The "reach" of the Q - images

**Michaelina2** · 12-30-2012, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

Seems like f5.6 is the best aperture for a lot of lenses on the Q.
WOuld love to see a tele that reports 2.8 to be the best. Maybe only the 06 lens

With the 06, I just let the Q decide which f-stop to use...

I've yet to out guess it...

an amazing mid+ range tele-lens!

Great thread... keep up the good work, all !

Cheers...M

Shawn67 · 12-30-2012, 08:51 PM

Comparison of the reach between a 200mm and 500mm lens on the Q. Both shots uncropped.

This is with the Nikon 500mm f4 yesterday. There was not enough light so it is at ISO 500 and only 1/80 of a second shutter, pretty sure this was at F4. The feeder was rocking so this has a combination of motion blur and higher ISO blurring details.

More light today so I tried again with a Micro Nikon 200mm F4 AI.

This is ISO 125, F4 or 5.6 at 1/200 of a second.

Bokeh on the 500mm is *much* nicer than on the 200mm.

Shawn

**baro-nite** · 12-31-2012, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Shawn67

This is with the Nikon 500mm f4 yesterday. There was not enough light so it is at ISO 500 and only 1/80 of a second shutter, pretty sure this was at F4. The feeder was rocking so this has a combination of motion blur and higher ISO blurring details.

Looks promising -- I look forward to seeing more shots.

I am thinking some of the best bang-for-buck long glass for the Q might be FD-mount Canon, since the mount is long obsolete. Anyone tried any of these?

mgbirder · 12-31-2012, 10:48 AM - **1 Like**

Hi, HAPPY NEW YEAR to all of you. I was away last week, to visit my wife's parents, they live in Cali, Colombia, a region with LOTS of Birds, i took a lot of pictures with the K5 and restricted the use of the Pentax Q for taking video footage, which i find it excels in. Here is a short clip of a beautiful bird the Blue Crowned Motmot (Momotus momota) which came to visit at the family weekend house. Shot with the Nikon 300mm f4.5 ED IF lens at f8, manual exposure at ISO 800.

You Tube

A photo of the setup, light conditions and distance that i usually used while filming this bird:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51467365@N00/8329863967/in/photostream

Last edited by mgbirder; 12-31-2012 at 11:02 AM.

**crewl1** · 12-31-2012, 10:51 AM

Nice video of a pretty bird MGBirder!

**crewl1** · 12-31-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Shawn67

Comparison of the reach between a 200mm and 500mm lens on the Q. Both shots uncropped.

Pretty good results from the 200, looks like the 500 will need more light to dial it in, but it is awesome reach!

**baro-nite** · 12-31-2012, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by mgbirder

i took a lot of pictures with the K5 and restricted the use of the Pentax Q for taking video footage, which i find it excels in.

Well done! Agreed that super-tele video is a strength of the Q, great for wildlife video so long as tracking/panning isn't required.

snostorm · 12-31-2012, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by baro-nite

I am thinking some of the best bang-for-buck long glass for the Q might be FD-mount Canon, since the mount is long obsolete. Anyone tried any of these?

Hi baro-nite,

I had the same thought -- I also thought that the non-AI Nikons and some choice OM Zuikos might be easy pickings, but unfortunately we're a bit late to the game with the larger format MILCs with their multiple platform lens adapters having been available for a lot longer, and the demand for these has gone up (which forces the price up). The fast moderate wide and normal lenses sometimes can be had for a song (which is good for us since they become very fast medium and long teles), but the fast teles, while being generally more available than K mounts, are no longer in the "steal" price category, IMO -- especially if you're a Pentax DSLR shooter also, where Pentax mount glass can find dual use.

I have an FD 300 f4 L that's been converted to K mount, and it's an excellent lens -- very sharp wide open with UD glass for CA/PF control -- in the same class optically as my FA* 300 f4.5 IMO. It was badly defaced cosmetically by a former owner who amateurishly engraved his name in large letters on the hood and barrel (I wrapped electrician's tape over it and it's hardly noticeable at first glance), so the price was right for me (under $250 -- for a lens that originally sold for over $1500 in 1978!!

) The market price for these lenses seems to be $450-600, so in about the same range as the A* 300/4. This seems to be up from a year ago, so I think the MILCs (including the Q) has had an effect on the pricing of this class of lens. IMO, it's a better lens optically than the M*/A* 300/4 (slightly sharper, shorter MFD (10' vs13'), and much better CA/PF control, and usually comes with a weird looking, but functional tripod ring), so it can be a bargain, but not a steal. I've not tested this lens on the Q since the FW update, so I'll hold off on a final conclusion until I can trust that I've given it a fair shot with Focus Peaking now in play.

Canon also offered the same spec lens (300mm f4) in a "non - L" version without the UD glass. CA/PF is not as well controlled, so it's always been considered a lesser lens, but center sharpness, in reviews I've seen, is close to the L version. At the current market price of usually under $200, this lens is very abundant on the used market, and would probably be at least a very good, and may be an excellent super tele lens on the Q, for a more than very reasonable price.

Sorry for going on, but I'm easily excitable about this subject. . .

Scott

**baro-nite** · 12-31-2012, 12:13 PM

Thanks Scott. $450-600 for a high-quality 300/4 is, if not a steal, still a good price. For that spec I'd rather spend more to get the DA* 300/4, so I'm more thinking 300/2.8, 400/2.8, or 400/4.5. Of course one of the advantages of the Q system is small size and light weight, which would be completely negated by such a lens...

VisualDarkness · 01-02-2013, 04:26 AM

I just received my K and C KIWI adapters and I must say that they both seem to work perfectly. I've had no problems with the K one being a too tight fit, with the lenses I've tried, as people reported. The only thing is the short throw of the aperture mechanism that makes hard to use. I guess the official one got a longer throw and clicks?

I took some shots and a video of the bird feeder through a window from the porch. Here's the video, Pentax DA* 300mm F4 wide open:

You Tube

**crewl1** · 01-03-2013, 04:48 PM

Hadn't taken a pic of the Bigma with the Q. There is a camera in there somewhere

stormtech · 01-03-2013, 04:54 PM

What an awesome sight! And, I am impressed with the color matching of everything.

**crewl1** · 01-03-2013, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by stormtech

What an awesome sight! And, I am impressed with the color matching of everything.

It is! It actually looks a bit ominous, I'd probably get hassled trying to take pictures in some places.

stormtech · 01-03-2013, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

It is! It actually looks a bit ominous, I'd probably get hassled trying to take pictures in some places.

Around here, if anybody did see me with a rig like that, they would just huff and walk away mumbling something about a guy who is kind of nuts.

I see you have the plate slid pretty far back on the gimbal mount - did you get it to balance properly?

VisualDarkness · 01-03-2013, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Hadn't taken a pic of the Bigma with the Q. There is a camera in there somewhere

Haha, nice setup! I see why you need the sight after trying out my Sigma 150-500 with the Q.

12-31-2012, 11:38 AM	#263
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by baro-nite I am thinking some of the best bang-for-buck long glass for the Q might be FD-mount Canon, since the mount is long obsolete. Anyone tried any of these? Hi baro-nite, I had the same thought -- I also thought that the non-AI Nikons and some choice OM Zuikos might be easy pickings, but unfortunately we're a bit late to the game with the larger format MILCs with their multiple platform lens adapters having been available for a lot longer, and the demand for these has gone up (which forces the price up). The fast moderate wide and normal lenses sometimes can be had for a song (which is good for us since they become very fast medium and long teles), but the fast teles, while being generally more available than K mounts, are no longer in the "steal" price category, IMO -- especially if you're a Pentax DSLR shooter also, where Pentax mount glass can find dual use. I have an FD 300 f4 L that's been converted to K mount, and it's an excellent lens -- very sharp wide open with UD glass for CA/PF control -- in the same class optically as my FA* 300 f4.5 IMO. It was badly defaced cosmetically by a former owner who amateurishly engraved his name in large letters on the hood and barrel (I wrapped electrician's tape over it and it's hardly noticeable at first glance), so the price was right for me (under $250 -- for a lens that originally sold for over $1500 in 1978!! ) The market price for these lenses seems to be $450-600, so in about the same range as the A* 300/4. This seems to be up from a year ago, so I think the MILCs (including the Q) has had an effect on the pricing of this class of lens. IMO, it's a better lens optically than the M/A 300/4 (slightly sharper, shorter MFD (10' vs13'), and much better CA/PF control, and usually comes with a weird looking, but functional tripod ring), so it can be a bargain, but not a steal. I've not tested this lens on the Q since the FW update, so I'll hold off on a final conclusion until I can trust that I've given it a fair shot with Focus Peaking now in play. Canon also offered the same spec lens (300mm f4) in a "non - L" version without the UD glass. CA/PF is not as well controlled, so it's always been considered a lesser lens, but center sharpness, in reviews I've seen, is close to the L version. At the current market price of usually under $200, this lens is very abundant on the used market, and would probably be at least a very good, and may be an excellent super tele lens on the Q, for a more than very reasonable price. Sorry for going on, but I'm easily excitable about this subject. . . Scott Last edited by snostorm; 12-31-2012 at 11:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2201	2 Days Ago 03:25 PM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
"Focus Adjustment Washer" replacement...(with images)	Catalana	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	18	11-04-2012 03:40 PM
"Real Life" K5 AF.C images yet?	jpzk	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	69	02-02-2011 03:48 AM
How do I turn this so-called "film" into images?	Todd Adamson	Pentax Medium Format	12	01-07-2011 03:33 PM

12-30-2012, 07:35 AM	#256
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,302	Originally posted by crewl1 Seems like f5.6 is the best aperture for a lot of lenses on the Q. WOuld love to see a tele that reports 2.8 to be the best. Maybe only the 06 lens With the 06, I just let the Q decide which f-stop to use... I've yet to out guess it... an amazing mid+ range tele-lens! Great thread... keep up the good work, all ! Cheers...M

12-30-2012, 08:51 PM	#257
Shawn67 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 156	Comparison of the reach between a 200mm and 500mm lens on the Q. Both shots uncropped. This is with the Nikon 500mm f4 yesterday. There was not enough light so it is at ISO 500 and only 1/80 of a second shutter, pretty sure this was at F4. The feeder was rocking so this has a combination of motion blur and higher ISO blurring details. More light today so I tried again with a Micro Nikon 200mm F4 AI. This is ISO 125, F4 or 5.6 at 1/200 of a second. Bokeh on the 500mm is much nicer than on the 200mm. Shawn

12-31-2012, 06:51 AM	#258
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Originally posted by Shawn67 This is with the Nikon 500mm f4 yesterday. There was not enough light so it is at ISO 500 and only 1/80 of a second shutter, pretty sure this was at F4. The feeder was rocking so this has a combination of motion blur and higher ISO blurring details. Looks promising -- I look forward to seeing more shots. I am thinking some of the best bang-for-buck long glass for the Q might be FD-mount Canon, since the mount is long obsolete. Anyone tried any of these?

12-31-2012, 10:51 AM	#260
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Nice video of a pretty bird MGBirder!

12-31-2012, 10:52 AM	#261
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by Shawn67 Comparison of the reach between a 200mm and 500mm lens on the Q. Both shots uncropped. Pretty good results from the 200, looks like the 500 will need more light to dial it in, but it is awesome reach!

12-31-2012, 10:59 AM	#262
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Originally posted by mgbirder i took a lot of pictures with the K5 and restricted the use of the Pentax Q for taking video footage, which i find it excels in. Well done! Agreed that super-tele video is a strength of the Q, great for wildlife video so long as tracking/panning isn't required.

12-31-2012, 12:13 PM	#264
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Thanks Scott. $450-600 for a high-quality 300/4 is, if not a steal, still a good price. For that spec I'd rather spend more to get the DA* 300/4, so I'm more thinking 300/2.8, 400/2.8, or 400/4.5. Of course one of the advantages of the Q system is small size and light weight, which would be completely negated by such a lens...

01-03-2013, 04:48 PM	#266
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Hadn't taken a pic of the Bigma with the Q. There is a camera in there somewhere

01-03-2013, 04:54 PM	#267
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	What an awesome sight! And, I am impressed with the color matching of everything.

01-03-2013, 04:59 PM	#268
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by stormtech What an awesome sight! And, I am impressed with the color matching of everything. It is! It actually looks a bit ominous, I'd probably get hassled trying to take pictures in some places.

01-03-2013, 05:04 PM	#269
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by crewl1 It is! It actually looks a bit ominous, I'd probably get hassled trying to take pictures in some places. Around here, if anybody did see me with a rig like that, they would just huff and walk away mumbling something about a guy who is kind of nuts. I see you have the plate slid pretty far back on the gimbal mount - did you get it to balance properly?

01-03-2013, 05:30 PM	#270
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by crewl1 Hadn't taken a pic of the Bigma with the Q. There is a camera in there somewhere Haha, nice setup! I see why you need the sight after trying out my Sigma 150-500 with the Q.