The "reach" of the Q - images

TonyTurley · 05-27-2014, 07:50 AM

I've mainly been using my Q for wide angle shots or close-ups. I decided I'd likely never spend the extra $$$ for a Bigma or similar lens for the K-30, so I just ordered the newer Pentax micro Red Dot and hot shoe mount for my Q. The Minolta 300 I have will be my test bed; if I can find one at a decent price, I may eventually pick up a Takumar 400 or 500.

Tony

**crewl1** · 05-27-2014, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Vince_Lux

I got a Sigma 500mm f4,5 APO (first version), Nikon mount, here on the Pentax Q with a Kiwifoto G adapter:
the subject also explains why I have issues taking pictures of birds in the garden.

Now 2 images of the set-up taken with 75mm on a APS-C sensor:

Bird repellent! nice setup

---------- Post added 05-27-14 at 10:02 AM ----------

Originally posted by TonyTurley

I've mainly been using my Q for wide angle shots or close-ups. I decided I'd likely never spend the extra $$$ for a Bigma or similar lens for the K-30, so I just ordered the newer Pentax micro Red Dot and hot shoe mount for my Q. The Minolta 300 I have will be my test bed; if I can find one at a decent price, I may eventually pick up a Takumar 400 or 500.

Tony

Look forward to your shots with the new setup.

TonyTurley · 05-27-2014, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Look forward to your shots with the new setup.

Thanks Larry. I'm sure I read it in another thread, but what setting adjustments do you use on the Q to compensate for the long adapted lenses? My own personal preference is to slightly underexpose my photos, and adjust in PP.

EDIT: Never mind, I found the post to which I was referring.

**crewl1** · 05-27-2014, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by TonyTurley

My own personal preference is to slightly underexpose my photos, and adjust in PP.

Same here.

NotSteve · 05-30-2014, 06:25 PM - **1 Like**

Everytime I stop by this thread I'm totally stunned by the photos. Great work everyone! The DA*300 with the Q seems quite formidable. It makes we wonder why doesn't Pentax make a souped up version of the Q for field biologists and birders. You'd still pay way, way less than than big glass, plus it's incredibly compact and you could take it almost anywhere.

**barondla** · 05-30-2014, 07:21 PM

Why not indeed? Pentax where is the Q birding kit?
thanks
barondla

**Pål Jensen** · 05-31-2014, 04:57 AM

The results from the Q with long telephoto lenses seems to be comparable in quality to 35mm film gear with 100ISO film; that means professional quality results.
I happen to have the FA* 200/4 Macro lens; a truly spectacular lens in optical quality. It must do wonders on the Q! I can hardly wait till I get one!

The Expanding Man · 06-16-2014, 03:41 AM

I'm wondering if anyone has tried the 300 F4 SMC on either the Q or the Q7?

I'm keen to try some telephoto shots, but can't really stump up for the recommended 300mm pentax lenses. This looks like a good option to try out.

**baro-nite** · 06-16-2014, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by The Expanding Man

I'm wondering if anyone has tried the 300 F4 SMC on either the Q or the Q7?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2247022

The Expanding Man · 06-16-2014, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by baro-nite

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2247022

Thanks for that - not quite as good as the modern 300mm to my eye.

**baro-nite** · 06-16-2014, 02:13 PM

Consider a used DA-L 55-300. Optically good enough even on the Q, and quite a bargain. Does have some limitations when used on a K-mount camera, mainly the lack of quick-shift, but that's why it costs less.

NotSteve · 06-17-2014, 07:08 PM

Expanding Man,

I second Baro-nite's suggestion of a 55-300 if you don't already have one. It's generally just a good lens to have for K mount (if you have a K-mount DLSR) and is a good value. I'm not sure what other gear you have in addition to your Qs, but for long heavy glass, I think you would need a decent tripod to steady the whole rig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically impossible to shoot handheld. A lot of people like to use third party loupes to shield the LCD screen and enhance the ability to do critical focus. My point is that in order to get some of great sharp results in this thread, it takes more than just good glass but other supporting equipment. You may already know this, in which case, sorry for being pedantic.

Not to discourage you -- I myself use the 55-300 on my Q and it's fun, even though the results are nothing to write home about (or post in a forum). I use it on a tripod with a pistol grip ball head, which if I tighten only moderately allows me to move the camera fairly freely yet stay in place when I release the grip.

Another option for cheap long glass is to get a mirror lens. They have all kinds of issues (donut-shaped bokeh; low contrast; small aperture, etc.) but can be super cheap... I've seen some surprisingly decent results on flickr from such a lens on the Q.

The Expanding Man · 06-17-2014, 08:16 PM

Thanks.

A used 55-300 is now on it's way to me.

I'm a bit of a gear whore - I have numerous systems. I was in Hong Kong a few weeks back, lugging 3 m-mount bodies and lenses around. I go sick of the weight and became intrigued by the q system. I now have an original Q, a Q7, and the 01, 02, 03 and 06 lenses.

HenrikDK · 06-25-2014, 11:44 AM

I really had planned on getting a good PS - maybe the MX-1. The Q seemed a little to bulky with the lenses, and I was hoping to get my wife to upgrade her old Canon S230. Then I stumbled on this thread, and was sold.

Saw a great deal on a Q10 with an 02 and 06 lens and bought it last week. Thought I had to wait for three weeks, but just saw it will be arriving today or tomorrow! Now I had to rush and just ordered the P to Q adapter from BH - should be arriving Friday, so I can try out my DA* 300 on it - can't wait. Now I just have to explain to my wife...

PS: Returned the HD 1.4x I just bought. It was nice, but the results were not terribly convincing with my 300. Lost a lot of contrast, and not enough of a resolution increase IMO to justify the price. It will be interesting to see how the Q will do with A135 and the DA300...

hnikesch · 06-25-2014, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by HenrikDK

I really had planned on getting a good PS - maybe the MX-1. The Q seemed a little to bulky with the lenses, and I was hoping to get my wife to upgrade her old Canon S230. Then I stumbled on this thread, and was sold.

Saw a great deal on a Q10 with an 02 and 06 lens and bought it last week. Thought I had to wait for three weeks, but just saw it will be arriving today or tomorrow! Now I had to rush and just ordered the P to Q adapter from BH - should be arriving Friday, so I can try out my DA* 300 on it - can't wait. Now I just have to explain to my wife...

PS: Returned the HD 1.4x I just bought. It was nice, but the results were not terribly convincing with my 300. Lost a lot of contrast, and not enough of a resolution increase IMO to justify the price. It will be interesting to see how the Q will do with A135 and the DA300...

Enjoy the new Q10, from what I have seen it does wonders with the DA*300 and quite well with many 135's. Just remember you will have to add some contrast and sharpen to the images, and shoot at base ISO when using adapted lenses. With the native lenses stay at f4 or wider open, my 06 is still sharp @ 2.8 but slightly better at f4. and you can move to higher ISO's

05-27-2014, 02:01 PM	#948
TonyTurley Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Scott Depot, WV Posts: 1,240	Originally posted by crewl1 Look forward to your shots with the new setup. Thanks Larry. I'm sure I read it in another thread, but what setting adjustments do you use on the Q to compensate for the long adapted lenses? My own personal preference is to slightly underexpose my photos, and adjust in PP. EDIT: Never mind, I found the post to which I was referring. Last edited by TonyTurley; 05-27-2014 at 02:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2199	2 Hours Ago 10:28 AM
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

05-27-2014, 07:50 AM	#946
TonyTurley Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Scott Depot, WV Posts: 1,240	I've mainly been using my Q for wide angle shots or close-ups. I decided I'd likely never spend the extra $$$ for a Bigma or similar lens for the K-30, so I just ordered the newer Pentax micro Red Dot and hot shoe mount for my Q. The Minolta 300 I have will be my test bed; if I can find one at a decent price, I may eventually pick up a Takumar 400 or 500. Tony

05-27-2014, 10:01 AM	#947
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by Vince_Lux I got a Sigma 500mm f4,5 APO (first version), Nikon mount, here on the Pentax Q with a Kiwifoto G adapter: the subject also explains why I have issues taking pictures of birds in the garden. Now 2 images of the set-up taken with 75mm on a APS-C sensor: Bird repellent! nice setup ---------- Post added 05-27-14 at 10:02 AM ---------- Originally posted by TonyTurley I've mainly been using my Q for wide angle shots or close-ups. I decided I'd likely never spend the extra $$$ for a Bigma or similar lens for the K-30, so I just ordered the newer Pentax micro Red Dot and hot shoe mount for my Q. The Minolta 300 I have will be my test bed; if I can find one at a decent price, I may eventually pick up a Takumar 400 or 500. Tony Look forward to your shots with the new setup.

05-27-2014, 04:39 PM	#949
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by TonyTurley My own personal preference is to slightly underexpose my photos, and adjust in PP. Same here.

05-30-2014, 06:25 PM - 1 Like	#950
NotSteve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Toronto Photos: Albums Posts: 200	Everytime I stop by this thread I'm totally stunned by the photos. Great work everyone! The DA*300 with the Q seems quite formidable. It makes we wonder why doesn't Pentax make a souped up version of the Q for field biologists and birders. You'd still pay way, way less than than big glass, plus it's incredibly compact and you could take it almost anywhere.

05-30-2014, 07:21 PM	#951
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,713 Original Poster	Why not indeed? Pentax where is the Q birding kit? thanks barondla

05-31-2014, 04:57 AM	#952
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	The results from the Q with long telephoto lenses seems to be comparable in quality to 35mm film gear with 100ISO film; that means professional quality results. I happen to have the FA* 200/4 Macro lens; a truly spectacular lens in optical quality. It must do wonders on the Q! I can hardly wait till I get one!

06-16-2014, 03:41 AM	#953
The Expanding Man New Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 6	I'm wondering if anyone has tried the 300 F4 SMC on either the Q or the Q7? I'm keen to try some telephoto shots, but can't really stump up for the recommended 300mm pentax lenses. This looks like a good option to try out.

06-16-2014, 04:27 AM	#954
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,294	Originally posted by The Expanding Man I'm wondering if anyone has tried the 300 F4 SMC on either the Q or the Q7? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2247022

06-16-2014, 04:31 AM	#955
The Expanding Man New Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 6	Originally posted by baro-nite https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2247022 Thanks for that - not quite as good as the modern 300mm to my eye.

06-16-2014, 02:13 PM	#956
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,294	Consider a used DA-L 55-300. Optically good enough even on the Q, and quite a bargain. Does have some limitations when used on a K-mount camera, mainly the lack of quick-shift, but that's why it costs less.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2014, 07:08 PM	#957
NotSteve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Toronto Photos: Albums Posts: 200	Expanding Man, I second Baro-nite's suggestion of a 55-300 if you don't already have one. It's generally just a good lens to have for K mount (if you have a K-mount DLSR) and is a good value. I'm not sure what other gear you have in addition to your Qs, but for long heavy glass, I think you would need a decent tripod to steady the whole rig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically impossible to shoot handheld. A lot of people like to use third party loupes to shield the LCD screen and enhance the ability to do critical focus. My point is that in order to get some of great sharp results in this thread, it takes more than just good glass but other supporting equipment. You may already know this, in which case, sorry for being pedantic. Not to discourage you -- I myself use the 55-300 on my Q and it's fun, even though the results are nothing to write home about (or post in a forum). I use it on a tripod with a pistol grip ball head, which if I tighten only moderately allows me to move the camera fairly freely yet stay in place when I release the grip. Another option for cheap long glass is to get a mirror lens. They have all kinds of issues (donut-shaped bokeh; low contrast; small aperture, etc.) but can be super cheap... I've seen some surprisingly decent results on flickr from such a lens on the Q.

06-17-2014, 08:16 PM	#958
The Expanding Man New Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 6	Thanks. A used 55-300 is now on it's way to me. I'm a bit of a gear whore - I have numerous systems. I was in Hong Kong a few weeks back, lugging 3 m-mount bodies and lenses around. I go sick of the weight and became intrigued by the q system. I now have an original Q, a Q7, and the 01, 02, 03 and 06 lenses.

06-25-2014, 11:44 AM	#959
HenrikDK Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 386	I really had planned on getting a good PS - maybe the MX-1. The Q seemed a little to bulky with the lenses, and I was hoping to get my wife to upgrade her old Canon S230. Then I stumbled on this thread, and was sold. Saw a great deal on a Q10 with an 02 and 06 lens and bought it last week. Thought I had to wait for three weeks, but just saw it will be arriving today or tomorrow! Now I had to rush and just ordered the P to Q adapter from BH - should be arriving Friday, so I can try out my DA* 300 on it - can't wait. Now I just have to explain to my wife... PS: Returned the HD 1.4x I just bought. It was nice, but the results were not terribly convincing with my 300. Lost a lot of contrast, and not enough of a resolution increase IMO to justify the price. It will be interesting to see how the Q will do with A135 and the DA300...

06-25-2014, 12:03 PM	#960
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Originally posted by HenrikDK I really had planned on getting a good PS - maybe the MX-1. The Q seemed a little to bulky with the lenses, and I was hoping to get my wife to upgrade her old Canon S230. Then I stumbled on this thread, and was sold. Saw a great deal on a Q10 with an 02 and 06 lens and bought it last week. Thought I had to wait for three weeks, but just saw it will be arriving today or tomorrow! Now I had to rush and just ordered the P to Q adapter from BH - should be arriving Friday, so I can try out my DA* 300 on it - can't wait. Now I just have to explain to my wife... PS: Returned the HD 1.4x I just bought. It was nice, but the results were not terribly convincing with my 300. Lost a lot of contrast, and not enough of a resolution increase IMO to justify the price. It will be interesting to see how the Q will do with A135 and the DA300... Enjoy the new Q10, from what I have seen it does wonders with the DA*300 and quite well with many 135's. Just remember you will have to add some contrast and sharpen to the images, and shoot at base ISO when using adapted lenses. With the native lenses stay at f4 or wider open, my 06 is still sharp @ 2.8 but slightly better at f4. and you can move to higher ISO's