28mm prime lens bokeh

stevebrot · 01-11-2010, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

not anymore, that's why it had become an ideal focal length portraits...

To each his own, I guess...

Steve

Mechan1k · 01-13-2010, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

it has an impressive bokeh alright. also felt the same that it could had gone atleast at f2.8. that would had been wonderful.

If the Super Tak 28mm was an f/2.8 ... they wouldn't have been able to keep the filter ring to 49mm. And seeing as most of the Taks are around the 49mm filter ring size .... it makes it easier to save cash for filters ... and makes it easier to use reversing rings for macro fun as well.

the 28mm is a great lens for macro work with tubes ... I just got my reversing ring in the mail ... so will be testing it with a number of my lenses with 49mm filter rings.

Pentaxor · 01-13-2010, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Mechan1k

If the Super Tak 28mm was an f/2.8 ... they wouldn't have been able to keep the filter ring to 49mm. And seeing as most of the Taks are around the 49mm filter ring size .... it makes it easier to save cash for filters ... and makes it easier to use reversing rings for macro fun as well.

the 28mm is a great lens for macro work with tubes ... I just got my reversing ring in the mail ... so will be testing it with a number of my lenses with 49mm filter rings.

the K has a 52mm filter ring. I'm just curious which one would produce a much better IQ, the reversed optics or the extended one?

Mechan1k · 01-13-2010, 03:44 AM

Will find out I guess ... I have already started playing with 55mm worth of M42 extension tubes in my Macro without Macro lens thread .... so I will add to it when i get a chance to test the reversing ring .. and see how it goes.

I am presuming I'd need to use a 50-55mm lens to try and replicate what the 55mm extension tubes does ... but with glass between.

Wait for the results in the next week or so i guess.

David07 · 01-14-2010, 07:32 AM

Some close-up pictures with the 28mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL MACRO:

f/1.8:

f/2:

f/2.4:

f/2.8:

f/3.5:

f/8:

Mechan1k · 01-14-2010, 07:35 AM

mmmmm ... they are nice indeed.

I really like #2, 3 and 4 in this.

jsherman999 · 01-14-2010, 08:55 AM

David, superb shots! I owned the Sigma 28 1.8 in Nikon mount briefly, but it had FF problems, and I didn't have AF adjust on my D90, so it went back. Your copy looks great.

.

David07 · 01-14-2010, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

David, superb shots! I owned the Sigma 28 1.8 in Nikon mount briefly, but it had FF problems, and I didn't have AF adjust on my D90, so it went back. Your copy looks great.

.

Thank you !

Yes, my copy is working great. I like it, even if it is quite a big lens !

Class A · 01-14-2010, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by David07

Some close-up pictures with the 28mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL MACRO:

Great shots!
You must have been very close for the last one!

Would you like to share what PP you did? Did you sharpen specifically for this output size and what software did you use? I find when I crank up saturation with Picasa, things start to look unnaturally pretty quickly and then prefer a less saturated look but yours seem to be fine. (I don't crank it up in-camera because I don't want to risk individual channels to be blown; I typically don't shoot RAW either since I currently neither have the space for all these megabytes nor the software which would support a good RAW workflow).

David07 · 01-14-2010, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Class A

Great shots!
You must have been very close for the last one!

Would you like to share what PP you did? Did you sharpen specifically for this output size and what software did you use? I find when I crank up saturation with Picasa, things start to look unnaturally pretty quickly and then prefer a less saturated look but yours seem to be fine. (I don't crank it up in-camera because I don't want to risk individual channels to be blown; I typically don't shoot RAW either since I currently neither have the space for all these megabytes nor the software which would support a good RAW workflow).

Thanks ! I always shoot JPG+RAW. I use orginal JPG for quick browsing and previewing of the pictures but thereafter work with RAW files. Most of these pictures were converted with SilkyPix (I adjust white balance, exposure, ... I usually put saturation value at about 8-10 and sharpness to the normal (default) setting). Then, I used Photoshop Elements 6 for final tweaking (if necessary) and resizing. After resizing to a 1024 pixel width picture, I generally sharpen a bit using Focus Magic (my usual settings are "Blur width" set at 1, "Amount" set at 75%). If I need some noise reduction, I use Noiseware.

Alternatively, some of these pics may have opened in RAW directly with Photoshop Elements. Then I generally use a Saturation setting around 10.

Class A · 01-14-2010, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by David07

I always shoot JPG+RAW.

Good idea, I cannot do that with the K100D.

Originally posted by David07

After resizing to a 1024 pixel width picture, I generally sharpen a bit using Focus Magic (my usual settings are "Blur width" set at 1, "Amount" set at 75%).

I've got Focus Magic too and don't use it often enough. I think that a bit of post-sharpening at the final output size adds that "zing" that makes them look really sharp. I typically just sharpen at a 100% view and then resize for the output size. While Picasa's output resizing is not useless at all, I think I'm loosing some potential here.

Thanks for all the other pieces of information. Much appreciated!

Asahiflex · 01-15-2010, 06:34 AM

I think that any lens does well bokeh-wise when the subject is in a sea of green. I'd like to make it a bit harder... I encourage everyone in this topic to shoot in more difficult conditions

Everything below was shot with the SMC Pentax 1:2/28.

WJJ3 · 01-15-2010, 09:15 AM

Hey Nice 28mm Bokeh! So that is the 'K' 28/2? aka the 'hollywood' lens? Which is reincarnated currently as the Zeiss 2/28? It seems that the floating elements have a big effect on the out of focus character...
I second your request! Flowers are beautiful fascinating and wonderful photographic subjects, but it would be great to see something else too!

Asahiflex · 01-15-2010, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by nottoohairy

Hey Nice 28mm Bokeh! So that is the 'K' 28/2? aka the 'hollywood' lens? Which is reincarnated currently as the Zeiss 2/28? It seems that the floating elements have a big effect on the out of focus character...
I second your request! Flowers are beautiful fascinating and wonderful photographic subjects, but it would be great to see something else too!

Yup, it's the "Hollywood" and the file names should have been a give-away

And let them wide-open shots come!

Class A · 01-15-2010, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

I encourage everyone in this topic to shoot in more difficult conditions

Good idea if one wants to compare lenses, but notice that while you are using more complex backgrounds you are still making the lens look good by close focusing.

01-14-2010, 07:32 AM	#65
David07 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec, CA Posts: 74	Sigma 28/1.8 Some close-up pictures with the 28mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL MACRO: f/1.8: f/2: f/2.4: f/2.8: f/3.5: f/8:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best Prime/Standard Lens for K7 (28mm to 35mm) - (f1.8 to f2.8)	brosen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	74	10-16-2009 02:54 PM
Lens Recommendation (prime) - Bokeh, Indoor, Low Light	FckShoes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	12-02-2008 08:06 PM
bokeh of DA16-50 and DA50-135 similar to what (prime) lens?	Pentaxtic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	12-07-2007 06:21 AM

01-11-2010, 09:58 PM	#61
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Pentaxor not anymore, that's why it had become an ideal focal length portraits... To each his own, I guess... Steve

01-13-2010, 01:03 AM	#62
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Originally posted by Pentaxor it has an impressive bokeh alright. also felt the same that it could had gone atleast at f2.8. that would had been wonderful. If the Super Tak 28mm was an f/2.8 ... they wouldn't have been able to keep the filter ring to 49mm. And seeing as most of the Taks are around the 49mm filter ring size .... it makes it easier to save cash for filters ... and makes it easier to use reversing rings for macro fun as well. the 28mm is a great lens for macro work with tubes ... I just got my reversing ring in the mail ... so will be testing it with a number of my lenses with 49mm filter rings.

01-13-2010, 01:43 AM	#63
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Mechan1k If the Super Tak 28mm was an f/2.8 ... they wouldn't have been able to keep the filter ring to 49mm. And seeing as most of the Taks are around the 49mm filter ring size .... it makes it easier to save cash for filters ... and makes it easier to use reversing rings for macro fun as well. the 28mm is a great lens for macro work with tubes ... I just got my reversing ring in the mail ... so will be testing it with a number of my lenses with 49mm filter rings. the K has a 52mm filter ring. I'm just curious which one would produce a much better IQ, the reversed optics or the extended one?

01-13-2010, 03:44 AM	#64
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Will find out I guess ... I have already started playing with 55mm worth of M42 extension tubes in my Macro without Macro lens thread .... so I will add to it when i get a chance to test the reversing ring .. and see how it goes. I am presuming I'd need to use a 50-55mm lens to try and replicate what the 55mm extension tubes does ... but with glass between. Wait for the results in the next week or so i guess.

01-14-2010, 07:35 AM	#66
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	mmmmm ... they are nice indeed. I really like #2, 3 and 4 in this.

01-14-2010, 08:55 AM	#67
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	David, superb shots! I owned the Sigma 28 1.8 in Nikon mount briefly, but it had FF problems, and I didn't have AF adjust on my D90, so it went back. Your copy looks great. .

01-14-2010, 09:03 AM	#68
David07 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec, CA Posts: 74	Originally posted by jsherman999 David, superb shots! I owned the Sigma 28 1.8 in Nikon mount briefly, but it had FF problems, and I didn't have AF adjust on my D90, so it went back. Your copy looks great. . Thank you ! Yes, my copy is working great. I like it, even if it is quite a big lens !

01-14-2010, 02:14 PM	#69
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by David07 Some close-up pictures with the 28mm F1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL MACRO: Great shots! You must have been very close for the last one! Would you like to share what PP you did? Did you sharpen specifically for this output size and what software did you use? I find when I crank up saturation with Picasa, things start to look unnaturally pretty quickly and then prefer a less saturated look but yours seem to be fine. (I don't crank it up in-camera because I don't want to risk individual channels to be blown; I typically don't shoot RAW either since I currently neither have the space for all these megabytes nor the software which would support a good RAW workflow).

01-14-2010, 02:34 PM	#70
David07 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec, CA Posts: 74	Originally posted by Class A Great shots! You must have been very close for the last one! Would you like to share what PP you did? Did you sharpen specifically for this output size and what software did you use? I find when I crank up saturation with Picasa, things start to look unnaturally pretty quickly and then prefer a less saturated look but yours seem to be fine. (I don't crank it up in-camera because I don't want to risk individual channels to be blown; I typically don't shoot RAW either since I currently neither have the space for all these megabytes nor the software which would support a good RAW workflow). Thanks ! I always shoot JPG+RAW. I use orginal JPG for quick browsing and previewing of the pictures but thereafter work with RAW files. Most of these pictures were converted with SilkyPix (I adjust white balance, exposure, ... I usually put saturation value at about 8-10 and sharpness to the normal (default) setting). Then, I used Photoshop Elements 6 for final tweaking (if necessary) and resizing. After resizing to a 1024 pixel width picture, I generally sharpen a bit using Focus Magic (my usual settings are "Blur width" set at 1, "Amount" set at 75%). If I need some noise reduction, I use Noiseware. Alternatively, some of these pics may have opened in RAW directly with Photoshop Elements. Then I generally use a Saturation setting around 10.

01-14-2010, 05:48 PM	#71
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by David07 I always shoot JPG+RAW. Good idea, I cannot do that with the K100D. Originally posted by David07 After resizing to a 1024 pixel width picture, I generally sharpen a bit using Focus Magic (my usual settings are "Blur width" set at 1, "Amount" set at 75%). I've got Focus Magic too and don't use it often enough. I think that a bit of post-sharpening at the final output size adds that "zing" that makes them look really sharp. I typically just sharpen at a 100% view and then resize for the output size. While Picasa's output resizing is not useless at all, I think I'm loosing some potential here. Thanks for all the other pieces of information. Much appreciated!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2010, 06:34 AM	#72
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	I think that any lens does well bokeh-wise when the subject is in a sea of green. I'd like to make it a bit harder... I encourage everyone in this topic to shoot in more difficult conditions Everything below was shot with the SMC Pentax 1:2/28.

01-15-2010, 09:15 AM	#73
WJJ3 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Kagoshima Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 37 Original Poster	Hey Nice 28mm Bokeh! So that is the 'K' 28/2? aka the 'hollywood' lens? Which is reincarnated currently as the Zeiss 2/28? It seems that the floating elements have a big effect on the out of focus character... I second your request! Flowers are beautiful fascinating and wonderful photographic subjects, but it would be great to see something else too!

01-15-2010, 11:35 AM	#74
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by nottoohairy Hey Nice 28mm Bokeh! So that is the 'K' 28/2? aka the 'hollywood' lens? Which is reincarnated currently as the Zeiss 2/28? It seems that the floating elements have a big effect on the out of focus character... I second your request! Flowers are beautiful fascinating and wonderful photographic subjects, but it would be great to see something else too! Yup, it's the "Hollywood" and the file names should have been a give-away And let them wide-open shots come!

01-15-2010, 03:50 PM	#75
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Asahiflex I encourage everyone in this topic to shoot in more difficult conditions Good idea if one wants to compare lenses, but notice that while you are using more complex backgrounds you are still making the lens look good by close focusing.