Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-14-2017, 10:55 PM   #61
Pentaxian
p38arover's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,085
Do you need the Whisky to light the fire - it certainly isn't something one would willingly drink?

02-15-2017, 02:26 AM - 1 Like   #62
Moderator PEG Judges
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 39,706
QuoteOriginally posted by p38arover Quote
Do you need the Whisky to light the fire - it certainly isn't something one would willingly drink?
I'm sure that establishment will sell your red vino too.
02-17-2017, 07:40 PM   #63
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
foto guy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vernon, Connecticut
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 283
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
That's how I see it. If I put a 28mm lens on the camera and leave everything else behind, I am out of luck if I see an eagle stealing salmon from a grizzly bear. I have to stop seeing all the non-28mm shots I am missing, and start seeing shots for that single focal length. When that clicks, my shots work out. Most of the time they are less a snapshot and more a real photograph, but not because a 28mm f8 prime shot is so infinitely superior to a 28mm f8 zoom shot. It's the thought process that goes into the shot. I also take a lot more shots of each subject with slight variations with the prime, while with a zoom I often think I've got it in one.

As camera and processing technology improves, it's easier to make either type of lens work. When you can shoot at ISO 409600 and it's not the maximum for your camera, a slow zoom is not that slow any more. You can stitch shots from a prime lens and get a wide angle. Crop a third of your frame and you still have lots of pixels.
Well said.
02-17-2017, 07:49 PM - 2 Likes   #64
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,284
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
That's how I see it. If I put a 28mm lens on the camera and leave everything else behind, I am out of luck if I see an eagle stealing salmon from a grizzly bear. I have to stop seeing all the non-28mm shots I am missing, and start seeing shots for that single focal length. When that clicks, my shots work out. Most of the time they are less a snapshot and more a real photograph, but not because a 28mm f8 prime shot is so infinitely superior to a 28mm f8 zoom shot. It's the thought process that goes into the shot. I also take a lot more shots of each subject with slight variations with the prime, while with a zoom I often think I've got it in one.

As camera and processing technology improves, it's easier to make either type of lens work. When you can shoot at ISO 409600 and it's not the maximum for your camera, a slow zoom is not that slow any more. You can stitch shots from a prime lens and get a wide angle. Crop a third of your frame and you still have lots of pixels.
You realize you are discussing a psychological mind set that has nothing to do with the lenses involved, or even photography? It's about how you think.

QuoteQuote:
Most of the time they are less a snapshot and more a real photograph, but not because a 28mm f8 prime shot is so infinitely superior to a 28mm f8 zoom shot. It's the thought process that goes into the shot.
That could be simply a lack of discipline, which I don't think is a zoom or prime type issue.

There is absolutely no reason you can't put as much care and effort into a zoom shot you do into a prime shot. Looking though my keepers at the end of a sunset, they will be 80-90% zoom images. That's because the zoom gives you a much better chance to have the perfect focal length for the scene in front of you.

I can put my 18-135 on 24mm and just leave it there, it beats any Pentax prime made in that focal length on APS-c. I can move around as much as anyone with a prime can. I can just look at 24mm as long as it's convenient. I definitely don't have this psychological predisposition to take only snapshots with my zooms.

I have no problem looking at my 18-135 at 24mm, realizing I need wider and putting on the 21 ltd. And I have no problem taking the 21 ltd off, if I need 50mm. Lenses like my 60-250, that are prime like throughout their range are tremendous advantage over a fixed lens.

It is truly possible (I'm guessing) to ignore the scene and shoot the focal length you have. I would suggest a more appropriate method would be to select the best focal length for the scene. Having a zoom aids greatly in the selection process, even if you choose to use a prime after selecting what focal length you want. Thinking about it that way, (that every scene has a focal length at which it's best shot) it should be pretty clear which way gets you the best image.

The goal is to have the best image overall, not the best image at one focal length, especially one that's not optimal for the scene before you.

Sorry if I can't in anyway comprehend the value of this kind of thinking.

Some one show me some pictures.

It all sounds all "New Age" to me, that particular mindset. Mind you I've never owned the "magic 77 ltd.", if that's what you're talking about, all the sudden I comprehend.

But I'd still argue, if what you need is 120mm, you better hope you're walking around with the 60-250 on and not the 77 ltd.


Last edited by normhead; 02-17-2017 at 08:16 PM.
02-18-2017, 12:42 AM   #65
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,036
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is absolutely no reason you can't put as much care and effort into a zoom shot you do into a prime shot.
There is a reason, that's laziness :-) we all have some of it.

---------- Post added 18-02-17 at 08:47 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But I'd still argue, if what you need is 120mm, you better hope you're walking around with the 60-250 on and not the 77 ltd.
You could set your 60-250 @ 77mm and pretend it's a 77 ltd: oh wait a minute, I can't zoom in out with this DA*77SDM prime, let me move forward or backward a bit, clic, wow, can't see the pixy dust over here? wow that prime really has something special :-)

Last edited by biz-engineer; 02-18-2017 at 12:50 AM.
02-19-2017, 01:08 PM - 1 Like   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
In the end that zoom vs prime is mostly about the experience and what available.

There many cases where one is objectively better from its pure objectives characteristics: max apperture, focal range, reproduction ratio, size/weight and also price.

Then there the sharpness stuff and the optical abherations that in today world of automatic corrections and modern lens design totally overated. There no lens soft enough in standard viewing situation to show when used as it intended focal length. The rest can be fixed.

Still, there the lens rendering. It is usually a small aspect, but still much much more visible and important than the sharpness, geometry, vigneting or chromatic aberations. Some lenses do have great rendering that you like, some have rendering that is just clinical or boring.

And there the connection between the gear and the photographer. If you have a good feeling, if the gear just do what you need without thinking of it, you are in much better situation.
02-19-2017, 02:43 PM - 4 Likes   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
beside I have been to an event last saturday, shall have been using zooms. By all account if somebody was asking I would have said, use zooms.

I went with primes only... I must be terribly stupid as I didn't even notice the issue on stage... It went just fine.

And ahhh... and I cheated, I even used f/2 at time. So expect for the 18-35, no zoom would have allowed that...
















Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-19-2017 at 02:58 PM.
02-19-2017, 04:14 PM   #68
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,654
Like your shots Nicholas. Had you been to the Carnival de Nice before? Did you know how far away the subjects would be?

I guess I'm asking whether you fitted the lens to the scene, or the scene to the lens?

02-19-2017, 04:56 PM   #69
dmr
Senior Member
dmr's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 106
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But it's OK cause I take my phone, just in case I have to have a picture.
They say the best camera to use is the one you have with you, and if that's what you have ...

For me, I'm of the opinion that taking a serious photo using a phone is about as absurd as making a phone call on a Spotmatic! It reminds me of trying to take a photo by holding up a piece of buttered toast. (Or worse, tablet, taking a photo with a steno pad.)

I am, however, very spoiled on zooms. I realize they will never had the acuity of a good prime, but I do enjoy the ability to use zooming as part of the composing process.
02-19-2017, 04:56 PM - 1 Like   #70
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
Like your shots Nicholas. Had you been to the Carnival de Nice before? Did you know how far away the subjects would be?

I guess I'm asking whether you fitted the lens to the scene, or the scene to the lens?
Both.

Usually I use 1 focus point and put it where I think the composition would be interresting, I frame and follow the subject and shot as many times I think it is worth it and if given choice, try to get at least 2-3 shot of a subject to be sure. I don't use AFS and focus and half press shutter to focus. That for my practice a waste of time. Doesn't focus when you need, refocus when you don't want it etc. So the focus is on AF button only, disabled on shutter button. So then I always have AFC, the AFS is me when I stop pushing the AF button. That's less setting to mess with. Much simpler and more control. I have perfect and intuitive control of what the AF does. I AF when I want, I follow the subject. I never need to focus/recompose. And I shot. Better to not be single shutter but in burst, maybe med or slow one so you can always fire when you want.

This is a parade, this means that whatever the gear zoom or prime, your position is essential. Better if there no obstacle and if you are near. So first row in front of the scene. Whatever lens you use, much better. Be it zoom or prime. The thing is the subject are coming toward you. Meaning with a single focal length you can get all the type of composition/framing you want, you just need to wait. You get it from far distance, medium distance, near distance.

You can walk a bit, not much but a bit to frame/adapt to other people getting in the way etc or get a better point of view. You need that with prime or zoom the same.

You choose the focal length not because you are lazy to get the framing right, but as it should be for its creative effect: perspective compression or distortion. There constraints too. Too wide and you get more public than scene. Too narrow and you'd get only headshots.

I came there with DA15, DA21, FA31, FA77, so I was ready for everything really. 2-3 shots with DA21 shown that it was not going to be interresting at that focal length so I focussed sessions at 77mm and other at 31mm.

Last time, 3 years ago I went there full zoom: K5, 17-50 and 50-135. I sold both quite some time ago. I was first row too. But the experience overall was much worse. my only f/2.8 zoom was 50mm at minimum and I wasn't as good to control what to focus on. the 17-70 was perfect focal range but f/4 was not that great for night scene while today I even made a few f/1.8 shots. The K5 wasn't a great performer for AF. Slow in low light and I didn't know how to control the AF as well and how to focus accurately. Even if I knew the AF point on K5 were to big to have real control and the slowlyness of K5 AF would break the deal.

It was definitely much either with K3 and a few primes than with K5 and 2 zooms. By far; And the results I got today are far better too. And call it funny but I had as more need to change zoom between the 17-70 and 50-135 back than I need it today between FA31 and FA77 or DA21.

At least for that occasion, this isn't that you need all the focal length a zoom provide, that it is even that helpfull. If you don't know your stuff, you are more likely to waste time trying to zoom, try compositions than taking shots where you know it works. Not that any experienced guy shall have issue with that zoom or prime, but it is just to say, that isn't the help you might think it is.

If you know your stuff, you'll get the shot. People theorize you'd not manage it, that it be complex. They are plain wrong. If you missed the shoot, you didn't come prepared, you didn't know your gear or your technique.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-19-2017 at 05:03 PM.
02-19-2017, 05:38 PM   #71
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,654
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The thing is the subject are coming toward you. Meaning with a single focal length you can get all the type of composition/framing you want, you just need to wait. You get it from far distance, medium distance, near distance. You can walk a bit, not much but a bit to frame/adapt to other people getting in the way etc or get a better point of view.
That is exactly when I - and most photographers - would prefer a zoom, all other things being equal. Of course, since I don't have any fast zooms, for night shots all things would not be equal. And maybe even an f2.8 zoom would not be equal to the FA 77 or FA 31.
02-19-2017, 05:54 PM   #72
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But regardless of Roger's point, we do know that with one copy of the DA* 60-250 and one copy of the DA* 200 the 60-250 was sharper. What the results would be if they tested 5 copies of each is another question, but we know at least one the DA* 60-250 came out on top. SO the DA* could win the shootout 4 to1, but the DA* 60-250 has the chance to win 5-0.

My problem with the 18-135 review was his analysis not his numbers. He took some kind of average and declared it to be a really bad lens. 1.5 stars out of 5. The Sigma 18-250 which I owned got 2.5 stars. We have not one Sigma 18-250 image that comes anywhere close to matching the 18-135 images in it's range. HIs analysis was complete nonsense. The higher rating should go to the camera capable of the best images, not some nonsense average edge to edge. IN many images edge sharpness is not important. Meanwhile the the 18-135 had excellent scores in more categories than the 16-50, any 18 to 200-300 type lens, and all of the older Pentax primes, all of which were rated higher, because he averaged in the borders at the long end, and selected lenses that couldn't match the 18-135 to rate higher. The centre wasn't as sharp, usually much lower, they were just plain average everywhere. Who wants that? So it was Klaus' total lack of understanding of what you needed in a lens to take a great image that was the issue. He looked at the numbers and said "lousy lens." I looked at the same numbers and said "great lens, I can use this". Klaus was one of the gatekeepers of the "edge to edge sharpness is the most important thing" club, and the philosophy that said shooting a brick wall was better than a lens that could show depth and have a 3d look. He's not alone in that. It seem to be the current thing. Well if you really want that, you can do a great job with a cell phone.

TO me, a lens that has Centre Sharpness at 135mm is all I need for more than half my images.

If the Klaus's view of the world is right, why do so many of us still love the rendering of the 77 ltd. and 31 ltd, and the DA18-135 shot at 24mm-28mm?
Well said Normheads, I fully agree.
DA 18-135 is my most used lens.
IMO, the outstanding center sharpness helps deliver quite appealing pictures in most scenes. And the lens performance between 23 a

---------- Post added 02-20-17 at 01:59 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Old out of date tech, cheap ($190) superzoom, 10mp crop at ISO 4000
This one - Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Model PENTAX K-5
Shutter Speed 1/160 s
F-Number f/8
ISO ISO 4000
Exposure Bias Value 0.30 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 190 mm
Lens Model Sigma Lens
Date/Time Original 3/5/2013 3:58:37 PM
At ISO 4000, the lens softness doesnt matter so much, as the definition collapses.....
02-19-2017, 11:35 PM   #73
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by Tatouzou Quote
At ISO 4000, the lens softness doesnt matter so much, as the definition collapses.....
The means doesn't matter the result does - is the result satisfactory for your purposes or not?
02-19-2017, 11:49 PM - 2 Likes   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
That is exactly when I - and most photographers - would prefer a zoom, all other things being equal. Of course, since I don't have any fast zooms, for night shots all things would not be equal. And maybe even an f2.8 zoom would not be equal to the FA 77 or FA 31.
Here I used for time to time f/1.8, f/2 or f/2.5. A guy near me has this FF with a 70-200 and 24-70. So he could get equivalent to f/2 on APSC in term of dof and isos.

While f/2.8 should be just fine even on APSC, f/4 or f/5.6 would mean effective iso might be a bit too high or that the shutter speed would become a bit too slow. I was most often in the 1/80 1/125 range. Sometime 1/200, sometime 1/30. with f/2 - f/2.8. In low light you need f/2.8 at least. Maybe not for all shoots, but that's invaluable. If you don't have that in zoom but prime and still using zooms anyway for conveniance, honestly you may get noticably worse picture because of that... Or you'll have to master your flash.

This for example was 1/80 f/2.8... And only the faces are more or less in focus!



Interrestingly if things are far, you can open a lot and get everything reasonably in focus. But I could have really used slower shutter speed and maybe even iso 800 on that one... In particular as I pushed 0.85Ev in post...

FA77, f/2, 1/250, iso 2000

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!
body, centre, da*, edge, image, images, iso, k-mount, klaus, lens, lenses, ltd, pentax, pentax lens, post, primes, reason, sensor, sharpness, shot, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q7 (Black) Kit, 01 Prime and 02 Zoom Lenses Price Update EricBrown Sold Items 12 11-10-2016 04:20 AM
zoom versus prime ShellyRosenberg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 12-07-2014 03:19 PM
Zoom and Prime lenses for IR? HawaiianOnline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-24-2011 02:28 AM
Prime and zoom lenses quality difference alphalt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 05-08-2010 03:04 PM
Zoom versus Prime Aaron1971 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 01-03-2009 02:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 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