Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-24-2011, 08:42 AM   #31
Senior Member
metalmania's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
I did view the largest size. Pretty good for a zoom. But if you see Chrsitine's full size photos, she's expecting to see individual faces across a stadium. The 50-135 can't do that till about f5.6, some limited and some "unlimited" Pentax primes can do that wide open. I do love your shot, just talking about the lens here, which as I said, does great for a zoom.



Here's a Pentax prime wide open.
That's impressive. I thought the DOF would be too shallow to show the details with wide open aperture.

04-24-2011, 09:05 AM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 176
I own all of the DA* Zooms, and they are all very sharp in the center wide open, which you will discover from use and confirmed by Photozone testing. If I want to shoot something and get the whole frame sharp or shoot something that is off center, I have to stop down slightly. I believe this is because of field curvature combined with shallow depth of field.

The 50-135 to 4.0
The 60-250 to 5.6

The 16-50 is odd... I feel I have to go all the way to 5.6 to get sharpness across the board. BUT... at 50mm and 2.8 you get great bokeh for a zoom.

I just checked my shots with my 50-135 shot at about 50ft away at 2.8 and they seemed sharper than your example... but I'm not sure how far away you were... also the people in the top center which are further away seem a tad sharper. I would try to use this lens on things closer and check your results. You might just need to do a slight focus adjustment.

If you want sharp wide open from a distance, I think the option is the DA 300mm 4.0

I hope this helps. I love my 50-135 and it very closely rivals my FA 77 limited.

I looked at your windows live gallery, and everything seems fine to me. You also have to remember that a little sharpening in post processing (that many do) will go a LONG way.

Last edited by alfdog; 04-24-2011 at 09:09 AM. Reason: update
04-24-2011, 05:03 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
Well, the good news from all my testing is now that I know how much sharper my primes are compared to the DA50-135, I am much more comfortable shooting wide open using my primes.

For example, f1.7 on my A50 (a little front focused - I was so intent on capturing the shot I didn't bother fine tuning the manual focus):
04-24-2011, 05:08 PM   #34
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
Less successful - back focused.

I'm still a novice when it comes to manual focusing, I get quite panicky when I don't know when the subject is going to move, so I am tempted to press the shutter as soon as it seems "okay" on the viewfinder.


04-24-2011, 05:31 PM   #35
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
F/2.8 sharpness for far away subjects doesn't concern me. What I want to know is hows the sharpness @ say 135mm F/2.8 for a normal upper body/head portrait shot? Any samples?
04-24-2011, 05:48 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
F/2.8 sharpness for far away subjects doesn't concern me. What I want to know is hows the sharpness @ say 135mm F/2.8 for a normal upper body/head portrait shot? Any samples?

If you look at the link to the gallery that I posted, I have examples of the same subject shot at different settings.

This is at 135mm f2.8 - a bit too soft for me, but acceptable with a bit of post processing:
04-24-2011, 05:50 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
for sport Id have chosen the sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS..that is a very sharp lens....and quick AF..the 50-135 AF is too slow for sports IMHO.. particularly footy or soccer ...its also cheaper than the pentax lens and can be had locally for around $1300AU using CRK's and sigmas price matching of OS/grey imports
04-24-2011, 05:58 PM   #38
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
If you look at the link to the gallery that I posted, I have examples of the same subject shot at different settings.

This is at 135mm f2.8 - a bit too soft for me, but acceptable with a bit of post processing:
I mean more along the lines of an actual *human* portrait shot showcasing the whole package (bokeh, sharpness on the eyes, etc.)

I am familiar with human faces, have shot many of them, therefore it is easy to judge a lens by this

04-24-2011, 06:13 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
I mean more along the lines of an actual *human* portrait shot showcasing the whole package (bokeh, sharpness on the eyes, etc.)

I am familiar with human faces, have shot many of them, therefore it is easy to judge a lens by this
There are plenty of examples of good photos taken on this lens - do a search.

Here's an example from me, at 135mm f2.8 (taken at the Sydney Zombie March March):


135mm f4:


135mm f5.6:
04-24-2011, 06:20 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
for sport Id have chosen the sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS..that is a very sharp lens....and quick AF..the 50-135 AF is too slow for sports IMHO.. particularly footy or soccer ...its also cheaper than the pentax lens and can be had locally for around $1300AU using CRK's and sigmas price matching of OS/grey imports
$1300??? Wayyy too expensive.

I paid around $800 for a brand new 50-135 ...

And it's plenty fast for me - this is the exact moment when the winner of the wood chop finals at the Royal Easter Show delivered the blow:
04-24-2011, 06:24 PM   #41
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
There are plenty of examples of good photos taken on this lens - do a search.

Here's an example from me, at 135mm f2.8 (taken at the Sydney Zombie March March):


135mm f4:


135mm f5.6:
The first is perfect. Do you have a bigger version to look at so I can get an idea if it approaches F 135mm territory?
04-24-2011, 06:31 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
$1300??? Wayyy too expensive.

I paid around $800 for a brand new 50-135 ...

And it's plenty fast for me - this is the exact moment when the winner of the wood chop finals at the Royal Easter Show delivered the blow:

no worries,,I amused you bought the 50-135 locally....Id have still gone the extra $500 though for the sigma...did I mention its also sharp at F2.8


try that same shot with the axeman running towards you full tilt..then abruptly changing direction before delivering the final blow...you have a similar situation to shooting a footy game/soccer/hockey.....taking a static subject and saying AF is fast enough isn't quite the same..that subject being sharp would come down to shutter speed rather than AF speed ,,
04-24-2011, 06:41 PM   #43
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
The first is perfect. Do you have a bigger version to look at so I can get an idea if it approaches F 135mm territory?
Not online - I can probably email a full size version to you if you PM me your email address. Not today though, I'm just about to go out.
04-24-2011, 06:44 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
no worries,,I amused you bought the 50-135 locally....Id have still gone the extra $500 though for the sigma...did I mention its also sharp at F2.8


try that same shot with the axeman running towards you full tilt..then abruptly changing direction before delivering the final blow...you have a similar situation to shooting a footy game/soccer/hockey.....taking a static subject and saying AF is fast enough isn't quite the same..that subject being sharp would come down to shutter speed rather than AF speed ,,
I was pretty sure I was offered less than A$900 for the sigma at the shop I tested it on - but no, I wasn't impressed with it.

As for your scenario - sorry I don't buy it. It doesn't make that much of a difference in my experience - most of the time in a situation like that, I will be shooting at 7fps and the lens should already be mostly focused so it's just a case of tracking focus from shot to shot.

And I already mentioned I did a test shooting a moving car (same scenario as selar) and the DA*50-135mm tracked each shot perfectly.
04-24-2011, 07:01 PM   #45
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
I was pretty sure I was offered less than A$900 for the sigma at the shop I tested it on - but no, I wasn't impressed with it.

As for your scenario - sorry I don't buy it. It doesn't make that much of a difference in my experience - most of the time in a situation like that, I will be shooting at 7fps and the lens should already be mostly focused so it's just a case of tracking focus from shot to shot.

And I already mentioned I did a test shooting a moving car (same scenario as selar) and the DA*50-135mm tracked each shot perfectly.
1

that would have been a HSM II...not to be confused with the newer OS version..which is quite a step up...ive had the former..and tested the latter quite extensively..and Id put the latter right up there with either the Nikon VrII 70-200 or the Canon USM L II 70-200....but not quite as good at 100% crops...thats wide open testing {F2.8}

2

No worries...its your dollars..your choice ..7FPS has never been a way I like shoot.....i hate having to work my way through loads of images to find a few keepers .......but if it works for you thats cool.....
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!
58mm, blur, da*50-135mm, f2.8, f5.6, focus, iso400, k-mount, motion, pentax lens, scene, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images jeffkpotter Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 64 04-22-2014 05:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 28-80mm, 35-135mm and sears 135mm YJD Sold Items 5 07-15-2009 01:42 PM
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images jeffkpotter Post Your Photos! 22 04-23-2009 09:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. | 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