Well this is the kind of shot you cannot take every day, you have to be there, the navy ship, the wind, the windsurfer, rare meeting, I'm so upset I can't get a good IQ 70-210mm or a prime 200+ mm...

Anyway :




Developped 2 other, a bit better IMO :

Windsurd planing is more noticeable here :



And the jibe, would have loved a duck jibe but he played it safe and there was no sexy girl on the beach to applause^^

[RoxnDox]

Actually, I think this particular shot is just fine at 135mm. If you zoomed in further with the longer glass, you would lose some of the sense of scale and the waves. I think the photo captures everything quite nicely...

Jim

[kp0c]

So, was there sarcasm in your post of am I just not getting it? Because I believe there are plenty of good quality Pentax glass that covers the 200mm range and that would have been suitable for such shots. DA* 200mm. DA* 60-250mm. DA* 300mm. DFA 150-450mm. DFA* 70-200mm. Oh, and if those are too expansive, the HD 55-300mm stopped down to f8 should also provide great IQ.

edit : ok, so it seems like I did misunderstood the OP. I guess he is complaining about the fact that it had not the lens readily available with him to capture the moment. Anyhow, the shot is quite nice imo.

[atupdate]

So are you saying that the K5-II doesn't have enough pixels to allow you to crop and still have a decent image?

Tim

[bygp]

Actually, I think this particular shot is just fine at 135mm. If you zoomed in further with the longer glass, you would lose some of the sense of scale and the waves. I think the photo captures everything quite nicely...

Jim

well, the fact is I had to crop almost 50% of the RAW to get that, tweaking post prod don't make it look too low rez but it is truly^^
In this exact situation I needed twice the focal length to work on a sharp source...

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 11:20 AM ----------

So, was there sarcasm in your post of am I just not getting it? Because I believe there are plenty of good quality Pentax glass that covers the 200mm range and that would have been suitable for such shots. DA* 200mm. DA* 60-250mm. DA* 300mm. DFA 150-450mm. DFA* 70-200mm. Oh, and if those are too expansive, the HD 55-300mm stopped down to f8 should also provide great IQ.

edit : ok, so it seems like I did misunderstood the OP. I guess he is complaining about the fact that it had not the lens readily available with him to capture the moment. Anyhow, the shot is quite nice imo.

1. yes my budget is too low to buy such lenses (the DAs you enumerate)
2. yes I let my only decent 70-210mm at home (tokina SD II)

I'm waiting for a Kiron zoom next week, bought it cheap from Belgium, lucky : it will be a gem, unlucky : crap IQ, it looks virtually as being a good model in mint condition, but this is still virtual... There is a shop not far where they have several great SMC in K or KA mount, the pro is the guy lets me test the lens deeply before buying, the cons is the price is almost the price I had my K200D.

For me, price <> quality, my best lens atm is a Cosina 24mm close focusing (you can macro and wide angle), it's a gem and I got it for parts at 10 euro (approx. 13$), took me 2h to fix it

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 11:36 AM ----------

So are you saying that the K5-II doesn't have enough pixels to allow you to crop and still have a decent image?

Tim

not really but in this exact situation, weather conditions already lows sharpness + the AA filter + the crop makes it hard to get a sharp not too noisy photo. I had for 1 afternoon a Vivitar serie 1 70-210mm (kiron) tank with the 67mm (or 72) filter thread and yes, with such a lens you really get sharp photos with sharp infinite even in these conditions, see :



this is what I call an HD zoom^^ unfortunately, this model I tested had a mechanical issue with hard points on the one-touch ring, but I now regret not too have bought it (the seller was asking 50 euro) as it was in perfect optical condition.

[CreationBear]

Like the others, I'm digging the FL--great processing with the orange and blue, and you've got to love those La Fayette Class stealth frigates as well.

[bygp]

this has nothing to deal with the camera body, the above photo has been taken with a K200D, only lens matters here...

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 11:43 AM ----------

Like the others, I'm digging the FL--great processing with the orange and blue, and you've got to love those La Fayette Class stealth frigates as well.

Thanks^^ but the strange thing here is I did not at all touch orange and green-blue saturation, the RAW was same as the final pic. Only tweaked light curves and sharpness... maybe the mylar these sails are made of has special photonic properties LOL

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 11:44 AM ----------

or using a CPL produces such effects ? IDK

[bygp]

just realized, analyzing the shooting I did with the 135mm that I've got faulty filters on it, some cheap skylight or CPL filters have a large impac on IQ, and the more the sujects are far, the more this seems to affect IQ. Most of my filters are cheap filters, and it even seems that some cheap filters can produce haze effects when shooting towards intensive light source (sun for example). Need to dig that further taking infinity focused shots with and without any filter. The Vivitar I once used had a skylight filter on it but this was a high quality filter... Just because I did a street shooting the same days where almost 0% photos are sharp (using skylight + CPL) and I know this 135mm is giving very sharp results on focused subjects. Gonna use from now as less filters as possible unless they are proven to be HD filters.

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 04:44 PM ----------

I would not be surprised that CPL filter dramatically downgrade IQ under rainy or non crystal clear atmosphere... ther more the atmosphere is humid the more far subjects are degraded mainly when using not top-end filters. Am I right saying that ?

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 04:46 PM ----------

worst of all, I inverted filters order on the 135, CPL is screwed before skylight... this seems to be a very bad Idea :/

[clackers]

just realized, analyzing the shooting I did with the 135mm that I've got faulty filters on it, some cheap skylight or CPL filters have a large impac on IQ, and the more the sujects are far, the more this seems to affect IQ. Most of my filters are cheap filters, and it even seems that some cheap filters can produce haze effects when shooting towards intensive light source (sun for example). Need to dig that further taking infinity focused shots with and without any filter. The Vivitar I once used had a skylight filter on it but this was a high quality filter... Just because I did a street shooting the same days where almost 0% photos are sharp (using skylight + CPL) and I know this 135mm is giving very sharp results on focused subjects. Gonna use from now as less filters as possible unless they are proven to be HD filters.

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 04:44 PM ----------

I would not be surprised that CPL filter dramatically downgrade IQ under rainy or non crystal clear atmosphere... ther more the atmosphere is humid the more far subjects are degraded mainly when using not top-end filters. Am I right saying that ?

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 04:46 PM ----------

worst of all, I inverted filters order on the 135, CPL is screwed before skylight... this seems to be a very bad Idea :/

Pick 'em all up, Bygp, and cast them into the Mediterranean.

Forget using them as a de facto lens cap, a real lens cap is much easier to remove when shooting.

[bygp]

Pick 'em all up, Bygp, and cast them into the Mediterranean.

Forget using them as a de facto lens cap, a real lens cap is much easier to remove when shooting.

You know what ? I know you are right and I feel guilty to have dismounted a SMC 80-200 zoom thinking it was faulty when it may have been these crap filters messing my shots ! Never too late to learn but I have the bad feeling I've been too in hurry to throw away lenses without testing them clean of any crap filters !

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 05:31 PM ----------

You know what ? I know you are right and I feel guilty to have dismounted a SMC 80-200 zoom thinking it was faulty when it may have been these crap filters messing my shots ! Never too late to learn but I have the bad feeling I've been too in hurry to throw away lenses without testing them clean of any crap filters !

can we say that cheap filter have a less noticable impact on short focal lenses (e.g. 24mm) than on long as a 200mm ? This would explain many things to me, as I got very sharp shots with my cosina 24mm using filters...

[dms]

Yes, generally as regards degrading sharpness--the effect is greater for longer focal length lenses. But the flare/veiling (reduced contrast) effect is probably (my first guess) independent of FL, except that wider FL often means more likely to have sun in the image, or closer to the image.

BTW I would not assume it would be much better w/ multi-coated better filters--for long FL lenses. The flat glass acts as a lens and reduces the resolution. In theory a filter that is (properly) curved would be better.

[bygp]

Yes, generally as regards degrading sharpness--the effect is greater for longer focal length lenses. But the flare/veiling (reduced contrast) effect is probably (my first guess) independent of FL, except that wider FL often means more likely to have sun in the image, or closer to the image.

BTW I would not assume it would be much better w/ multi-coated better filters--for long FL lenses. The flat glass acts as a lens and reduces the resolution. In theory a filter that is (properly) curved would be better.

I love this kind of thinkings, as a scientist (and a bit metaphysician), the more we think we know, the less we know, and in 2016 we still know nothing, even in optical physics we could improve so many things... Universe, us included, will remain a mystery forever due to our human limits, is void void ? No it cannot, if void was really void there would be no light transmission and/or speed, there should be no mass inerty, etc... 0 scientists can say what is exactly gravity, we know only models, but not the underneath causes... Amen.

The more we dig, the more the material we're digging in seems infinite.

[clackers]

I love this kind of thinkings, as a scientist (and a bit metaphysician), the more we think we know, the less we know, and in 2016 we still know nothing, even in optical physics we could improve so many things... Universe, us included, will remain a mystery forever due to our human limits, is void void ? No it cannot, if void was really void there would be no light transmission and/or speed, there should be no mass inerty, etc... 0 scientists can say what is exactly gravity, we know only models, but not the underneath causes... Amen.

The more we dig, the more the material we're digging in seems infinite.

Okay, all that, and throw the filters away.

[bygp]

Sir, yes Sir ! but still E <> mC2

[bygp]

Took some pics in town and on harbour today with the 135mm, no filters at all, cloudy as yesterday but less wind, the filters messed my shots yesterday, no doubts, today I had very sharp houses almost 8 Km far from the POV, even if low contrasted due to atmospheric humidity. From now on I'll take filters in my bag and use them only if needed. I won't throw them in the mediteranean sea cause there's already enough pollution in it