[iheiramo]

Very nice images... The M28/3.5 is an underappreciated lens, don't you think? What were you using before Capture One?

Thanks. Can't really say about M28. I don't know enough of it's reputation to form an opinion, but I like it for sure. IQ wise I think my M50 and M100 might be a little better, but as a focal length it's typically most useful in my collection for me and short infinity distance is handy for action. I would love to test it against M28/2 thought.

I have been using Zoner Photo Studio which I haven't seen mentioned on PF. Back when I shot in .jpg it was free to use. You didn't really need to pay for it if you didn't need RAW converter. Latest version is subscription only and therefore I started looking for other options. Quite easy to use and includes decent photo manager, developer and editor in one program, but it can't quite offer the same IQ and flexibility with colors as capture one. A lot cheaper thought. I think I will still keep the old version of it for manager and if I need to do some editing that is outside of the scope of C1.

I posted these earlier to this topic:

C1:


ZPS:


And 100% crops of the pictures, if you open the link. C1 upper row. ZPS lower row:


If I have experienced the best, it's really hard for me to satisfy for anything less. That's why I try not to test things, if I can't afford upgrade. In net use the difference in sharpness is really not worth the money, but I feel I can produce more pleasing colors and better light balance with C1. Even in the net use. Also like to keep option open for printing larger, might be guilty of pixel peeping and have passion for technical quality of things. Well, the last one is the reason why I shoot with Pentax, so no shame in it really

---

Last edited by iheiramo; 03-27-2017 at 07:34 AM. Reason: typo

[Jonathan Mac]

M 50mm f/1.4


IMGP7060a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP7155a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[mglowe]

When I had the trees in focus the snow basically disappeared from the resultant images. The goal was to try and capture the snow as it fell. I'm still really weak on capturing the image I wanted although perhaps the scene & subjects at hand didn't lend themselves to what I was trying to get in the end. My goal was to use an aperture that gave a focused depth of field great enough that a bunch of the snow was captured but not much of the background so the focus is on the snow itself. If I could do it again I'd probably keep bumping the aperture with the point of focus somewhere before the trees. So, a similar shot to what I posted, just with more snow in the focused field depth. Hopefully there's another snowy weekend day where I can get some time to do this kind of thing again soon.

Good to know about out of focus / depth of field aspects pumping up color fringing. Would a macro lens like I mentioned have helped with this issue?

A few observations concerning macros, old versus new, focusing and so on.

The old Takumar 50/4 preset tessar is as fringe free and clean as you can get, even in harsh light, but I have always thought the M 50 1.4 at 2.8 and 4.0 was ultra clean. A macro TESSAR might help a bit in the same kind of shot, maybe not. Any macro...I doubt it. Southlander was right about the relationship between glowing and fringing and loss of contrast and imprecise focusing. Just yesterday I was trying out an old preset telephoto. You would have thought it to be a horrible lens until just that moment when precise focus was achieved. Like magic, all glowing and ugly coloration disappeared leaving a clean image. The focus had to be just perfect to clean things up...a revelation.
NEW will not help. The Pentax Ms are modern enough. In general, you can hardly find cleaner lenses. I suppose the M 28 3.5 is just as clean a lens as I have ever used. I recently shot over a thousand photos on a K3 in Cuba using the M 50 1.4 and the M 100 2.8 (so light), and had absolutely no problems in any light with fringing. I could of course have forced the issue and got some of that stuff if I had put my mind to it, but I would have had to try awfully hard...ha!

No, new will not help. My very great, new, very "modern" Zeiss prime WA fringes and flares easily compared to my M lenses. Ditto the Zeiss 85. The newest and "fanciest" Canon L ultra wide zoom and Nikon super duper 80 200 zoom are not topping my M lenses for flare and fringing. I have a few old lenses and new lenses that just fringe a lot and many old single coated lenses that flare easily. But many of the older lenses are practically fringe free and a few of the old ones hardly flare (like the ST 35 3.5-fairly good into strong light). At the computer, only a few lenses produce stubborn problems that cannot be corrected. So new is not an answer really.
I am out of the flow of the thread and just happened to be able to check out the new posts tonight. I hope I don't cause any confusion with my backtracking. I think these are interesting items for discussion.

[pres589]

mglowe, thank-you for the response, I really appreciate it. I also see this thread as a place to learn as much as any other (I'm also pretty okay with derailing threads when it suits me, and I am sure it makes me quite popular...). So the scene I was trying to capture was one of a lot of snow falling and with a background that is blurred so that the snow is the real focus and not the trees behind. It makes the snow easier to see as the trees lack strong edges and such that otherwise just makes the snow look like so much static. Making the image nearly black and white did clear up the green and purple fringing that was showing on what remained of the edges of the trees. The 50mm offered a good width of view, more-so than the 28mm prime I tried previous to the shot I shared (although that wasn't bad). So the image is about where I wanted it, just with a lot of attendant fringing. You mentioned a number of lenses; would you have grabbed something else off the shelf for use on a Pentax k-mount camera? Flair was not an issue, there wasn't much direct sunlight out that day, and I was being a good photog and using a decently deep round hood that doesn't vignette to make sure that wasn't an issue.

Short version: if you wanted to capture that scene, and you wanted the trees to not be in-focus, what lens would you have grabbed instead, or would you have no issues with using an M 50 1.4 as I did?

[mglowe]

mglowe, thank-you for the response, I really appreciate it. I also see this thread as a place to learn as much as any other (I'm also pretty okay with derailing threads when it suits me, and I am sure it makes me quite popular...). So the scene I was trying to capture was one of a lot of snow falling and with a background that is blurred so that the snow is the real focus and not the trees behind. It makes the snow easier to see as the trees lack strong edges and such that otherwise just makes the snow look like so much static. Making the image nearly black and white did clear up the green and purple fringing that was showing on what remained of the edges of the trees. The 50mm offered a good width of view, more-so than the 28mm prime I tried previous to the shot I shared (although that wasn't bad). So the image is about where I wanted it, just with a lot of attendant fringing. You mentioned a number of lenses; would you have grabbed something else off the shelf for use on a Pentax k-mount camera? Flair was not an issue, there wasn't much direct sunlight out that day, and I was being a good photog and using a decently deep round hood that doesn't vignette to make sure that wasn't an issue.

Short version: if you wanted to capture that scene, and you wanted the trees to not be in-focus, what lens would you have grabbed instead, or would you have no issues with using an M 50 1.4 as I did?

Today, March 29th, 2017, I would use the Jupiter 37 AM. M42 K mount. Hah! I love that lens today. Really great look in out of focus areas. It is one of the true stand out lenses, period. The M 50, sure, why not. Maybe I would try the M 28 3.5 if I was mostly concerned with aberrations, but I guess you did that already. The SMC Tak 55 1.8....I think I will try that kind of shot as soon as winter rolls around next year. Then maybe I can post something fun on same topic and really backtrack...again.

[iheiramo]

Bought cheap Neewer ND filters and CPL which somebody on the forum recommended to be decent for the price. I haven't used either previously, so didn't want to buy expensive one right away. Went to seaside to test the CPL today on a lunch break.

M50/1.7 quite heavy crop:



M28/3.5:



Is there a difference in polarizing effect between different CPL? I really like how the world, especially clouds, look thru my sunglasses and would love to have same filter for my camera. It would be great, if someone has tested several brands and can recommend a good CPL to go with M lenses. Well, any advice is welcome as this is brand new territory for me.

[LensBeginner]

Very nice images... The M28/3.5 is an underappreciated lens, don't you think? What were you using before Capture One?

*snip*

Nope, I appreciate mine very much!

[DrawsACircle]

I did it! 402 pages of M lens posts with great pictures, While going through them all, I had to buy a couple of M lenses, a 28mm f2,8 and a 100 f4 Macro (on the way from Poland to Denmark ). I had already purchased a 200mm f4 mainly for astrophotography, that was before my M Club journey - the lens that got me here. The 28mm has been dismantled to get rid of some fungus, just ready for springtime and colours in the garden, M 28mm f2,8 @ f5,6:

View image in gallery

[iheiramo]

I did it! 402 pages of M lens posts with great pictures, While going through them all, I had to buy a couple of M lenses...

Well done and welcome to the club. It's a long thread, but worth it I did the same 6 months ago.

[iheiramo]

We had a misty Sunday. Went to test the new ND filters (set of ND2, 4 and 8), but apparently I need to buy darker filters to get the effect I was looking for. I guess adding ND100 and ND1000 to collection should probably give enough choices. Anyway, I think I got some decent shots today to share.

A crop from a shot with M100/2.8:



Panorama of 4 vertical shots with M100/2.8:



A slight crop from photo with M50/1.7:

[Jonathan Mac]

Fuji X-M1 and Pentax M 35mm f/2.8, processed in VSCO on my phone


Ugliest building in Madrid by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[DrawsACircle]

I guess no one would argue against you Jonathan
UPS just delivered my new M 100mm f4 Macro - I had to bring it out in the garden right away (same tulips as the post above)








Thanks Canada_Rockies ;-)

[Canada_Rockies]

I guess no one would argue against you Jonathan
UPS just delivered my new M 100mm f4 Macro - I had to bring it out in the garden right away (same tulips as the post above)
Can anyone tell me how to embed pictures from Flickr?

In Flickr, Click [Share] and look for he BBCode. Copy and paste.

[iheiramo]

I guess no one would argue against you Jonathan

If that's the ugliest building I'd say that Madrid is a pretty nice city. Is there a ugly buildings thread in PF? Should be

Spring comes so much earlier to Denmark. No flowers and bees for awhile here in Finland. 100 macro seem to be an other nice lens in M series.

[DrawsACircle]

But you have all the snow iheiramo! we have rain and grey sky - I think that makes it more than even, I would say a small plus to you :-)