Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2009, 04:18 PM   #121
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
It's not that difficult, and one can always save an action to replicate it endlessly from then on. The only trick is making the initial foreground selection, and there are many ways of accomplishing this efficiently.

But that rather misses the main point I was making. To put it plainer: why buy a lens that distorts the image in only one way, when one can buy a lens to take an "exact" image and then distort it as one sees fit, to suit the image? That's why I showed three different options. I chose the effects in each as artistic decisions; I do not want the lens choosing for me. That is limiting rather than freeing. Of course you may disagree; perhaps you like these sorts of limitations. But the whole point of this thread is to point out lenses we personally do not get.

I see your point, Robin, but then to follow through on that logic, there's be no need for fisheye lenses, for example - the fisheye effect is easy in PP.

Personally, I don't think it's very easy if even possible to re-create the effect of a large-aperture shot taken by a Nokton 58, or Tak 55 1.8, or many other lenses - you may be able to come close, but it would be a lot of work to get really close without having the image look like a whole bunch of layer work.

I'm lazy - and I love surprises - I want to see what the lens can give me.


.

01-09-2009, 11:12 PM   #122
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
.... To put it plainer: why buy a lens that distorts the image in only one way, when one can buy a lens to take an "exact" image and then distort it as one sees fit, to suit the image? That's why I showed three different options. I chose the effects in each as artistic decisions; I do not want the lens choosing for me. That is limiting rather than freeing. Of course you may disagree; perhaps you like these sorts of limitations. But the whole point of this thread is to point out lenses we personally do not get.
Opened up, these wide aperture primes we covet for their character invest in us a way to see the world in an inspiring fashion (and many of us carry an arsenal of choices). On the other hand, stopped down they are just as exact as any other lens. We'll all use a lens to take our pictures, but I don't feel I've surrendered my art by switching to f1.2.

There is no question if time is spent, one can take imaging to unlimited destinations within the PC, but in the end, its the shooting where the image comes. Speaking only for myself, if it hasn't already happened in the field, it isn't going to happen on my computer.
01-10-2009, 03:17 AM   #123
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
Opened up, these wide aperture primes we covet for their character invest in us a way to see the world in an inspiring fashion (and many of us carry an arsenal of choices). On the other hand, stopped down they are just as exact as any other lens. We'll all use a lens to take our pictures, but I don't feel I've surrendered my art by switching to f1.2.

There is no question if time is spent, one can take imaging to unlimited destinations within the PC, but in the end, its the shooting where the image comes. Speaking only for myself, if it hasn't already happened in the field, it isn't going to happen on my computer.
That is a good point. I also see simple practical advantages to start with thr equipment that delivers the rendering or effect while taking the photograph:
- it is much faster to make for instance a wide aperture shot with selective sharpness and a oof background, than to recreate that effect in post-processing.
- if it is faster, it is also cheaper
- if you really add massive changes to an existing image, like re-creating distortion of any kind or eliminatig it, you always have a loss of quality and sometimes some automatic cropping

Apart from that, I also aim to take an image "right there", on the spot where I found or placed the subject, because I personally find that it adds some authenticity to the shot, which cannot be recreated through post-processing. Obviously there are limits to this authenticity for certain types of photography, like product shots etc., which usually afford a high degree of pp.

Ben
01-10-2009, 07:17 AM   #124
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I see your point, Robin, but then to follow through on that logic, there's be no need for fisheye lenses, for example - the fisheye effect is easy in PP..
Exactly so. You did read what I had to say about fish-eyes?

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I'm lazy - and I love surprises - I want to see what the lens can give me.
Not bad qualities in their place. And your shots prove the worth of your approach.

QuoteOriginally posted by thePiRaTE!! Quote
Opened up, these wide aperture primes we covet for their character invest in us a way to see the world in an inspiring fashion (and many of us carry an arsenal of choices). On the other hand, stopped down they are just as exact as any other lens.
Don't get me wrong here. I love using small DOF in its place. That's (one of the reasons) why I have five lenses at f/2 or more. I own the Cosina 55mm f/1.2 and have tried to get something usable from it wide open. Others like some of the shots I've done, but not me.

01-10-2009, 07:24 AM   #125
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
Apart from that, I also aim to take an image "right there", on the spot where I found or placed the subject, because I personally find that it adds some authenticity to the shot, which cannot be recreated through post-processing.
I do not believe in authenticity, because I know how even the position of the frame creates its own reality. But that's a different discussion. And a very long one.
01-10-2009, 02:38 PM   #126
Veteran Member
kristoffon's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 532
Some people don't get the 31 ltd, I have to agree on digital it's not that great a focal lenght, but I wish I had a lens that gave the FOV the 31 would have on film, i.e., 18mm f/1.8. Still, it's an awesome lens.

Somebody criticized the bigma questioning the usability of its wider end. It's not really what makes the lens, but I can see myself using it on a track - long end for cars/bikes racing, shorter end after the race ends. Or simply if I'm walking on the beach, I'd love the have the reach for a distant boat and then pull back and get people on the beach. So there's a use for it. The bigma is probably my next purchase.
01-10-2009, 03:43 PM   #127
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I do not believe in authenticity, because I know how even the position of the frame creates its own reality. But that's a different discussion. And a very long one.
Oh, that is probably only a misunderstanding. Photographs I take, have to be an authentic representation of the ideas I had at the time of taking (or at the planning stage). They should be authentically represent my view point. Nothing else. I did not many authenticity similar to "truth" or "objectiveness".

Ben
01-10-2009, 03:45 PM   #128
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by kristoffon Quote
Some people don't get the 31 ltd, I have to agree on digital it's not that great a focal lenght, but I wish I had a lens that gave the FOV the 31 would have on film, i.e., 18mm f/1.8. Still, it's an awesome lens.

Somebody criticized the bigma questioning the usability of its wider end. It's not really what makes the lens, but I can see myself using it on a track - long end for cars/bikes racing, shorter end after the race ends. Or simply if I'm walking on the beach, I'd love the have the reach for a distant boat and then pull back and get people on the beach. So there's a use for it. The bigma is probably my next purchase.
The 31mm is a very good standard lens, replacing the old 50mm standard lens on a APS-C camera.

And the Bigma is a good and versatile choice. I can only encourage you, to buy it...

Ben

01-10-2009, 03:45 PM   #129
Site Supporter
G_Money's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 593
QuoteOriginally posted by kristoffon Quote
Somebody criticized the bigma questioning the usability of its wider end. It's not really what makes the lens, but I can see myself using it on a track - long end for cars/bikes racing, shorter end after the race ends. Or simply if I'm walking on the beach, I'd love the have the reach for a distant boat and then pull back and get people on the beach. So there's a use for it. The bigma is probably my next purchase.
I don't think I was criticizing the lens, but the notion of a 4 lb. 50mm lens strikes me as giggle-worthy. I suppose they have their place, but I don't do much bird/wildlife stuff and my track days are long gone. I was puzzled, not critical. Like I said, I've never even seen one of the monsters.
01-12-2009, 01:20 AM   #130
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The release used to be directly in line with the locking pin, closer to the 8:00 position.
The lens dit lined up perfectly with the release lever, so if you were mounting a lens in the dark, you put one thumb on the lens dit, one thumb on the release lever and "put your thumbs together".
This enabled very easy lens mounting without have to look.
Sorry for the poorly focused example, it was a pretty quick and dirty picture, but it illustrates the relationship of the dit and the lever when the lens is mounted but not twisted to the home position.
thanks for clarification...
a bit wiser again...
01-12-2009, 01:24 PM   #131
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4.

On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg.

I, personaly, don't get it.
01-12-2009, 01:31 PM   #132
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4.

On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg.

I, personaly, don't get it.
how can you not get a lens that isn't even on the market? especially when you only assume its heavy, and then use that as a reason to not 'get' it.
01-12-2009, 01:42 PM   #133
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4.

On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg.

I, personaly, don't get it.
Why would you rate it harder than the 55-300mm?
01-12-2009, 02:53 PM   #134
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
how can you not get a lens that isn't even on the market? especially when you only assume its heavy, and then use that as a reason to not 'get' it.
Errr.... I use the verb to get, not in the sense to acquire, but in the sense intended by the original poster, which was to understand. I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not. If you did understand what I was saying, I'll have you know that the DA* 60-250 was announced a looooong time ago, and I didn't understand it back then either, even though we didn't know it's price. Next year, when it's been selling for a while (if indeed anybody is willing to pay $1400 for it), I still won't understand it. It's the specs and price that determine whether I get a lens or not. For example, if I told you Pentax were releasing a 113-184mm f/5.9 zoom for $995, wouldn't you scratch your head and say "I don't get it..."? Same thing for me with the DA* 60-250.

To reply to the 2nd part of your question, it is a heavy lens because it weighs 1230g (2 lbs 11.4 oz) with hood and tripod mount. I used "assume" because I haven't actually held it, but based on the weight of my other lenses and how they feel on my K10D, I can assume it will feel heavy, on top of it actually being heavy.

However, I really hope a lot of people get, and get, this lens so Pentax can profit from all their R&D investment. If it's good for Pentax, it's good for me.
01-12-2009, 02:53 PM   #135
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I don't know, I feel just like Miserere does on the 60-250. For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly. If you're OK with big and expensive, why not the 50-135/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8 and get more speed while you're at it? If you don't care so much about speed, why not save a lot of size & money and get the 55-300? Are people expecting it to be *that* much better in terms of sharpness or whatever else? Or is the focal length range just so perfect for some application, and f/4 just good enough, to make it that desirable? Outdoor sports, maybe?
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!
examples, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version) dgaies Sold Items 5 12-28-2009 07:58 AM
K-7 and metering with "K" and "M" lenses NaClH2O Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 07-18-2009 09:00 PM
Original "K" and "M" lenses wlank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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