[monochrome]

The DFA 28-105 is very good. By some reports as good as the DFA 24-70. The film era FA 24-90 is also well regarded.

I have or had all three.The 28~105 is a tremendous value, but not quite as good as the 24-70. The variable aperture can be a hindrance and IMO it isn’t as sharp at the edges, but for $700 less retail price (24-70 is on sale for $300 below list right now) the 28~105 value can’t be beat.

The older FA24~90 is screw drive, plastic and variable build quality and they are nearly 20 years old now. It is surprisingly good between 30 and 70, but falls off at both ends of the range. Many are subject to barrel wobble and other maladies. The one I just sold was unused, NIB/NOS, that I had bought for use with my MZ-S to avoid the ‘old lens’ issues - but then I got the 28~105 and I didn’t need all three lenses.

[interested_observer]

How do you shoot iso 80 on K-1?

Please elaborate just How to shoot @ ISO 80 ….. On a K-1 Pentax Body ?

---------- Post added 06-30-18 at 10:37 ----------

What He said above.

I should have been a bit more explicated about the ISO values. ISO 100 on the K1, and ISO 80 on my very beloved K5IIs (which I do still use). Now, having said that, you can lower your effective ISO by shooting multiple images and averaging them together. The more images you shoot and "stack/average", the lower the effective resulting ISO.

• Noise Reduction By Image Averaging

I have started using LENR when I shoot in absolute darkness (Milky Way over landscapes), as I do like to get various aspects of the landscapes in some sort of context. It also shows a very different character of the over all composition of the image. I want the overall image to convey - tell an interesting story. I also want to bring out the context that most folks do not normally see, and to be able to do that takes pulling a certain amount of details out of the shadows. The K1 does this, along with the K5 with their excellent respective dynamic range.

In order to do that, I've sat down and though long and hard about how I really want to shoot at night and just what I want to accomplish. It's the shooting - capturing the light, and not the post processing that makes the image. Rather than shoot wide landscape panoramas (with a lot of panels) at a somewhat mild wide angle, I've decided to shoot wider (fewer panels - probably a max of 3), but with both LENR and shoot a second image - thereby effectively removing as much dark current noise in the image, and being able to average down the ISO - while collecting twice as much light as I had been collecting previously. This will decrease the overall noise, while increasing the overall imaging information - i.e., better available image detail, along with better overall image quality. My thinking is that this is a much more effective use of my time out in the field, utilizing the strengths of both the K1 and the 15-30/f2.8.

I've been exceptionally pleased with the sky / star images using the astro tracker. I really wanted to emphasize the character of the landscapes at night (while keeping the overall dark night look). I have been very surprised with the color I have been able to capture at night - both in the stars, but more surprising to me - in the landscape elements, themselves.

Here is the image that really changed my overall approach. It's only a 3 image single row stitch (15mm, astrotrack 50 seconds, f2.8, ISO 800), with 50% overlap. I wanted everything as natural as possible. I didn't want the Milky Way core over done, I wanted it to look entirely natural. I did want to bring out some texture in the trees down in the ravine or gully (about 40 feet in elevation below me). I find, especially during the bright daylight that the colors here in Arizona are washed out. You get the reds, oranges and yellows around sunrise and sunset. Very surprising to me, is that the available star light and other available ambient light in the area, does a wonderful job of also letting the natural colors come through - you just have to capture it. I did not expect this at all at night.

So, what's wrong with this image, that might prevent printing it at 20" x 30"? There are a couple of items.

• White dots - a mild sprinkling of "salt" across the foreground landscape. Not really bad, but I would really want cleaner. The LENR will take care of this.

• There is also some mild noise, since it was shot at ISO 800 in total darkness. However, a second image (also with LENR) will average this out - down to effectively ISO 400, which for a night image would be pretty clean overall.

• Only 50 seconds of exposure - total. But, in those 50 seconds - the amount of overall information (especially considering the darkness), I was really taken back by what I was able to bring out with about 3 minutes of just basic post processing. Also, since it was shot using astro tracking, there is an ever so slight amount of smudge from the sensor tracking. Pixel peeping, you can just start to see it. But there are folks where I use to work (before retiring) that are urging me to print it over at Costco - and for a $10 print want it on their office wall. So, I do think I'll print it up and really see what it looks like.

Now, the story I was trying to tell is the old west cattle watering hole at night under the stars. Something only that really the modern day cowboys would ever see. It's the overall colors, especially the green in the trees (and it's not from HDR or over saturation), that really surprised me. With all the brown in the Arizona desert - it's the green that attracts the eye, along with the reds and oranges in the mountain.

[John Hales]

i should have been a bit more explicated about the iso values. Iso 100 on the k1, and iso 80 on my very beloved k5iis (which i do still use). Now, having said that, you can lower your effective iso by shooting multiple images and averaging them together. The more images you shoot and "stack/average", the lower the effective resulting iso.

• noise reduction by image averaging

i have started using lenr when i shoot in absolute darkness (milky way over landscapes), as i do like to get various aspects of the landscapes in some sort of context. It also shows a very different character of the over all composition of the image. I want the overall image to convey - tell an interesting story. I also want to bring out the context that most folks do not normally see, and to be able to do that takes pulling a certain amount of details out of the shadows. The k1 does this, along with the k5 with their excellent respective dynamic range.

In order to do that, i've sat down and though long and hard about how i really want to shoot at night and just what i want to accomplish. It's the shooting - capturing the light, and not the post processing that makes the image. Rather than shoot wide landscape panoramas (with a lot of panels) at a somewhat mild wide angle, i've decided to shoot wider (fewer panels - probably a max of 3), but with both lenr and shoot a second image - thereby effectively removing as much dark current noise in the image, and being able to average down the iso - while collecting twice as much light as i had been collecting previously. This will decrease the overall noise, while increasing the overall imaging information - i.e., better available image detail, along with better overall image quality. My thinking is that this is a much more effective use of my time out in the field, utilizing the strengths of both the k1 and the 15-30/f2.8.

I've been exceptionally pleased with the sky / star images using the astro tracker. I really wanted to emphasize the character of the landscapes at night (while keeping the overall dark night look). I have been very surprised with the color i have been able to capture at night - both in the stars, but more surprising to me - in the landscape elements, themselves.

Here is the image that really changed my overall approach. It's only a 3 image single row stitch (15mm, astrotrack 50 seconds, f2.8, iso 800), with 50% overlap. I wanted everything as natural as possible. I didn't want the milky way core over done, i wanted it to look entirely natural. I did want to bring out some texture in the trees down in the ravine or gully (about 40 feet in elevation below me). I find, especially during the bright daylight that the colors here in arizona are washed out. You get the reds, oranges and yellows around sunrise and sunset. Very surprising to me, is that the available star light and other available ambient light in the area, does a wonderful job of also letting the natural colors come through - you just have to capture it. I did not expect this at all at night.

so, what's wrong with this image, that might prevent printing it at 20" x 30"? There are a couple of items.

• white dots - a mild sprinkling of "salt" across the foreground landscape. Not really bad, but i would really want cleaner. The lenr will take care of this.

• there is also some mild noise, since it was shot at iso 800 in total darkness. However, a second image (also with lenr) will average this out - down to effectively iso 400, which for a night image would be pretty clean overall.

• only 50 seconds of exposure - total. But, in those 50 seconds - the amount of overall information (especially considering the darkness), i was really taken back by what i was able to bring out with about 3 minutes of just basic post processing. Also, since it was shot using astro tracking, there is an ever so slight amount of smudge from the sensor tracking. Pixel peeping, you can just start to see it. But there are folks where i use to work (before retiring) that are urging me to print it over at costco - and for a $10 print want it on their office wall. So, i do think i'll print it up and really see what it looks like.

now, the story i was trying to tell is the old west cattle watering hole at night under the stars. Something only that really the modern day cowboys would ever see. It's the overall colors, especially the green in the trees (and it's not from hdr or over saturation), that really surprised me. With all the brown in the arizona desert - it's the green that attracts the eye, along with the reds and oranges in the mountain.

lenr?

[UncleVanya]

lenr?

To Use or Not to Use: Long Exposure Noise Reduction - Online Photography School

[interested_observer]

lenr?

Long Exposure Noise Reduction - it's a mode that all the Pentax models have available. The link that UncleVanya has provides an excellent explanation on how and why it works.

To Use or Not to Use: Long Exposure Noise Reduction - Online Photography School

I clicked on the link to read their explanation of LENR - which was an excellent overview. What surprised me a lot was - I saw was pretty much the same view of Picket Post Mountain that I used - it was shot with in 10 feet of where I shot my image. Then I saw the author's name. She shoots for Arizona Highways magazine (essentially one of the few world class landscape photography magazines ever) - masquerading as a travel magazine. Ansel Adams use to shoot for them. In the US you can get a subscription for $18 a year, 12 issues delivered.
________________________

Anyway, back to LENR. There is another way to implement LENR without doubling the exposure time for each image shot. You can shoot the individual images as normal (not enabling the LENR mode on the camera body), then when you are all done shooting, put the lens cap on the lens and just take another image. This extra image is called the dark frame. When you get back home, on the PC download all your images, and then using PhotoShop (or GIMP and there is also some shareware available that does this too) use their capability to subtract the dark frame from each image you want to reduce the noise on.

• Remove Thermal Noise with a Dark Frame Subtraction in Adobe Photoshop | Tom Migot Photography

There are strengths and weaknesses to each approach.

• In camera LENR active - you double the time it takes to capture an image, but the noise reduction is the most accurate since the dark frame image used for noise reduction was taken immediately after the real image was captured - so the noise being subtracted away should in theory be the same. This approach guarantees that you are using the same exposure time as the image.

• Post processing dark frame subtraction (DFS) - since you are capturing the dark frame some time after the real images have been taken, the heat in the camera will probably have changed a bit (either getting warmer or cooler or ?????), and rather than being captured immediately after each of the real images, the dark frame could be captured minutes or hours afterwards. But on the plus side, you really saving possibly a significant amount of time. With this approach, you need to watch what you are doing and make sure that the dark frame's exposure time is the same duration as the shots you want to reduce the noise on, in order to get the most accurate results.

[mikeSF]

I was trying to point out that there's a good comparison right here on this website if he's interested in how the FA* lens performs and what it gives up to the D-FA 24-70. I understand that he's not able to budget for the new lens.

sorry, just found this thread after a few days and dont want to hijack, but I did a search for the comparison you mention and cannot find. can you share the link as I would like to check it out too, thx.

[stevebrot]

One answer is to not buy the K-1 - stay APS-C.

Sure.

Now they tell you...


Steve

[pres589]

sorry, just found this thread after a few days and dont want to hijack, but I did a search for the comparison you mention and cannot find. can you share the link as I would like to check it out too, thx.

I was sure that there was a comparison between these lenses done by someone on the "staff". I can't find it either.

[MJKoski]

Some lenses to get "cheap".

-20/1.8 Samyang - 400-500$
-35mm Samyang f/1.4 (if you get decent copy) - 300-400$
-50mm f/2.8 macro 400-500$
-100mm WR macro ~700$

Those are prices for new lenses, not used. If one gets good copies the zooms are going to lose in comparison. 100-200mm is the hard part here. 70-200 is excellent throughout the whole zoom range. Samyang 135/2 would fit in here. However, all of these tend to be suited for manual focusing and Samy lenses are strict MF lenses.

My K-1 kit is under construction still:

-15mm Irix
-20-30mm lens not decided
-35mm Samyang
-50mm Zeiss MP in K-mount (waiting mail delivery to arrive) / I canceled 50mm f/1.4 AW preorder when I found this at ~50% of the price
-100mm macro WR
-200mm - 300mm lens not decided

This set is built around manual focusing and pixel shift quality.

[UncleVanya]

It appears that there was something - it may be in the DFA 24-70 review. This post from Adam is related: FA 28-70/2.8 vs DFA 24-70/2.8? - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

[UncleVanya]

Found it. It is in he first impressions review for the 24-70 DFA.

Pentax-D FA 24-70mm First Impressions Review - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

[mikeSF]

Found it. It is in he first impressions review for the 24-70 DFA.

Pentax-D FA 24-70mm First Impressions Review - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

ok, thanks, i found that and while I would expect a much newer lens to have some performance advantage, just looking at those samples tell me the FA* is definitely sharper than the DFA in the 28mm examples, and there seems to be a motion blur problem in the 70mm comparison.
I will reserve my own conclusions until I can perform the comparison myself.

Nevertheless, here is a wide open (f/2.8) shot from the 28-70(at 48mm)...the old lens definitely earns its star:

Ben Tucker
FA* 28-70 & K5

[UncleVanya]

ok, thanks, i found that and while I would expect a much newer lens to have some performance advantage, just looking at those samples tell me the FA* is definitely sharper than the DFA in the 28mm examples, and there seems to be a motion blur problem in the 70mm comparison.
I will reserve my own conclusions until I can perform the comparison myself.

Nevertheless, here is a wide open (f/2.8) shot from the 28-70(at 48mm)...the old lens definitely earns its star:

Ben Tucker
FA* 28-70 & K5

Very nice shot. Also if I recall that comparison was only at APSC crop frame size not full frame. That means denser pixels and less outer frame considered.

[clackers]

Now they tell you...


Steve

Well, it's not the answer for me (I have two FF cameras, four APS-C ones), but it is for others, Steve!