[Coeurdechene]

Yes, there is some Lens Flare but I felt it didn't really hurt the image.

i would say the lens flare not only does not hurt, it complements the image...

And Paddy that castle image is breathtaking...that juxtaposition of the old castle and the new skyscrapers...cool shot.

[IMG]
[/IMG]

Here some more closefocus from the 28-75...my macro lens is not seeing much action lately (this is a crop, given the IQ and sharpness of the lens it is pretty much working also as a macro now).

[IMG]
[/IMG]

[EyeSpy]

@ 17mm--iso 125- f 6.3--1/100th--tri-pod--no crop

as I study this I feel the gentle rocking of the boat and the sound of small waves lapping at the sides. an awesome picture.

[Jewelltrail]

Isn't there anything sacred any more? Obviously you are very skilled with a camera, but IMO the bulk of your best work posted here was with that lens. The only reason I haven't bought the 17-50 is because I have a Sigma 17-70 along with a number of primes in that range.

Hey JHD, those are some mighty kind words. There is much sacred in my life. I will, most likely, by the lens again new, but in another mount. The 17-50 is a great lens, but I need funding to get into the next mount.

eyespy: as I study this I feel the gentle rocking of the boat and the sound of small waves lapping at the sides. an awesome picture.

Thank you--very much! It feels great to hear others like some of the pics--brings me true joy.

[BlackRockBacon]

A few more from Fall Creek Trail.

Tamron 17-50 Pentax K-x

I had to do HDR on this one to pull detail out of the dark areas.






This one is HDR also

[Designosophy]

I need funding to get into the next mount.

Have you decided which platform you're moving to? You may fear starting a flame attack by mentioning another brand, but I think that Pentaxians are more level-headed than that.

[shiner]

Tammy 17-50, one-handed (torn rotator cuff-ouch!) @ ISO 1600, K-5 (50mm, f3.2)

[Jewelltrail]

Have you decided which platform you're moving to? You may fear starting a flame attack by mentioning another brand, but I think that Pentaxians are more level-headed than that.

You make a good point--I do have some reservations bringing this up here. However, I currently plan to hang onto some Pentax gear. Pentax is a great system. But I have a need for a couple of things as I grow in this field. 1 is fast AF, for people especially, and the other is for certain lens options which Pentax does not cover very well.

My choices are logically with Nikon. My main concern is whether to buy their awesome D7000, or go for the Full Frame D700. I mainly want FF for the great viewfinder, but the pics are, without a doubt, better than the crop sensor pics too. Of course the price premium needs to be factored into the equation.

I will be sure not to rush my decision, as whatever I go with will determine my direction for many years to come.

JT

[shiner]

17-50. Anyone know what these trees are called?

[pacerr]

'Bradford' Pear Tree ??

Possibly one of the varieties of decorative, flowering pear trees often planted in such fashion. Would need a much more definitive look at blossoms, bark and leaves to offer more than a SWAG.

H2

[Jewelltrail]

17-50. Anyone know what these trees are called?

Shiner, those are very nice & oh soooo sharp. Here is one, shot in very little light--deep in the forest.

[shiner]

Shiner, those are very nice & oh soooo sharp. Here is one, shot in very little light--deep in the forest.

Thanks! ... Skinny dippin'!!!
Beautiful place/shot.

[Coeurdechene]

Aren't those almond trees??

[Designosophy]

I mainly want FF for the great viewfinder, but the pics are, without a doubt, better than the crop sensor pics too.

It's amazing to me how much difference an improved viewfinder can make. Just going from the K-x to the K-7 has made a huge difference for me with manual focus (and, to a degree, autofocus). My sister loves film photography, but her SLR broke, so I bought her a replacement for Christmas. Looking through that viewfinder was breathtaking. For this reason, I understand the desire for full-frame cameras.

[shiner]

But FF DSLRs are just so huge and heavy that I doubt I would lug such a system around- especially with VR lenses- unless "they" were paying me the big bucks.

[Jewelltrail]

But FF DSLRs are just so huge and heavy that I doubt I would lug such a system around- especially with VR lenses- unless "they" were paying me the big bucks.

I understand your concern with weight, I think most people would agree with you here. It is not a big factor for me. If it was, I would still be hiking with my point & shoots. I'll carry 30 pounds or more, even with 4000 feet of elevation gain and 10 and more total miles--not a big deal. For me, many of these hikes will never be done again, so the IQ is paramount. I do not think I'll be buying the VR lenses--I do not see a need for them.

Designosophy: It's amazing to me how much difference an improved viewfinder can make. Just going from the K-x to the K-7 has made a huge difference for me with manual focus (and, to a degree, autofocus). My sister loves film photography, but her SLR broke, so I bought her a replacement for Christmas. Looking through that viewfinder was breathtaking. For this reason, I understand the desire for full-frame cameras.

Viewfinders are crucial IMHO. Everytime I look through the viewfinder in my Super Program I wish for it to be in my K20d. I find the viewfinder more important to a great pic than IQ: framing & composition, interplaying with subject, make a great shot--IQ is out-trumped here. This is why great shots exist, from all camera models, across time. Investing in a new body or lens, before a great viewfinder, kind of puts the cart before the horse if you ask me.