Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Smeggypants · 03-31-2011, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Class A

How did the A4 focus chart compare to the SmegAlign?
BTW, using "real world stuff" is what I did for my own calibration and I've been very happy with my results since then.

I ended up using a combination of the two

Quote:

Your notion of "proof" and my notion of "proof" are very different.

My notion of proof is getting real world pictures sharp. That's all that matters

Quote:

Doesn't the "inconsistency" issue you reported bother you?
If a K-5 only gives me 7 out of 10 shots in focus independently of light levels, I'd be downgrading if I exchanged my K100D with a K-5.

Yes it bothers me. I think Pentax need to sort this out in 1.04

However there's an easy workaround for 99% of shots I take.

You really oughta get a K-5. You'll love it

Tommot1965 · 04-01-2011, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

Tommo,

There are many versions of this lens, but I have one (f2.8) and it isn't very sharp wide open.

It is pretty good stopped down a bit though.

Of course, if I had my druthers (whatever a druther is), I would have the legendary FA 80-200 f2.8.

I swear that it seems like I have been drooling over that lens for so long that bell bottoms and tie-dye have come and gone twice in the meantime...

Ray

LMAO..your a funny bugger Ray..cheers for that post dude...its put a smile on my dial.

Originally posted by Ash

Mate, that'd be the inherent softness of the lens by design.
My own copy was not sharp until f/5.6, and even then it was not sharp throughout the frame.
So I'm afraid if you're looking for better performance, the Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 80-200 may be able to offer this. Otherwise it'll have to be fast telephoto primes.

yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!!

**TER-OR** · 04-01-2011, 06:26 AM

So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year.

Smeggypants · 04-01-2011, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year.

For my K-5s ..... Some lenses did and some didn't.

**Ash** · 04-01-2011, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!!

Great. Look forward to your account of these Sigma telezooms. I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late.

Squier · 04-04-2011, 03:37 PM

Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page.

Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious..

There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time

Class A · 04-04-2011, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Ash

I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late.

The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it.

Or is that not a recent one?

Smeggypants · 04-04-2011, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Squier

Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page.

Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious..

There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time

Good point and that's why I kept my pics in the1st page at 800px wide. To allow users of tiny monitors not to have to scroll.

Squier · 04-04-2011, 07:27 PM

But page 2 800?

Try 1400 / 1100

I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better

**Ash** · 04-04-2011, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Class A

The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it.

Or is that not a recent one?

Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ).

Tommot1965 · 04-04-2011, 07:41 PM

Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft

Class A · 04-05-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ).

Even at this size I can see whether a lens performs or doesn't. I've never seen any larger images from the Pentax 55-300 and still was able to form an opinion that this lens punches well above its price class.

Falconeye once did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation and it turns out that you cannot readily dismiss the hypothesis that critical sharpness can be inferred from downsized images.

Of course there is more opportunity for a poster to fool you with clever output sharpening but when that's overdone it shows.

I understand that the lens isn't great at its MFD wide open. AFAIC, Sigma should not call it "Macro". But it appears that there are copies that do a stunning job in all other situations. You've seen samples of sharp f/2.8 images in the thread you once started about your copy which apparently wasn't quite up to scratch.

Originally posted by Tommot1965

Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft

Maybe your copy wasn't in ideal shape either? Let me know if you want to see the thread Ash once started with the sharp f/2.8 samples and I'll search for it.

Smeggypants · 04-05-2011, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Squier

But page 2 800?

Try 1400 / 1100

I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better

I can't see any pics on page 2

04-04-2011, 07:35 PM	#205
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Class A The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it. Or is that not a recent one? Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ). Last edited by Ash; 04-04-2011 at 07:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D versus K10D	Mapleleaf-Mick	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	12-24-2010 10:58 AM
gx20 versus k20d!	kositoes	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	09-25-2009 03:00 PM
Tests to determine if a new K20D is faulty	eman	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	07-05-2008 10:30 PM
gx-20 versus k20d anyone?	davieFL	Photographic Technique	1	06-18-2008 12:23 PM
Some K20D Vs K10D ISO noise tests (100 to 6400)	RiceHigh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	02-25-2008 04:00 PM

03-31-2011, 09:35 PM	#196
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536 Original Poster	Originally posted by Class A How did the A4 focus chart compare to the SmegAlign? BTW, using "real world stuff" is what I did for my own calibration and I've been very happy with my results since then. I ended up using a combination of the two Quote: Your notion of "proof" and my notion of "proof" are very different. My notion of proof is getting real world pictures sharp. That's all that matters Quote: Doesn't the "inconsistency" issue you reported bother you? If a K-5 only gives me 7 out of 10 shots in focus independently of light levels, I'd be downgrading if I exchanged my K100D with a K-5. Yes it bothers me. I think Pentax need to sort this out in 1.04 However there's an easy workaround for 99% of shots I take. You really oughta get a K-5. You'll love it

04-01-2011, 04:32 AM	#197
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Originally posted by Ray Pulley Tommo, There are many versions of this lens, but I have one (f2.8) and it isn't very sharp wide open. It is pretty good stopped down a bit though. Of course, if I had my druthers (whatever a druther is), I would have the legendary FA 80-200 f2.8. I swear that it seems like I have been drooling over that lens for so long that bell bottoms and tie-dye have come and gone twice in the meantime... Ray LMAO..your a funny bugger Ray..cheers for that post dude...its put a smile on my dial. Originally posted by Ash Mate, that'd be the inherent softness of the lens by design. My own copy was not sharp until f/5.6, and even then it was not sharp throughout the frame. So I'm afraid if you're looking for better performance, the Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 80-200 may be able to offer this. Otherwise it'll have to be fast telephoto primes. yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!!

04-01-2011, 06:26 AM	#198
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year.

04-01-2011, 06:38 AM	#199
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536 Original Poster	Originally posted by TER-OR So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year. For my K-5s ..... Some lenses did and some didn't.

04-01-2011, 10:44 PM	#200
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Tommot1965 yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!! Great. Look forward to your account of these Sigma telezooms. I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late.

04-04-2011, 03:37 PM	#201
Squier Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxfordshire UK Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page. Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious.. There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time

04-04-2011, 05:19 PM	#202
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Ash I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late. The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it. Or is that not a recent one?

04-04-2011, 07:08 PM	#203
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536 Original Poster	Originally posted by Squier Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page. Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious.. There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time Good point and that's why I kept my pics in the1st page at 800px wide. To allow users of tiny monitors not to have to scroll.

04-04-2011, 07:27 PM	#204
Squier Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxfordshire UK Photos: Albums Posts: 706	But page 2 800? Try 1400 / 1100 I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better

04-04-2011, 07:41 PM	#206
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft

04-05-2011, 02:24 PM	#207
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Ash Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ). Even at this size I can see whether a lens performs or doesn't. I've never seen any larger images from the Pentax 55-300 and still was able to form an opinion that this lens punches well above its price class. Falconeye once did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation and it turns out that you cannot readily dismiss the hypothesis that critical sharpness can be inferred from downsized images. Of course there is more opportunity for a poster to fool you with clever output sharpening but when that's overdone it shows. I understand that the lens isn't great at its MFD wide open. AFAIC, Sigma should not call it "Macro". But it appears that there are copies that do a stunning job in all other situations. You've seen samples of sharp f/2.8 images in the thread you once started about your copy which apparently wasn't quite up to scratch. Originally posted by Tommot1965 Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft Maybe your copy wasn't in ideal shape either? Let me know if you want to see the thread Ash once started with the sharp f/2.8 samples and I'll search for it.

04-05-2011, 03:45 PM	#208
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536 Original Poster	Originally posted by Squier But page 2 800? Try 1400 / 1100 I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better I can't see any pics on page 2

K-5 1.03 versus K20D AF tests

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!