Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

mhsp · 01-04-2016, 08:41 PM

Lens Test

Just wanted to share something that exited me! I took my Pentax K3II and my new Pentax DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited WR (weather proof) Lens that came in this evening an attached it to my camera and stood in low light and took a photo of a painting on a wall in my house ISO 3200 40mm f/4 1/8 and IT WAS HAND HELD! Look at the detail on the writing in the painting. I am blown away that I hand held this camera at these settings in a room with two Incandescent Light Bulbs in a fixture behind me and slightly above me to my right.

I did no noise reduction processing in this photo - this is cool indeed

Can't wait to be able to go out and do some photos with this lens.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

OoKU · 01-04-2016, 09:07 PM

more picture welcome

mhsp · 01-04-2016, 09:15 PM

Soon OoKU

mhsp · 01-04-2016, 10:55 PM

Here are three I took this afternoon before sunset when I got the new 20-40mm

Attached Images

Kath · 01-04-2016, 11:00 PM

Beautiful! Congratulations on your new lens. Enjoy!

RR84 · 01-04-2016, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by mhsp

Here are three I took this afternoon before sunset when I got the new 20-40mm

Congrats on the new lens, but those images hurt my eyes to look at.

excanonfd · 01-05-2016, 02:50 AM - **1 Like**

Why do they look so unnatural?

Wild Mark · 01-05-2016, 03:36 AM

I wonder if HDR mode was used? The highlights on the azalea seem to be blown?

Oldbayrunner · 01-05-2016, 06:38 AM

word of advise, take better control of your DOF. Had you have used smaller apertures instead of making the mistake of trying to capture wider open with your new lens your results would have been much better. Wider is fine to use when you want to isolate a subject but not good otherwise.

mhsp · 01-05-2016, 07:02 AM

These are HDR processed in the computer. I like HDR. Smaller apertures are needed. The Azalea is blown. Took these with a limited time, rushed them. Thanks for the comments

**BigMackCam** · 01-05-2016, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Oldbayrunner

word of advise, take better control of your DOF. Had you have used smaller apertures instead of making the mistake of trying to capture wider open with your new lens your results would have been much better. Wider is fine to use when you want to isolate a subject but not good otherwise.

I don't see any DOF issue with the landscape photos of the house and woods? The coloring / contrast / overall processing is quite strong, but the DOF seems pretty good. With the shot of the flower, I'd look to use the a wider aperture (if available) to blur the background a little more...

@mhsp - congratulations on the lens! That indoor photo of your (very nice) painting shows what a great combination the K3II and DA20-40 can be. Enjoy!

mhsp · 01-05-2016, 07:14 AM

Thanks for the comment BigMackCam

Oldbayrunner · 01-05-2016, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I don't see any DOF issue with the landscape photos of the house and woods? The coloring / contrast / overall processing is quite strong, but the DOF seems pretty good. With the shot of the flower, I'd look to use the a wider aperture (if available) to blur the background a little more...

@mhsp - congratulations on the lens! That indoor photo of your (very nice) painting shows what a great combination the K3II and DA20-40 can be. Enjoy!

The first photo in the woods I would agree the depth of field is fine but the shot over all is completely blurry, in conjunction with the processing being somewhat too strong for my taste. The floral photo the depth of field is incorrect, and would go along with my suggest of using wider to isolate the subject. Here again the over all appears out of focus. The third photo, unless the subject was the the foreground that is semi in focus then there is a lack of control over the depth of field.

Of course if one liked that dreamy blurred look then I guess one would find these to their liking.

mhsp · 01-05-2016, 07:36 AM

Thanks Oldbayrunner, I will address these issues today and see if I can do better with this lens.

**BigMackCam** · 01-05-2016, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Oldbayrunner

The first photo in the woods I would agree the depth of field is fine but the shot over all is completely blurry, in conjunction with the processing being somewhat too strong for my taste. The floral photo the depth of field is incorrect, and would go along with my suggest of using wider to isolate the subject. Here again the over all appears out of focus. The third photo, unless the subject was the the foreground that is semi in focus then there is a lack of control over the depth of field.

Of course if one liked that dreamy blurred look then I guess one would find these to their liking.

I hear what you're saying, though describing the shots as "completely blurry" or having a "dreamy blurred look" is a bit strong, in my view. We don't know what sharpening and noise reduction has or hasn't been used, the level of JPG compression etc. And if the overall image appears blurry to you, that would suggest something other than DOF, surely? Nor do I see the floral photo DOF as being "incorrect" - rather, I think it would be improved with a narrower DOF... Like you, I feel the processing is too strong for my taste, although I really do like the first photo in the woods...

EDIT: not trying to argue, here - I just think there are a lot of factors at play, and we obviously have a different opinion on the images (which is all well and good)

---------- Post added 01-05-2016 at 02:59 PM ----------

Originally posted by mhsp

Thanks Oldbayrunner, I will address these issues today and see if I can do better with this lens.

Just a suggestion - while the in-camera JPG filters are fun and can be used to great effect, as a general rule I would concentrate on taking images so that they look as natural as possible - either as RAW, or JPG with no filters added and the colour balance set to "Natural" and white balance set to AWB. Then, when you're completely happy with the fundamentals of the image, carry out some gentle post-processing out of camera (to optimise exposure, contrast, shadows and highlights, noise reduction, sharpening etc.) using any of the free image processing applications, or - if you're happy to pay for them - something like Lightroom or Photoshop. The resolution of the K3II sensor, and the quality of that DA20-40 lens, will come to the fore if you do this

01-05-2016, 07:39 AM	#15
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,703	Originally posted by Oldbayrunner The first photo in the woods I would agree the depth of field is fine but the shot over all is completely blurry, in conjunction with the processing being somewhat too strong for my taste. The floral photo the depth of field is incorrect, and would go along with my suggest of using wider to isolate the subject. Here again the over all appears out of focus. The third photo, unless the subject was the the foreground that is semi in focus then there is a lack of control over the depth of field. Of course if one liked that dreamy blurred look then I guess one would find these to their liking. I hear what you're saying, though describing the shots as "completely blurry" or having a "dreamy blurred look" is a bit strong, in my view. We don't know what sharpening and noise reduction has or hasn't been used, the level of JPG compression etc. And if the overall image appears blurry to you, that would suggest something other than DOF, surely? Nor do I see the floral photo DOF as being "incorrect" - rather, I think it would be improved with a narrower DOF... Like you, I feel the processing is too strong for my taste, although I really do like the first photo in the woods... EDIT: not trying to argue, here - I just think there are a lot of factors at play, and we obviously have a different opinion on the images (which is all well and good) ---------- Post added 01-05-2016 at 02:59 PM ---------- Originally posted by mhsp Thanks Oldbayrunner, I will address these issues today and see if I can do better with this lens. Just a suggestion - while the in-camera JPG filters are fun and can be used to great effect, as a general rule I would concentrate on taking images so that they look as natural as possible - either as RAW, or JPG with no filters added and the colour balance set to "Natural" and white balance set to AWB. Then, when you're completely happy with the fundamentals of the image, carry out some gentle post-processing out of camera (to optimise exposure, contrast, shadows and highlights, noise reduction, sharpening etc.) using any of the free image processing applications, or - if you're happy to pay for them - something like Lightroom or Photoshop. The resolution of the K3II sensor, and the quality of that DA20-40 lens, will come to the fore if you do this Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-05-2016 at 08:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to test DA300 mm without other 300mm lens?	pukipuki	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	01-30-2016 03:14 AM
Landscape Test Photo New Lens	Janse	Post Your Photos!	8	07-03-2015 05:48 PM
B&H: How to Test Your Lens	interested_observer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-14-2015 11:36 AM
Macro New 100mm Macro Lens Test	Susinok	Post Your Photos!	2	04-11-2014 06:15 PM
lens test pic..	trog100	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	12-26-2006 04:33 PM

01-04-2016, 09:07 PM	#2
OoKU Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 740	more picture welcome

01-04-2016, 09:15 PM	#3
mhsp Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 58 Original Poster	Soon OoKU

01-04-2016, 10:55 PM	#4
mhsp Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 58 Original Poster	Here are three I took this afternoon before sunset when I got the new 20-40mm Attached Images

01-04-2016, 11:00 PM	#5
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737	Beautiful! Congratulations on your new lens. Enjoy!

01-04-2016, 11:19 PM	#6
RR84 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 161	Originally posted by mhsp Here are three I took this afternoon before sunset when I got the new 20-40mm Congrats on the new lens, but those images hurt my eyes to look at.

01-05-2016, 02:50 AM - 1 Like	#7
excanonfd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 1,421	Why do they look so unnatural?

01-05-2016, 03:36 AM	#8
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	I wonder if HDR mode was used? The highlights on the azalea seem to be blown?

01-05-2016, 06:38 AM	#9
Oldbayrunner Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,665	word of advise, take better control of your DOF. Had you have used smaller apertures instead of making the mistake of trying to capture wider open with your new lens your results would have been much better. Wider is fine to use when you want to isolate a subject but not good otherwise.

01-05-2016, 07:02 AM	#10
mhsp Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 58 Original Poster	These are HDR processed in the computer. I like HDR. Smaller apertures are needed. The Azalea is blown. Took these with a limited time, rushed them. Thanks for the comments

01-05-2016, 07:08 AM	#11
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,703	Originally posted by Oldbayrunner word of advise, take better control of your DOF. Had you have used smaller apertures instead of making the mistake of trying to capture wider open with your new lens your results would have been much better. Wider is fine to use when you want to isolate a subject but not good otherwise. I don't see any DOF issue with the landscape photos of the house and woods? The coloring / contrast / overall processing is quite strong, but the DOF seems pretty good. With the shot of the flower, I'd look to use the a wider aperture (if available) to blur the background a little more... @mhsp - congratulations on the lens! That indoor photo of your (very nice) painting shows what a great combination the K3II and DA20-40 can be. Enjoy!

01-05-2016, 07:14 AM	#12
mhsp Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 58 Original Poster	Thanks for the comment BigMackCam

01-05-2016, 07:30 AM	#13
Oldbayrunner Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by BigMackCam I don't see any DOF issue with the landscape photos of the house and woods? The coloring / contrast / overall processing is quite strong, but the DOF seems pretty good. With the shot of the flower, I'd look to use the a wider aperture (if available) to blur the background a little more... @mhsp - congratulations on the lens! That indoor photo of your (very nice) painting shows what a great combination the K3II and DA20-40 can be. Enjoy! The first photo in the woods I would agree the depth of field is fine but the shot over all is completely blurry, in conjunction with the processing being somewhat too strong for my taste. The floral photo the depth of field is incorrect, and would go along with my suggest of using wider to isolate the subject. Here again the over all appears out of focus. The third photo, unless the subject was the the foreground that is semi in focus then there is a lack of control over the depth of field. Of course if one liked that dreamy blurred look then I guess one would find these to their liking.

01-05-2016, 07:36 AM	#14
mhsp Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 58 Original Poster	Thanks Oldbayrunner, I will address these issues today and see if I can do better with this lens.