Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-11-2010, 09:58 PM   #61
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,235
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
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
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,883
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
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
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Mechan1k Quote
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
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,883
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, 07:32 AM   #65
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:
01-14-2010, 07:35 AM   #66
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,883
mmmmm ... they are nice indeed.

I really like #2, 3 and 4 in this.
01-14-2010, 08:55 AM   #67
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
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
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec, CA
Posts: 74
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,941
QuoteOriginally posted by David07 Quote
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
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec, CA
Posts: 74
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,941
QuoteOriginally posted by David07 Quote
I always shoot JPG+RAW.
Good idea, I cannot do that with the K100D.

QuoteOriginally posted by David07 Quote
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!
01-15-2010, 06:34 AM   #72
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
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
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Honolulu
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27
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
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by nottoohairy Quote
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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,941
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
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.
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, 28mm prime lens, bokeh, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 similar to what (prime) lens? Pentaxtic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 12-07-2007 06:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 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