Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-17-2011, 03:52 PM   #16
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
My FA 50 hates low light focusing, and my K55 f1.8 has a MUCH better focusing ring. I get more in focus shots with the k55 in low lights because the FAs ring, while not horrible, isn't great either.
I miss focus on about 25% of my low light (really low light) shots when using my 1.4's, I will hit spot on MF focusing in low light (again really low light) with my 2.8 - if I do miss focus with the 2.8 and it is not because of too many beers, then there must be something wrong with the body's focus confirmation (I am pretty confident with that lens). Lately I have found myself using the 85 1.4 quite a bit, rarely in poor/little/erratic lighting conditions though.

I don't care for AF as I live for the challenge and the rewards of being able to note that I shot a certain fast moving action pic with MF, however, the 35 2.4 has saved me a couple of times thus far...


---

07-17-2011, 04:45 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
I must say I find that pretty odd, low light and 1.0'ing (or 1.2'ing) on a moving subject with such shallow DOF? Not doubting it, however, I shoot 90% of the time in low light (with 95% of my lenses manual focus), moving subjects which is about 90% of my shooting and some of the worse lighting situations you can run across and find it hard enough shooting with a 1.4 and just can't imagine doing it with a 1.2 or 1.0.



---
I had been doing this in the past with an FF manual focus camera. I guess it is necessary for someone who uses an ultra-fast lens to learn how to manually focus quickly and accurately. I do believe that people are spoon-fed by AF convenience nowadays that they forgot how to efficiently focus manually under poor lighting conditions. of course, that is the perks of handling an SLR camera. to be able to get such DOF control at your disposal. if DOF focus control was an issue, you'd be better suited with a P&S camera. in other words, people just need to learn how to handle such lenses and not the lenses do the handling for the photographer.
07-17-2011, 08:37 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
...and find it hard enough shooting with a 1.4 and just can't imagine doing it with a 1.2 or 1.0.
I never said it's easy. And don't take me wrong - by moving subject I meant movement of head - not someone running around. Rate of keepers is also low but the keepers are worth it for me.

I also agree that with cameras like the K-5 offering better high ISO performance, these considerations will change. I don't use the K-5 so I'm still bounded by ISO and prefer to use no more than 800.

QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
I miss focus on about 25% of my low light (really low light) shots when using my 1.4's
That's a low miss rate. Congratulations!
07-17-2011, 09:01 PM   #19
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
And don't take me wrong - by moving subject I meant movement of head
Got you - by moving subject I took it as actually moving (whole body running/moving through scene, etc..).

Hopefully the OP will post the kind of low light shooting they are looking to do, I am somewhat curious...


---

07-17-2011, 10:04 PM   #20
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
We haven't yet heard what StDevious (the OP) thinks of all this advice. And I'd ask what sort of low-light shooting was intended -- that matters. A superfast lens won't do if thick DOF is desired, and a ginormous flash won't illuminate Yosemite Valley. So, how low is the light? And what's to be shot in low light: People, places, things? Movement or stillness? Does high-ISO noise matter? A tripod is often a better solution. But just asking, "What's a good low-light lens?" doesn't give us much to work with. It's like asking, "What is a good car?" The answer: It depends...
07-18-2011, 12:18 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Coeurdechene's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: madrid
Photos: Albums
Posts: 833
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
ginormous flash won't illuminate Yosemite Valley
Maybe the flash they used to iluminate planes from other planes that appeared on strobist like a week ago ...
But for yosemite valley i would go the tripod "contraption" (as someone called it before) way.
07-18-2011, 07:17 AM - 1 Like   #22
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Coeurdechene Quote
Maybe the flash they used to iluminate planes from other planes that appeared on strobist like a week ago ...
But for yosemite valley i would go the tripod "contraption" (as someone called it before) way.
I was going to write (but I got lazy) "a ginormous flash won't illuminate Yosemite Valley without setting the forest afire".
07-18-2011, 01:57 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Sorry but I disagree. I've used my FA50/1.4 in a number of applications where the 2.8 just was not up to it.
"Not up to it" is a subjective determination. You mean, would have required a slower shutter speed or higher ISO than you personally might have been comfortable with, but most people - including a good number of professionals who shoot zooms almost exclusively - would be fine with f/2.8 most of the time.

07-18-2011, 02:00 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
And it is not only low light that forces the use of wide apertures but also attempting to shoot a moving subject in low light.
That's a crpa shoot no matter how fast your lens is - you really need flash. And its situations where the subject is not still where the shallower DOF really works against you.

I mean, I'm sure if you have an f/14 handy you'll tend to look for reasons to use it, but think people who assume that it is necessary or even always a good diea probably haven't tried shooting f/2.8 in these settings much (yes, I *have* shot faster lenses in these settings often, but am much happier with my f/2.8 lenses overall).
07-18-2011, 02:01 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: DMV
Photos: Albums
Posts: 431
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
We haven't yet heard what StDevious (the OP) thinks of all this advice. And I'd ask what sort of low-light shooting was intended -- that matters. A superfast lens won't do if thick DOF is desired, and a ginormous flash won't illuminate Yosemite Valley. So, how low is the light? And what's to be shot in low light: People, places, things? Movement or stillness? Does high-ISO noise matter? A tripod is often a better solution. But just asking, "What's a good low-light lens?" doesn't give us much to work with. It's like asking, "What is a good car?" The answer: It depends...
I don't really have any specific night shooting requirements, just being able to capture what I see in the night with good clarity low noise and maybe without using tripod
07-18-2011, 02:19 PM   #26
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by StDevious Quote
I don't really have any specific night shooting requirements, just being able to capture what I see in the night with good clarity low noise and maybe without using tripod
So basically just a walk-around lens that performs fairly well in low light?


-
07-18-2011, 02:21 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: DMV
Photos: Albums
Posts: 431
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
So basically just a walk-around lens that performs fairly well in low light?


-
pretty much. Also I tried manual focusing on a friend's D5100 since you guys suggested it, I think I can live with that on my K-x (which is supposed to come sometime soon). I hope it has a focus indicator ?
07-18-2011, 02:34 PM   #28
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by StDevious Quote
I don't really have any specific night shooting requirements, just being able to capture what I see in the night with good clarity low noise and maybe without using tripod
Lots of night shooting requires a tripod -- bracing against a lamppost often isn't enough (although I've had such shots published). Lots of night shooting without a tripod requires a flash, but flashes aren't cheap.

That leaves a FAST lens, and those aren't cheap either. Most of those f/1.5 or faster, especially at 30-58-85mm, are way beyond my budget. The exception is 50/1.4 -- I've bought manual-focus copies for under ten bucks. The autofocus FA50/1.4 is my go-to night lens; you may find one used for around US$250+.

Quite a cost difference between those AF and MF Fast Fifty's, eh? Of my ~215 lenses, 10 are AF (new and used) and cost an average of US$285 each; the others are all MF (almost all used) and cost an average of US$20 each. Yeah, new AF is expensive.
07-18-2011, 02:46 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: DMV
Photos: Albums
Posts: 431
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Quite a cost difference between those AF and MF Fast Fifty's, eh? Of my ~215 lenses, 10 are AF (new and used) and cost an average of US$285 each; the others are all MF (almost all used) and cost an average of US$20 each. Yeah, new AF is expensive.
Holy Cow! That's a lot of lenses. Do you have a whole closet dedicated to holding those ?

Anyways, I will be looking for a 50 f/1.4 on ebay or maybe 35mm (so I can get a larger FOV). How easy is it to MF on the K-x ?

Also just noticed that you are near Lake Tahoe, I'm headed there this weekend. Any tips on the absolutely to visit places, and the ones really good for photography.
07-18-2011, 02:50 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,293
Just to weigh in a little bit. The problem with the FA 50 at f1.4 is that it not only has minimal depth of field, but that lens is just plain soft at that aperture. Factor in that your focus won't be right on where you want it and you are going to end up with really soft photos that no amount of post processing will fix up. I think 35 f2.4 is best option -- depending on what you are shooting.

Last edited by Rondec; 07-18-2011 at 03:15 PM.
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!
af lenses, k-mount, lenses, low-light, pentax lens, photography, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
low light photography r00t_b33r Photographic Technique 9 12-11-2010 09:34 PM
Low light telephoto candid photography auto210035 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 03-02-2010 07:06 AM
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8 In Low Light Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 11-23-2009 03:57 PM
Low Light Photography Iann Cannon Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 37 10-22-2009 11:51 AM
good low light zooms? goldfishin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 06-14-2007 10:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 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