Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2008, 03:42 PM   #16
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
Call me clumpsy. All the weddings I did this year (3 major and 4 assist) relied heavily on the zooms on my pentax gear. I get better results with primes on canon gear on the contrary.
Well, I won't call you anything for that. AS I said to Peter (and have confessed here many times in other threads) I have always leaned very heavily on zooms. Well, by "always," I mean, for the last 15-20 years. When I first started with photography in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I shot for years with fixed focal-length lenses. Never thought of it as anything then but necessity: I had no alternatives. Don't think I got my first zoom until the 1980s. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what's causing me to think about trying to use one or more primes more heavily.


QuoteQuote:
Again, Sigma 28 f1.8 is noted to have more consistent quality control comparing to 24 f1.8.
Glad to hear that. I've actually never had a problem with a Sigma lens. Not sure why they've got such a mixed reputation.


QuoteQuote:
Will - the resell value is always low with sigma. This is due to the prejudice of many old photographers or the silly die hard canikon fans out there believing sigma as crap etc. Unless you are ready to sell sigma to some countries like Indonesia or Eastern Europe (high risk but these lenses do sell a little bit more in these regions).
Ah, I see. Well, I'll try this new one out very quickly and return it if I don't like it right away. I did sell a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 a long time ago; I bought that first, then picked up the Tamron 28-75, and decided to keep the Tamron. I sold the Sigma on eBay and got a satisfactory price.

Thanks, roentarre.

Will

09-24-2008, 03:55 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I'm not sure what to say about the Tamron 28-75mm. I have taken some great (near prime quality) shots with it and before the 16-45mm was my favourite lens. You'd find lots of posts with me ranting about how good it is.

I recently had to send the 70-200 in for service (I dropped it - not the lens's fault) and used the 28-75 with AF1.7TC attached in replacement. The images sucked. Thankfully it got light use that day. I did some testing the following day and it seems the lens has an out of round barrel. Tamron blames me for overheating the lens (car trunk on a hot day or something). It's a great lens but I'm not sure about the long term heavy use. All my stuff stays in pouches and cases. It's never left in the car at anytime particularly a hot day unless you like oil on the blades.

But the Tamron is a plastic barrel I think. I waiting on an estimate and if it's more than $150.00 I'll get it back and tear it apart to see what it's made of.
09-24-2008, 04:19 PM   #18
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
I'm not sure what to say about the Tamron 28-75mm. I have taken some great (near prime quality) shots with it and before the 16-45mm was my favourite lens. You'd find lots of posts with me ranting about how good it is.

I recently had to send the 70-200 in for service (I dropped it - not the lens's fault) and used the 28-75 with AF1.7TC attached in replacement. The images sucked. Thankfully it got light use that day. I did some testing the following day and it seems the lens has an out of round barrel. Tamron blames me for overheating the lens (car trunk on a hot day or something). It's a great lens but I'm not sure about the long term heavy use. All my stuff stays in pouches and cases. It's never left in the car at anytime particularly a hot day unless you like oil on the blades.

But the Tamron is a plastic barrel I think. I waiting on an estimate and if it's more than $150.00 I'll get it back and tear it apart to see what it's made of.
For your sake, Peter, I hope it's fixable and not too expensive. Shame to lose a nice lens like that. But if you do tear it apart, take some photos and share 'em. I'd love to see what's inside. I've got a terrible lens that I paid $5 for at a camera show that I've thought of tearing apart, but I wouldn't learn much as it's old, and I'm more interested in the innards of the newer lenses.

I never leave camera stuff in the car here in Texas, partly because I'm worried about theft, and partly because between, oh, April and October, it's too hot for anything to be left in the car for long. But I never thought that doing so could damage a lens!

Will
09-24-2008, 08:33 PM   #19
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote

Well, I won't call you anything for that. AS I said to Peter (and have confessed here many times in other threads) I have always leaned very heavily on zooms. Well, by "always," I mean, for the last 15-20 years. When I first started with photography in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I shot for years with fixed focal-length lenses. Never thought of it as anything then but necessity: I had no alternatives. Don't think I got my first zoom until the 1980s. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what's causing me to think about trying to use one or more primes more heavily.
Your experience far outweighs me for sure. No questions about that, Will.

I know a canon guy who only uses 3 primes for wedding: 35/1.4 85/1.2 and 135/2


He produces great port folio but he admitted to me once that he hired 4 assist photographers who all used zooms at the weddings. All he does as a main photographer is to "set up" shoot during the normal wedding proceedings. He would miss a lot of moody, atmospheric or touchy wooshy shots that would be helpful to please female party for romance component. This was all the task of assist photographers where 1 out of 100 shots would have to be good at least. So a good zoom and snap snap snap.

He would struggle if he was doing these weddings with just one or two assist using primes!

To mind you that I did a wedding in July. The priest somehow hated my using the flash during the wedding procession in his holy church. His noses flared every time I flashed the camera. Using primes like 50/1.2 would bump the ISO to 3200 that makes everyone appeared as if they suffered extensive premature ageing with the noises...

(No time for proper exposure)

Zooms are in deed better. But there are too many cluttering objects inside any buildings. Wide aperture does reduce these distracting elements within the frames

QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote

Glad to hear that. I've actually never had a problem with a Sigma lens. Not sure why they've got such a mixed reputation.
Sigma lenses prior to EX, DC or DG are in deed really poorly built and optically tragic. And I mean macroscopicly tragic to any untrained eyes.

But the standard already greatly improved since late 90s. Unfortunately, the rumour is always around and rumour has killed so many well known just personality in our human history.


QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Ah, I see. Well, I'll try this new one out very quickly and return it if I don't like it right away. I did sell a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 a long time ago; I bought that first, then picked up the Tamron 28-75, and decided to keep the Tamron. I sold the Sigma on eBay and got a satisfactory price.

Thanks, roentarre.

Will
Some exceptions for pentax users given the shortage of lens selection early on with k10d release. I sold my sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for a very good price (I was soo happy to make so much profit and got myself a rumoured fabulous zoom Fa* 80-200 instead)

Less well known lenses like sigma 28mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.8 would not command a good re-sale price.


Last edited by roentarre; 09-24-2008 at 08:39 PM.
09-24-2008, 09:03 PM   #20
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
Your experience far outweighs me for sure. No questions about that, Will.
Not sure if you're poking fun at me, but if you are, that's okay, I take it well. I'm not so very experienced. It's true, I've been taking photographs for a long time. And I was sort of serious when I was young. But then there was a very long period when I wasn't serious at all, at least not about photography. I was taking photographs, but not paying attention. Not only did I stop learning, I actually started forgetting some of the little I had known earlier. About nine years ago I started getting serious again. But I happy to admit that I still have a lot of room to grow, that is, I could still be a lot more serious than I am. :-)

Will
09-24-2008, 09:13 PM   #21
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Will, no modesty games please. Full stop.
09-24-2008, 10:43 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 663
Will another option could be a Pentax F or FA 28 f2.8. They come up in the marketplace from time to time usually cheaper than $300. They are about as small or smaller than the 35 f2.
09-24-2008, 11:44 PM   #23
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
Will another option could be a Pentax F or FA 28 f2.8. They come up in the marketplace from time to time usually cheaper than $300. They are about as small or smaller than the 35 f2.
Fa 28 f2.8 fringes a lot. It floods purple like Fa 135 f2.8 does

The aperture is just not wide enough. A tamron zoom will cover this range being f2.8 and costing about 250 US dollars.

This prime being at f2.8 poses no advantage comparing to a quality zoom at f2.8 which is pretty prevalent these days.

09-25-2008, 12:16 AM   #24
Senior Member
benplaut's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 268
Someone said earlier that the Sigma doesn't have great bokeh. Maybe I got a peach, but mine seems to be pretty darn nice. Not just bokeh, everything (except the size, which is a bit big for a prime).

I've grown to like the focus clutch, which I used to think was clumsy--when shooting hyperfocal, I can "clutch" the lens back to AF, leaving the mody on MF and the focus won't change.

f2:


f5.6:



28mm is just right for a normal looking FoV... not too wide, not too long.



Buy it!
09-25-2008, 12:25 AM   #25
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by benplaut Quote
Someone said earlier that the Sigma doesn't have great bokeh. Maybe I got a peach, but mine seems to be pretty darn nice. Not just bokeh, everything (except the size, which is a bit big for a prime).

f2:


You got some nice examples of sigma 28mm f1.8 there.

In this shot, I would not exactly call it pleasant bokeh. The upper portion of the image has these branches rather harsh. No soft homogenous bokeh panning across the top.

Some people say it was a matter of bokeh selection and it is very true. I think we often do not have the luxury to take an image in time. Not to mention whether we can get to choose our background especially with street candid or even wedding photography.


The following is not directed at you. Just a usual statement for the repeated wisdom people had left behind in various fora and threads. I just do it for them.

(bokeh is a matter of taste)
(you can't quantify bokeh)
(bokeh is not an English word)
(why does it have to be smooth)
(what is art?)
(where is the proof?) etc
09-25-2008, 12:36 AM   #26
Senior Member
benplaut's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 268
QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
You got some nice examples of sigma 28mm f1.8 there.

In this shot, I would not exactly call it pleasant bokeh. The upper portion of the image has these branches rather harsh. No soft homogenous bokeh panning across the top.

Some people say it was a matter of bokeh selection and it is very true. I think we often do not have the luxury to take an image in time. Not to mention whether we can get to choose our background especially with street candid or even wedding photography.


The following is not directed at you. Just a usual statement for the repeated wisdom people had left behind in various fora and threads. I just do it for them.

(bokeh is a matter of taste)
(you can't quantify bokeh)
(bokeh is not an English word)
(why does it have to be smooth)
(what is art?)
(where is the proof?) etc
I agree completely!
I tend to go for bokeh that adds (slightly harsher, more shaped) instead of butter smooth, but it really depends on whatever I can catch at the moment.

The bokeh seems to get much smoother when you're shooting more on the macro side of things (as it should), here's an example of that, (in the upper right is flare)


09-25-2008, 12:46 AM   #27
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Glad that you took no offence from this

Your 2nd shot does have nice bokeh though.
09-25-2008, 08:09 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Sorry Rico, I agree with Roentarre on the F or FA28mm on this one. That lens is an orphan IMO. Purple fringe monster in certain scenes (the FA135mm f2.8 is as well) and not fast enough to be considered against a good zoom. There are a number of better lenses that coer this range at the same or faster speeds that can do a better job. For a lens that will be primarily doing paid work, you just have to try and get the best you can afford. The extra 1.3 stops and better IQ the Sigma provides is worth the reasonable price.

Oh and I bought a K20D/grip last night. I can't wait to try this lens on that body at higher ISO's than the K10D could handle. If it's as good as I've read, it may replace flash shooting in the church. Here's hoping!
09-25-2008, 08:30 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
It is interesting, that all of you, who used the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro are somewhat disappointed. I use the older non-Macro version and am very satisfied with its performance. I bought it out of neccessity, as Pentax did not have a comparable lens three years ago. I seriously considered replacing it with the Pentax 16-50/2.8, but at last I decided, the Pentax does not offer better image quality, but is much more heavy and bulkier.

For available light shots, as during weddings inside a church I usually have no zooms at all, but use FA prime lenses: 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and sometimes an non-Pentax 135/1.8. I recently added the 31/1.8 for the somewhat wider angle than the 35mm. But in terms of pure sharpness my impression is, that the 35/2 is better. Nevertheless the overall images from the 31mm are a tad more pleasing, hard to say why. May be the colour rendition is more vivid, not quite as neutral as the 35? If I need a fast wide angle, I can always use the FA 24/2 which is a very nice lens. To reduce noise, I always focus manually inside a church, though it is annoying, that you cannot switch the cameras into a low-noise-mode...

I use zooms inside the church only, when I can use flash or ofcourse for the outdoor shots.

Ben
09-25-2008, 08:42 AM   #30
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
Thanks for the photos, Ben. I particularly like the two that don't have people in them. (Nothing wrong with the people! Just don't quite know how to describe either of those shots: the one with the flower, and the other one with the glass ball.)

I'm definitely not a connoisseur of bokeh. I don't even like to use the word bokeh. It matters to me, just not enough to be a primary concern. Perhaps if I do start using primes more often, I'll wise up on this subject. :-)


QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
The extra 1.3 stops and better IQ the Sigma provides is worth the reasonable price.
We'll see. I keep looking out the window for the delivery truck!


QuoteQuote:
Oh and I bought a K20D/grip last night. I can't wait to try this lens on that body at higher ISO's than the K10D could handle. If it's as good as I've read, it may replace flash shooting in the church.
Peter, congrats on the new camera. You will definitely enjoy it. I really wasn't sure whether spending the $$ to get the K20D was a good idea, but I don't regret it now.

One bit of advice though: Lower your expectations a bit. The K20D's low-light performance isn't THAT much better than the K10D's. Perhaps I'm a contrarian on this subject. I never thought that the K10D's low-light performance was as bad as people claimed; and I don't think the K20D's is as good. From what I can tell, the K20D at ISO 1600 is noisier than, say, the Nikon D300. But the result is what matters, and if you shoot raw (as I presume you do), the K20D will give you more data to work with when you use noise reduction.

Anyway, you'll like it.

Will
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!
28mm, 35mm, f/2, fa, k-mount, pentax, pentax fa 35mm, pentax lens, sigma 28mm f/1.8, slr lens, vs pentax fa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax-M 28mm/2.8 with MG 35mm camera demondata Sold Items 2 01-31-2010 03:32 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K 24mm/2.8; A 28mm/2.8; M 35mm/2 for a FA 35mm/2 Curbster54 Sold Items 1 12-04-2009 12:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:14 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