Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-13-2011, 05:37 PM   #166
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by garyoa1 Quote
Well the string was essentially MF vs AF. But as far as lenses/speed/F/whatever themselves...no opinion.
I do have a few old MF from the Honeywell Pentax and a couple other F lenses but they gather dust. I do have some adapters and tried them on the K20 but since I have (to me) so much luck with the AF... there they sit. These old eyes just don't focus like in the old days so the AF does wonders for me. Do I screw some up? Oh you betcha! But with MF I'd never be able to get them to pop like they do with the AF.
I have great results (for me) with the kit 18-55 and the Sigma. Don't see any reason to carry 8000 lenses and then have to change for this, change for that. Especially when that "quick! Click it or miss it" shot comes up.
But again.... this is ME. I use what works for me. If you have a use for something else. Go for it. I'm not saying what I use is best for everyone. Again, I'm no photo guru, but I know what I like and what works for me. In fact if you start throwing numbers and specs at me you'll lose me in the dust! It's just a hobby for me and I enjoy it. And I think... that's what it's all about.
(thanx for the welcome!)
Well I ask because you mentioned how you "like clean, crisp, sharp shots" and was curious of what you thought of 1.2 photo's since they tend to not be "crisply sharp"

(still much sharper than most realize!)

08-13-2011, 07:06 PM   #167
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
No Idea. But that's a prime, isn't it? I gave up long ago on lens hunts. Have a few but really quite content with the two I use. Picked up a 38 80 sigma a while back that sucks. 70 200 Takumar... meh. Fair. The only reason I tried a few is size (along with curiosity!). Looking for a little bit more compactness.
When I go out I take the 70-300. Period. Unless I know I'll be shooting close. Party, car show, whatever. Then the 18-55 goes with me. (And I pray I won't need the other one!)
They just work for me. I get all I need from them so I don't feel the need to go crazy spending a fortune on something that "might" be better. Like I said, they're perfect for me so how do you improve on perfection? LOL
08-13-2011, 07:35 PM   #168
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by garyoa1 Quote
No Idea. But that's a prime, isn't it? I gave up long ago on lens hunts. Have a few but really quite content with the two I use. Picked up a 38 80 sigma a while back that sucks. 70 200 Takumar... meh. Fair. The only reason I tried a few is size (along with curiosity!). Looking for a little bit more compactness.
When I go out I take the 70-300. Period. Unless I know I'll be shooting close. Party, car show, whatever. Then the 18-55 goes with me. (And I pray I won't need the other one!)
They just work for me. I get all I need from them so I don't feel the need to go crazy spending a fortune on something that "might" be better. Like I said, they're perfect for me so how do you improve on perfection? LOL
Yep its a prime:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/153201-super-mu...2-samples.html



Might be worth giving a nice *cheap* prime like an M 50mm F/1.7 a go just for old times sake optically it will be far superior
08-13-2011, 08:29 PM   #169
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Yup, and accounted by some as about the best 50mm ever made by anybody. I got mine a few months ago for US$250, which seemed to be current market rate. It's about the sweetest thing this side of Sucaryl.

08-13-2011, 08:44 PM   #170
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
Great shots! But for me... still a tad soft. But again... that's me! Not everyone likes really crisp.
Interesting thing is if you take a soft shot and reduce it, the interpolation seems to sharpen it somewhat. On the other hand, if you take a crisp shot and reduce it, it seems to soften just a tad. Which is why my shots on line seem a lot softer than at full size.
If I can count the hair on a peach, it's fine. If I can only count every other hair... it's too soft. But again, nothing wrong with soft shots. Just that I prefer crisp and that's only a personal preference. You'd be really hard pressed to find a really crisp shot in a magazine. They're out there but certainly not the norm.
Now, I'm not a fan of cropping either. I crop with the lens. That way all my shots are the same size. But again, that's me. With a prime, you're stuck with either leaving something extraneous in or cropping to perhaps an odd size. Or, me being incredibly lazy, walking closer to your subject! At my age... ain't gonna happen! LOL
08-13-2011, 09:03 PM   #171
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by garyoa1 Quote
Great shots! But for me... still a tad soft. But again... that's me! Not everyone likes really crisp.
Interesting thing is if you take a soft shot and reduce it, the interpolation seems to sharpen it somewhat. On the other hand, if you take a crisp shot and reduce it, it seems to soften just a tad. Which is why my shots on line seem a lot softer than at full size.
If I can count the hair on a peach, it's fine. If I can only count every other hair... it's too soft. But again, nothing wrong with soft shots. Just that I prefer crisp and that's only a personal preference. You'd be really hard pressed to find a really crisp shot in a magazine. They're out there but certainly not the norm.
Now, I'm not a fan of cropping either. I crop with the lens. That way all my shots are the same size. But again, that's me. With a prime, you're stuck with either leaving something extraneous in or cropping to perhaps an odd size. Or, me being incredibly lazy, walking closer to your subject! At my age... ain't gonna happen! LOL
Out of curiosity, is it nearly all the shots that look a "tad soft" or just a couple?

I ask because to my eyes its pretty hard to judge sharpness with such small posted images

edit: are you a fan of bokeh?
08-13-2011, 10:01 PM   #172
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
Hey, if I had eyes I wouldn't need AF! LOL
That's what's interesting. They all look a bit soft to me but you're right. It is hard to tell what the original is like when you're looking at a reduced image. As I said, a soft image will sharpen and a crisp image will soften when reduced. Mine look a lot softer.
Since it's not feasible (or even possible in most cases) to post a full size pic, the only way would be to crop "part" of an original down to a size acceptable to most sites and include it next to the reduced pic with an explanation. That is, if your reduced pic is say... 800x600, cut a full size 800x600 piece out of your original.

But that's an interesting arguement for shooting prime. That is you can crop a lot of extraneous detail out and you'd be reducing a lot less to post on line. But I'm still cropping with the lens since I've no real reason to post on line.

But again, a lot of folks... maybe most folks, like it a little soft. So don't think you have to go crazy to sharpen your work if you think I'm criticizing you. I'm certainly not! Great shots. You shoot for you. Don't worry about everyone else! I like it crisp but then again, I'm kinda weird! LOL

Bokeh? Not even slightly. On the other hand there's a few definitions. Playing with DOF it depends on the shot. So I guess what I'm saying, there is an exception to every rule. But I want the background to be identifiable so I'm not going to blur it out of existence if that's what you mean. Again... personal preference.
08-14-2011, 11:24 AM   #173
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Manual is always better.



PS: Not my collection.

08-15-2011, 08:43 AM   #174
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere near the middle...
Posts: 269
RioRico - you almost gaive me a heart-attack with this photo; saved by your PS!

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier, but I will mention it because its true: Some of us shoot MF purely for the joy of it. Yes good glass comes in all sorts of opportunities, but for me, its one way my family will STAY AWAY from my stuff, because they are initimated by MF. I don't weild a sence of superiority on them, but instead, have tried to teach them, but they are not so invested (or don't want to come to terms with the fact that their eyesight sucks).

Besides, could we feed LBA with AF lenses exclusively? LBA has the DNA of MF lenses built into it, since the AF technology matured much later...
08-15-2011, 10:12 AM   #175
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
Shooting MF is fun! But I fall into the "eyes suck" category.

I do mostly landscapes, architecture. And generally I have a lot of time to compose. So I crop with the lens, focus best I can (cuz it's fun!). But always have to hit the AF button for insurance thanx to the olde' eyes.

As far as the family... they're intimidated enuff by all the buttons, so no worries there.
08-15-2011, 10:13 AM   #176
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near The Mouse (tm)
Posts: 85
Erk! While you're posting the camera-pr0n, give us a shot of your lens collection! I guess I don't need individual macros of the front elements, just a family snapshot.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Manual is always better.



PS: Not my collection.
08-15-2011, 10:28 AM   #177
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Jason 407 Quote
Erk! While you're posting the camera-pr0n, give us a shot of your lens collection! I guess I don't need individual macros of the front elements, just a family snapshot.
I don't think I have room (nor time!) enough to setup all 222 lenses and 42 cameras (current count) that I can find -- and some are too-well stashed. Well, if my other was away from the house for a couple days, and I put a sheet over the long dining table and setup a tall tripod and ladder... Come to think of it, I'll have the opportunity in November. But I ain't promising nothing, y'hear?

QuoteOriginally posted by garyoa1 Quote
Shooting MF is fun! But I fall into the "eyes suck" category.
My delaminating eyeballs suck too. That's why I depend on CIF.
08-15-2011, 10:57 AM   #178
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near The Mouse (tm)
Posts: 85
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I don't think I have room (nor time!) enough to setup all 222 lenses and 42 cameras (current count) that I can find -- and some are too-well stashed. Well, if my other was away from the house for a couple days, and I put a sheet over the long dining table and setup a tall tripod and ladder... Come to think of it, I'll have the opportunity in November. But I ain't promising nothing, y'hear?


My delaminating eyeballs suck too. That's why I depend on CIF.
Wait, is this one of those situations where if the significant other were ever to see the entire collection in one spot, you might be hanged? I think I've been there. Uh, I know I've been there.
08-15-2011, 11:23 AM   #179
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Jason 407 Quote
Wait, is this one of those situations where if the significant other were ever to see the entire collection in one spot, you might be hanged? I think I've been there. Uh, I know I've been there.
Not that at all. (My not-insignificant other shoots Bronica.) No, the problem is of clashing decor. All those lenses and cameras just won't blend with our collections of southwestern pottery, blankets, baskets, paintings, etc. And we have different ideas of how to order stuff -- me, by provenance, not by color. Insurmountable differences...
07-19-2012, 12:31 PM   #180
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 896
All that doesn't matter a whit if I can't get a nicely focused picture. AF is far, far better than human at consistently and quickly determining correct focus. Give me a camera with a huge pentaprism viewfinder and a split prism focusng screen and the AF will still be better at it than I will. Give me a K-x with pentamirror and a tiny dim viewfinder and the AF will beat me every. single. time. And twice on tuesdays.

Charles.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, auto focus, focus, focus primes, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, primes, reasons, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does "auto" mean on older manual focus lenses? jonhock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-03-2009 11:32 AM
Auto-Focus Lenses on Manual Bodies pdx138 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 08-22-2009 06:47 PM
9 Reasons To Manual Focus duron Photographic Technique 12 12-08-2008 02:05 PM
Manual or Auto Focus paolo g Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 06-27-2008 10:55 AM
Manual and Auto Focus JCSullivan Photographic Technique 51 12-15-2007 06:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top