazon credit left over from the holidays............





Update: yup, done deal. I should have it early next week!

[gkopeliadis]

Originally Posted by nostatic

OMG, you point the lens into the sun and get ghosting and glare.

Let me alert the media...

You don't seem to get my point... ...
As I have defenetivly shown by the photos I posted, the cheap kit lens does not!
I pointed it into the sun the same way and I got much better results on ghosting and glare.
Now, to have had a faulty lens, I can accept (I asked for a second to test). Not to trust my own eyes I cann't.
And let me be clear: I loved that lens for all it's other excellent properties. Especialy that is weather and dust resistant.
Still considering buying it.

PS I see now that others have had the same experience (followed the links melef posted).

[leadbelly]

BTW, what's the minimum focusing distance of the 50-135?

[egordon99]

If I recall correctly, 1 meter.

Originally Posted by leadbelly

BTW, what's the minimum focusing distance of the 50-135?

[Cedar]

I thought I posted this, but my browser crashed. Sorry if it ends up posting twice.

Update: I had the Flickr permissions were set wrong. You should now be able to access/download the 100% crops. Sorry!


Well... the local "brand new", in-store 50-135mm didn't have a warranty card, so I spent the extra $9 and bough it from Amazon (gold box).

It arrived late today, and it was too dark to take any photos today. Or so I thought. Foreshadowing.

My first images with the 50-135mm come about because my wife asked me about all the strange butterflies outside on the honey suckle were.

Naturally I grabbed my camera and ran out into the dark to photograph whatever it was for identification.

They're "White-lined sphinx moths" (Hyles lineata) aka "Hummingbird Moths", and like their namesakes, they were never once still.

They hover, and dive, hover and dive.

Even hovering - not sitting - as they visit each flower.

A real challenge for the AF (with that awful on-board "flicker flash"), which performed far better than I would have expected.

Very impromptu. On-board flash (my flash is out on loan and it was dark!). ISO 1600. No PP, except cropping & flickr's auto-resizing for posting (link to full size 100% crops below), auto-metered, contrast/saturation/sharpness all at 0. Jpegs straight from the camera. Best 3 of ~10 shown.

I've never shot this type of scene before, and so don't know how the lens really compares to my others, but from this limited test set, I'm happy with the lens.

• The AF was smooth and quick, surprising considering.
• MF is a bit odd as the focus ring rotates 'past' both range ends (um... is this normal?).
• It zooms nicely and firmly, holding with no creep evident.
• Inverted petal hood blocks AF/MF switch when it really didn't need to.
• I already wish the zoom and focus rings were reversed.

My youngest child is sick; perhaps the doctor's office will provide a more diverse test set tomorrow.

100% crops can be had from my "lens test set" on flicker: Lens Check, Lens Check, 123 - a set on Flickr




100% crops can be had from my "lens test set" on flicker: Lens Check, Lens Check, 123 - a set on Flickr

Constructive (photographic) suggestions and comments are always welcome.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by gkopeliadis

You don't seem to get my point... ...
As I have defenetivly shown by the photos I posted, the cheap kit lens does not!
I pointed it into the sun the same way and I got much better results on ghosting and glare.

And the iq is significantly lower with the kit lens. Since I rarely shoot into the sun this isn't an issue. Taking real-world pictures, the 50-135* gives much better results than the kit lens. That's all I care about. Endless measurements, photos of charts and brick walls, and shots straight into lights aren't what I do. I shoot photos to try and make art and get what I "see."

Better tools often show the deficiencies in the user. I found this with my track car. When I redid the suspension I actually was slower because the lower performance setup masked *my* technique problems.

This isn't a criticism of you...I just get tired of "test shots" and people drawing conclusions when I think that real-world shooting is infinitely more important. Unless you just want to test your camera and lens...

[gkopeliadis]

Originally Posted by nostatic

...Unless you just want to test your camera and lens...

I couldn't agree more with you. But I live in Greece and it is common to deal with harsh light conditions. I also like to shoot somewhat contra-light photos. So for me -that's me anyway- it is a serious draw back in everyday photography.
I should stick with primes.

PS I don't like to shoot test photos to determine whether a lens is good or bad, but tests are an invaluable analytical tool.

[Jonson PL]

Originally Posted by Cedar

I thought I posted this, but my browser crashed. Sorry if it ends up posting twice.

Update: I had the Flickr permissions were set wrong. You should now be able to access/download the 100% crops. Sorry!


Well... the local "brand new", in-store 50-135mm didn't have a warranty card, so I spent the extra $9 and bough it from Amazon (gold box).

It arrived late today, and it was too dark to take any photos today. Or so I thought. Foreshadowing.

My first images with the 50-135mm come about because my wife asked me about all the strange butterflies outside on the honey suckle were.

Naturally I grabbed my camera and ran out into the dark to photograph whatever it was for identification.

They're "White-lined sphinx moths" (Hyles lineata) aka "Hummingbird Moths", and like their namesakes, they were never once still.

They hover, and dive, hover and dive.

Even hovering - not sitting - as they visit each flower.

A real challenge for the AF (with that awful on-board "flicker flash"), which performed far better than I would have expected.

Very impromptu. On-board flash (my flash is out on loan and it was dark!). ISO 1600. No PP, except cropping & flickr's auto-resizing for posting (link to full size 100% crops below), auto-metered, contrast/saturation/sharpness all at 0. Jpegs straight from the camera. Best 3 of ~10 shown.

I've never shot this type of scene before, and so don't know how the lens really compares to my others, but from this limited test set, I'm happy with the lens.

• The AF was smooth and quick, surprising considering.
• MF is a bit odd as the focus ring rotates 'past' both range ends (um... is this normal?).
• It zooms nicely and firmly, holding with no creep evident.
• Inverted petal hood blocks AF/MF switch when it really didn't need to.
• I already wish the zoom and focus rings were reversed.

My youngest child is sick; perhaps the doctor's office will provide a more diverse test set tomorrow.

100% crops can be had from my "lens test set" on flicker: Lens Check, Lens Check, 123 - a set on Flickr




100% crops can be had from my "lens test set" on flicker: Lens Check, Lens Check, 123 - a set on Flickr

Constructive (photographic) suggestions and comments are always welcome.

impressive stuff. Iso 800 on my K10 would hardly look this good

[f8]

This lens does not suck.

A view at the center of Helsinki:

(there is also a larger size and the full 11,4Mb size version available)

And for the glare problem: here is what that looks like for my lens... I would not call that too bad since should I point the lens more into the sun (to worsen the problem) the whole shot would be blown out. Also, I did manage to take another shot with the lens hood and the problem was gone.