[Scorpio71GR]

Now that has always been the weird thing about the 16-50 to me. For me, it would be a landscape lens, I prefer 70mm for portraits. SO what were they thinking with those soft borders? To me it's one of those mysteries that helps define the random nature of the universe, there are all these good edge to edge 16-50 type lenses, and then there's this odd lens out, super sharp centre, soft edges, just over there in the corner all by itself. Was it actually designed for a purpose?? And what was the purpose?

I have never figured it out either. The DA*16-50 is definitely the weakest of all the DA* lenses. It really is unfortunate because it produces wonder colour rendering and contrast. Honestly I bet there are 18-135's that have better borders. My copy of the 18-135 is not too good between 18-24mm. However it is excellent on the long end. If they ever decide to update the DA* lenses the 16-50 should definitely be first. As for the other DA* lenses just update the motors. If they could make a new version of the 16-50 that matches the IQ of the 28-105 I would buy it instantly. I would not even care if it was constant apeture.

I think this shot shows it well. The tree in the center is so sharp that you can see the individual birds. The corners, especially on the right, well.... For what this lens cost new those birds should better. Fortunately I did not pay that for mine. That shot is at f9, on a tripod using live view and manual focus.

---

Last edited by Scorpio71GR; 08-07-2018 at 02:55 PM.

[wkadruje]

I don't want to start a new thread or dig up an old one so let me try here:
I'm thinking about getting the constant 2.8 Tamron 17-50 (or Sigma). I hope they will do better with my k-30 than the old kit, those two (50 & 35) plastic primes and the 18-135 WR when I shoot groups of dancers moving relatively fast in relatively low light (those spotlights could be brighter). I've read the reviews so I want to ask around about mostly about comparative sharpness when wide open (maybe one stop down). Reading around, I'm getting a vibe that there may be greater difference between a bad and good Tamron than between Tamron and a Sigma (or good and bad Sigma). Does that sound true or am I reading too much?

Also since both T & S are available roughly the same price - and used 30% cheaper than new should I go for a new one or start saving for a newer body (k70?) or just go with higher ISO and forget the lenses?

[UncleVanya]

I don't want to start a new thread or dig up an old one so let me try here:
I'm thinking about getting the constant 2.8 Tamron 17-50 (or Sigma). I hope they will do better with my k-30 than the old kit, those two (50 & 35) plastic primes and the 18-135 WR when I shoot groups of dancers moving relatively fast in relatively low light (those spotlights could be brighter). I've read the reviews so I want to ask around about mostly about comparative sharpness when wide open (maybe one stop down). Reading around, I'm getting a vibe that there may be greater difference between a bad and good Tamron than between Tamron and a Sigma (or good and bad Sigma). Does that sound true or am I reading too much?

Also since both T & S are available roughly the same price - and used 30% cheaper than new should I go for a new one or start saving for a newer body (k70?) or just go with higher ISO and forget the lenses?

You would be better served with a dedicated thread. I'm sorry I can't answer this question. Many people who have an opinion will never see this because of the original title and situation.

[RGlasel]

when I shoot groups of dancers moving relatively fast in relatively low light

In my opinion, you need at least f4 to get enough depth of field to get more than one moving person in focus at the same time, depending on how far apart they are, f5.6 might be needed. Cropping high ISO images never looks as good as changing the focal length to frame your shot, and if the camera and lens can't focus fast enough, the aperture and ISO settings are irrelevant. In my opinion, keep your 18-135 for the fast focusing and upgrade to the K-70 for better high ISO images.

I'm not a landscape guy but I do cover events and the Pentax DA 17-70/4 is very versatile with good IQ. My used copy has been a work horse lens for years. And inexpensive.

[wkadruje]

In my opinion, you need at least f4 to get enough depth of field to get more than one moving person in focus at the same time, depending on how far apart they are, f5.6 might be needed. Cropping high ISO images never looks as good as changing the focal length to frame your shot, and if the camera and lens can't focus fast enough, the aperture and ISO settings are irrelevant. In my opinion, keep your 18-135 for the fast focusing and upgrade to the K-70 for better high ISO images.

Thanks. I'm kind of looking for an excuse to maybe get a newer body but getting one of these 2.8 zooms is also tempting. But I've been wondering whether my problems are due to shallow DOF (esp. when I use the f/1.8 50mm prime).

Don't feel like I'm trying to argue - quite the opposite, trying to understand your point. So I googled Hyperfocal Distance and Depth of Field Calculator - DOFMaster & Camera Field of View Calculator (FOV) to do some math I don't entirely follow and:

It looks like for 17mm (I guess that would be my group shot) at 5 metres distance I'd get around 7 metres wide scene (quite enough) and the DOF with the hyperfocal close to 5m, near limit at 2.5m and far limit way further away than the theatre walls (more than enough) (with back button pre-focus that should give me a pretty sharp shot provided I can get the shutter down to 1/320 and not lose detail due to ISO. (is that making sense?)

For individual dancer shots: at 50mm focal length and f2.8 and shooting distance of 3m the field of view should be a bit less then 1.5 metres and the DOF gets narrowed down to less than 0.5m. Stopped down to f4, DOF is arounf 0.6m. So this is where I would begin to think about focusing fast and often. Or stop further down as per your advice and get 0.8m DOF @ f/5.6

For 35mm@f/2.8 and 3m distance the DOF is still roughly 0.8 and field of view goes up to over 3 metres wide which also seems quite usable for tighter groups. Now - on k-30 I'm happy with the ISO up to 640-800 but often need to go up to 1600-3200 at my current zoom apertures. Do you think k-70 would be that much more detailed/ less grainy in that same ISO range?

btw. don't want to be all numbers so here's some samples krzysiek.wie?s albums | Flickr

and btw2: I appreciate UncleVanya's comment but I still feel new to the forum. Is there some part of it with discussions not centred around lenses but rather types of photos/ shooting scenarios?

[RGlasel]

Is there some part of it with discussions not centred around lenses but rather types of photos/ shooting scenarios?

There is the Photographic Technique section. Also Brooke Meyer is a great source of advice on photographing dance. However, many of the posters on Pentaxforums (including myself) will stray off topic, so don't feel you have to be careful which section you post a question in. If it is truly inappropriate, one of the moderators will move your post to an appropriate location.


Just a minor clarification, Brooke's examples posted above were taken in dance studios, most of your photos on Flickr are taken at a variety of public venues..Especially if you are unfamiliar with the location or if lighting and staging are very different for different performances, the more versatile your lenses are, the better your chances of getting the photographs you are looking for. I have photographed indoor and outdoor sports (think of competing dance groups performing on the same stage at the same time who are deliberately trying to make the other group fail and you have an idea about the relationship between sport and dance) with my K-30 and getting the right subjects in focus is more important (and much more difficult) than getting the right exposure. What i have found is that if you follow the action with the camera you can freeze faces and uniforms with 1/250 of a second, but eliminating motion blur in hands and feet is probably more important with dance.

And sometimes, in the bright mid-day sun, a little fill with a manual flash at 1/180 works okay. With my other workhorse event lens, the Tamron 28-75. Other times, f2.8 is good to have.

[wkadruje]

...my other workhorse event lens, the Tamron 28-75. Other times, f2.8 is good to have.

Thanks a lot for sharing these. Just after posting yesterday, I saw your Anastasia 2011 taken with it and I really like it. Actually that 28-75 Tamron was my original choice (found a used one at a great price) but I blinked and it was gone. (I was blinking trying to figure out how often I need to go below 28mm). And since my main reason to be at those events next to Cannon-shooting pros is to capture whomever they leave out of the frame I prefer to go wider than I think I need to. So 17-50. 2.8 (even if just to be able tostop down to f/4). Tamron rather than Sigma?

Not a new body yet because if I go for it, I will not get a new lens for a while (and possibly wifey would need to do her next show in an old costume). Also:
I've never used ACR nor Noiseware. Would they be much better than what I can do with a DNG in my old Lightroom 5?

And yup, RGlasel's K-30 and a busy stage sounds just like me. I don't feel ready for two pro bodies and a studio yet


ps. I think as far as off-topics go, I fit right in.

[beholder3]

I mainly photograph dancers.

The second and third images are just fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

[UncleVanya]

And you would be very foolish to buy something that deprives wife of a new costume.

Absolutely true!

[wkadruje]

So I took all of your advice very seriously, talked to the wife, make sure that her dancing expenses are covered for the season and got sweet deals on Pentax KP and a 17-50 2.8 Tamron. So far only had a chance to shoot the Tamron with k30 but this Saturday will have a chance to shoot two dancing events and I'm hoping to get more of your tips.

First one is Worldwide ATS Flashmob (ATS ® Flash Mob World Wide 2018!) in semi-day light (2pm in Warsaw) - most likely open air or under a skylight roof, and the second, couple hours later - ATS/ Tribal dance show in a smallish music club, no raised stage, disco lights, quite possibly a fog machine and audience sitting/standing inches away from the dancers.

In both of these I'll be a husband-with-a-camera type of photographer, so no chance to get posed shots, set up lights etc. I plan to go small with KP and Tamron, maybe an upgraded card or two (U3?) and two batteries (I already miss the AAs that worked in my k30). If I bring a bigger bag I could also take 18-135 Pentax, 35 or 50 "plastic" Pentax primes (don't feel like packing both, nor the old kits). Maybe my Metz 52 (but wouldn't want to use it while they dance).

Settings-wise I hope to go with high ISO for the club (3200+ as per Brooke's advice), go 2-3 stops down for groups and wide open for close-ups, and keep the shutter not slower then 1/320 - then modify as needed. Does that sound reasonable?

I'm still impressed (and confused) with the number of AF points and modes in KP. So far, I've set up the back button focus (who put the green button exactly where the back AF was on k30?!), the 4-way controller to default as focus point selector, and the third wheel as direct ISO control (shutter and aperture at their respective defaults with front and rear dial). Not sure what to do with Single/Continuous (or Auto-Select) focusing mode, new program lines, or even what the third (top) dial can be useful for in modes other than full manual. Other than that I plan on having tons of fun

[UncleVanya]

Good luck! Post pics after.

[Jonathan Mac]

The Tamron 17-50mm is always a good bet, as long as you can check it for IQ and focusing problems before you buy. I like the Sigma more, mainly for the better build - IQ-wise there's very little in it. The 16-85mm is very different - excellent IQ but the slow, variable aperture limit it to use in decent light.

[wkadruje]

Seems like I'm not a regular at the forum and only come here with questions. I've used three lenses at the same show this weekend: Tamron 17-50 2.8 the plastic Pentax 50 1.8 and Tamron AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 LD Macro (I'm completely new to this one) and I'm puzzled with the results. I've been missing my focus with the 50 a lot 17-50 was reliably good at F3.2/ ISO 1600 but the 70-300 really impressed me with the crispy details even at f4/ISO3200. There were changes in lighting too so maybe it's just that, but either way, I was not expecting the 70-300 to perform so well. Logically it cannot be much better than 17-50 so I guess I'm doing something wrong. Any idea on how I could improve my 17-50 results? (900px crops - 2 versions of each before/after I messed with them in LR)

Good luck! Post pics after.

As for photos in general I've been phasing out of krzysiek.wie | Flickr (where the ATS flashmob photos are) and into WKadruje - Home | Facebook (current photos).