Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2008, 11:02 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CT / NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
That's impressive BBear (that the 50mm @f/4 ~ 55-300mm @/f4) as the prime is already stopped down three stops and the DA is wide open. From what I've seen online, the 55-300 seems to be a GREAT lens!


I know! Like I said before, I was very surprised myself!


Assuming the EXIF in these files are correct, here are some quick samples from the photo session yesterday, using both lenses:


DA 55-300mm @ f/4












A 50mm @ f/4




09-29-2008, 11:37 AM   #17
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Woof, that's a terrific portrait, the DoF is just perfect and the focus spot on.
I agree, Seaain that's a great portrait.
Your back must be getting better if you're working with kids you maniac.
09-29-2008, 11:39 AM   #18
Damn Brit
Guest




BBear, great portraits.
09-29-2008, 12:02 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 285
Original Poster
Sure...

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I'm beginning to feel like a curmudgeon here, but what can I do, I need to fight the good fight and keep the message alive: THE FOCAL LENGTH DOESN'T INFLUENCE THE DoF WHEN THE SUBJECT SIZE REMAINS CONSTANT.
Well, sure, we all know that.

I was talking about background blur. A longer focal lenght *does* increase the degree of background blur with a given subject size. The question is, will the blur be creamy enough for a nice portrait - when looking at the great portraits posted above, I'd say yes

09-29-2008, 04:12 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteQuote:
A longer focal lenght *does* increase the degree of background blur with a given subject size.
no it doesn't DOF2
09-29-2008, 04:22 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
no it doesn't DOF2
Maybe what noisychip meant was that it appears to increase blur because the amount of background registered is smaller when using a long lens than a wide one, thus "stretching" the objects in the background, and this might make it seem more out of focus, even if the actual DoF is the same.

Clearly, Michael Reichmann's work is not done
09-30-2008, 01:13 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 285
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Maybe what noisychip meant was that it appears to increase blur because the amount of background registered is smaller when using a long lens than a wide one, thus "stretching" the objects in the background, and this might make it seem more out of focus, even if the actual DoF is the same.
Thanks Miserere, you nailed it. The amount of blur may be the same, but it is scaled up, as the whole background is cropped, somehow. It's clearly visible at the tower in the link from k100d.

DOF (along the z axis) remains the same, and so does the amount of blur, but the blur is magnified along the y and x axis, if you will.

Last edited by Noisychip; 09-30-2008 at 02:57 PM.
09-30-2008, 06:38 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
it brings the background closer
have you tried any portraits yet ?

09-30-2008, 06:59 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the present
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,870
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Woof, that's a terrific portrait, the DoF is just perfect and the focus spot on.
Thank you... I meant to say it was at 70mm. Thanks very much.

QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
I agree, Seaain that's a great portrait.
Your back must be getting better if you're working with kids you maniac.
Heh. Yes, thank you. I am really pretty much back in the swing of things at this point, though you are right, I have been pushing myself as usual.

As for the discussion of the background being somewhat magnified, etc., I am going to go for some candids this weekend on my kids with the 55-300mm this weekend and I will post the same. I am sorry that I don't have more material, but the 55-300mm is more of less new to me and for the most part I have been busy with OPC (Other People's Children). Heh.

I stand by my statement that this is a great lens for portraits, especially where you want to stand back and somewhat aloof. Social photography, street photography, "natural" portraits. My favorite range is right around the 210mm mark, which is squarely in the sweet spot, but you have plenty of reach beyond that as needed. Nice not to be fiddling with lens changes.

Anyway, I'll post em when I get them.

Thanks again!

Seaain
09-30-2008, 07:06 AM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perth, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 52
Got my copy today, seems to go ok. Any tips on making the sky not overexpose?


Last edited by daleroy; 09-30-2008 at 07:12 AM.
09-30-2008, 07:58 AM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,168
May I suggest that you NOT shoot with your camera pointing into the dominant light source?

Try this experiment: Imagine the subject as a clock face in plan view. Your subject's nose is pointing toward 6 o'clock. In the case of this photo, it appears that the dominant light source is at about 2 o'clock. Adjust your position (and the subject) counter-clockwise so the nose is pointing between (say) 10 and 3. Unless it's a cloudy day, the background sky should become more blue as the subject faces into the dominant light source.

You can still use your flash for fill (as you did here), if you wish.

...my 2 cent$...

Last edited by Michaelina2; 09-30-2008 at 08:00 AM. Reason: typo
09-30-2008, 08:08 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by daleroy Quote
Got my copy today, seems to go ok. Any tips on making the sky not overexpose?
Basically what Michaelina2 said. But, I quite like your overexposed sky as it makes the child's face stand out. If the sky were blue I think it would actually take away from the portrait. Very nice, by the way.
09-30-2008, 08:21 AM   #28
Igilligan
Guest




Well Michaelina's clock system works

[QUOTE=daleroy;356009]Got my copy today, seems to go ok. Any tips on making the sky not overexpose?

But with kids you tend to get em where they stand more often than not. So if you really want the sky exposed, you might spot meter the sky, lock exp and then use your fill flash. Was it a blue sky?
09-30-2008, 02:57 PM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 285
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
it brings the background closer
have you tried any portraits yet ?
Not with this lens, since I don't have a copy yet.
09-30-2008, 03:41 PM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perth, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 52
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
May I suggest that you NOT shoot with your camera pointing into the dominant light source?

Try this experiment: Imagine the subject as a clock face in plan view. Your subject's nose is pointing toward 6 o'clock. In the case of this photo, it appears that the dominant light source is at about 2 o'clock. Adjust your position (and the subject) counter-clockwise so the nose is pointing between (say) 10 and 3. Unless it's a cloudy day, the background sky should become more blue as the subject faces into the dominant light source.
Thanks for the tips. You're correct in your light source positioning. It was near sunset, a few rays through the clouds. The sky was more white than blue. I did bump the exposure up about 1/3 in PP, due to my son being slightly underexposed. This did push out the sky tho, hence the question.

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Basically what Michaelina2 said. But, I quite like your overexposed sky as it makes the child's face stand out. If the sky were blue I think it would actually take away from the portrait. Very nice, by the way.
Thanks, appreciate the comments.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Portraits & Self Portraits Christopher M.W.T Post Your Photos! 12 04-14-2010 06:53 PM
I'm Traveling, Want Inexpensive Telephoto Zooms : Pentax 55-300 Or Sigma 70-300 APO Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 01-01-2010 07:48 PM
TESTED: Pentax 55-300 vs. Sigma 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300 falconeye Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 05-14-2009 04:01 PM
Tamron 300/2.8, Sigma 100-300 F4, 1.7 AF TC images: A link to the DPR froum. pcarfan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 02-07-2009 08:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Quantary 70-300 f4-5.6 LDO Macro (AKA Sigma 70-300 APO) K10Perry Sold Items 6 02-25-2008 09:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 AM. | 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