Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-25-2011, 09:08 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
FWIW, I use the Tamron 28-75 for almost all portrait work. I've done a lot of kids with it. It's so razor sharp that I frequently need to soften the images and pull back on clarity. But I'd much rather have a sharp lens that I may need to soften than vice versa. When I want thin DOF I use an old Pentax M50/1.4. For stage performance and the like I reach for the Tamron 70-200/2.8. And wide angle goes to the Pentax 15/4. I would like something between the 15 and 28 (21/3.2?) then I'd have the perfect kit. And the 31 - just because...
I'm pretty sure if I was a working pro now I'd use zooms. They were abysmal - even the good ones - back in the 80s, but my 18-50 and 50-135 are excellent and fully capable of "pro" results. But I enjoy shooting with primes, and I love the sharpness ( even if it's often indiscernible in 8x10 prints! ) and contrast they provide. The romance of the glass, so to speak. So, since I don't have to worry about ROI or cost/benefit any more...

05-25-2011, 11:59 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
I strongly agree with the others who have suggested the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. For the money, I don't think there's a better portrait lens. Perfect range, allowing you to easily capture a group at the wide end, or use the telephoto end to get tight on your subject's head without having to be right in their face.

I've shot thousands of pictures with mine and am still amazed at the image quality, even at f/2.8. And unlike some other f/2.8 lenses I've used, I almost never have to correct vignetting.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is also a decent lens, but its range is a little too wide/too short to be ideal for portrait work. I briefly owned a copy and was pleased by the image quality, but I noticed that it was underexposing. My testing showed that its max effective aperture was more in the range of f/3.3. I don't think it was just mine, since there are widespread reports of underexposure with this lens.
05-25-2011, 07:20 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 850
Original Poster
Ok, the Tamron 28-75 may be sharp, but does it have a special look or any other reason to buy it? Sharpness it not the only criteria, although it is important. I guess what I am asking is, what lens will give me outstanding overall IQ for the money.

And if there is one "special" lens (like the FA77) that will stand out among it's peers. At the end of the day I don't care if it's a prime or a zoom.

All of my work is done outdoors (most of the time) or indoors in natural light (seldom). Using the M50 1.4 was interesting, as I havn't used a prime since my film days (same lenes funny enough), but the narrow DOP is challenging with moving kids.
05-25-2011, 07:39 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
Ok, the Tamron 28-75 may be sharp, but does it have a special look or any other reason to buy it? Sharpness it not the only criteria, although it is important. I guess what I am asking is, what lens will give me outstanding overall IQ for the money.

And if there is one "special" lens (like the FA77) that will stand out among it's peers. At the end of the day I don't care if it's a prime or a zoom.
Check out the post jsherman just made over in the "pixie dust" thread about the 77. It's near the end.

05-25-2011, 07:41 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 850
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Check out the post jsherman just made over in the "pixie dust" thread about the 77. It's near the end.
Just came back from reading it, and drooling all over my keyboard! Well I think that's my decision made. I have to have at least one Pentax prime don't I?
Can pick one up on Ebay for just over $800, question now is silver or black?
05-25-2011, 09:51 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
Just came back from reading it, and drooling all over my keyboard! Well I think that's my decision made. I have to have at least one Pentax prime don't I?
Can pick one up on Ebay for just over $800, question now is silver or black?
It's a trap. jsherman has magic eyeballs.
05-26-2011, 12:08 AM   #37
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
Well, here's some of my favorite family shots from the last year of so using my Tamron 28-75mm. Most of these are shot at f/2.8 using natural lighting. I don't know if they exhibit any pixie dust, but I'm very happy with them.

I've tried to avoid including studio shots (although a couple crept in), but I also have a ton of shots from my home studio, where the 28-75mm is my favorite lens due to its incredible sharpness.































































And while I'm at it, here's a picture of my Pentax K-x with the 28-75mm mounted:


Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 05-26-2011 at 04:27 AM.
05-26-2011, 12:11 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
Hmmm...going back and looking at the photos I just posted, the images don't look nearly as good in the browser as they do in Photoshop or in Windows Picture Viewer on my computer. They look kind of flat, with less contrast and much less saturation. They just "pop" much more on my computer.

I tried to compensate on the first picture by cranking up the saturation when processing from the RAW DNG file, and it helped a little, but it still doesn't look as good as it does on my computer. I'm guessing it must be some kind of color space issue?

05-26-2011, 12:30 AM   #39
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Hmmm...going back and looking at the photos I just posted, the images don't look nearly as good in the browser as they do in Photoshop or in Windows Picture Viewer on my computer. They look kind of flat, with less contrast and much less saturation. They just "pop" much more on my computer.
On my screen they look pretty darn good - and every bit as good as anything shot with the DA / FA Limiteds for that matter.
05-26-2011, 02:17 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 850
Original Poster
Yes they look great, that's one sharp puppy! Now youre just trying to confuse me, and it doesn't take much! Quick someone post some more FA77 shots before I change my mind again!
05-26-2011, 04:25 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
Quick someone post some more FA77 shots before I change my mind again!
I wouldn't mind having the 77mm ltd (and even considered it for a time before buying my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8) but that is an expensive lens. Check this eBay auction out:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 Macro Lens Pentax K-mount | eBay

That was an auction that ended last night for a Tamron 28-75mm that was almost new and came in the box. The final price? $277. A Pentax 77mm, on the other hand, never goes for less than $700 on eBay.

With that kind of price difference, you could afford another lens. You could get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, plus the Sigma 10-20mm for some super-wide angle fun. Or a nice macro lens, like the Pentax 35mm f2.8 limited (which may also serve to scratch your "limited" itch). Or you could get a fast lens, like the Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4, or (even better, IMO) the Sigma 30mm or 50mm f/1.4.

Or, you could just give your wife the money you saved by buying the Tamron, and tell her the lens didn't cost as much you thought it would, so now she can buy that new purse she's been wanting.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 05-26-2011 at 05:19 AM.
05-26-2011, 04:47 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 850
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
With that kind of price difference, you could afford another lens. You could get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, plus the Sigma 10-20mm for some super-wide angle fun. Or a nice macro lens, like the Pentax 35mm f2.8 limited (which may also serve to scratch your "limited" itch). Or you could get a fast lens, like the Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4, or (even better, IMO) the Sigma 30mm or 50mm f/1.4.
Now your really messing with my head! Oh to have them all.....
05-26-2011, 04:55 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
Here are a couple of the pictures from above linked to their full-size images so you can see what kind of sharpness and image quality to expect at 100% magnification (for all you sick pixel-peepers out there--you know who you are). Click on the picture to open the full-size image. The first shot is at f/2.8, and the second shot is at f/8.0. In both pictures the eyes were the point of focus.

I once heard somebody describe the Tamron 28-75mm as "having a bag full of primes" in one lens. I don't know if that's true, but I've always been extremely impressed with the image quality at all focal lengths and apertures.







Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 05-26-2011 at 05:01 AM.
05-26-2011, 05:28 AM   #44
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
With that kind of price difference, you could afford another lens. You could get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, plus the Sigma 10-20mm for some super-wide angle fun.
Oops, I forgot you already had the Sigma 10-20mm. In that case, the Tamron 28-75mm would be a great extension of your current focal range. I've always found 21-27mm to be highly over-rated anyway! lol

You would then be setup perfectly for a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, so you would have pretty much everything from 10mm to 200mm covered in three lenses.
05-26-2011, 06:04 AM   #45
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
I once heard somebody describe the Tamron 28-75mm as "having a bag full of primes" in one lens.
The more I see what this lens can do, the more I believe the above statement.
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!
k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Sigma 150-500mm HSM, 150mm MACRO HSM, Sigma 18-250 HSM, Sigma 10-20mm HSM mackloon Sold Items 7 05-01-2011 02:25 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 100-300 f4. Sigma 1.4 Teleconvertor. Sigma UV filter. Cases, Caps, Box & garethwebber Sold Items 3 12-03-2010 03:05 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 davebest Sold Items 12 06-25-2009 02:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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