Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2013, 10:56 AM   #136
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Vivitar 85/1.4 on Fotodiox Adapter (painted)

Trigger box with UPC using the Q + Fotodiox adapter basic model (painted) + Vivitar 85 f1.4 lens. Only PP was reducing size to 20% of original.
First is 1.4, then 2.8, then 5.6, then f8. Camera was on 2s shutter delay and mounted on a tripod.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
01-20-2013, 12:12 PM   #137
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,623
Promaster (Tamron) 28-105mm f/4-5.6. Pretty much the same as the FA version, as I understand it.
Promaster 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

One of my favorites, so far, on the Q with the Fotodiox adapter.
Following photos all at f/5.6.
Lens rested on top glass, side window of my truck.
jpeg from camera, very slight darkening on all in Picasa.

28mm f/5.6
ISO: 320
Exposure: 1/800 sec


105mm f/5.6
ISO: 320
Exposure: 1/500 sec


crop of above photo.


105mm f/5.6
ISO: 320
Exposure: 1/640 sec


105mm f/5.6
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/400 sec


I'll try to add more, now that I half way know what I'm doing.

Last edited by robtcorl; 01-24-2013 at 06:32 AM.
01-20-2013, 12:49 PM   #138
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 887
Here's my review of the Promaster Spectrum 7 100mm f3.5. This is the Autofocus lens, which was also branded as a Pentax SMC-FA 100mm f3.5 Macro (SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F3.5 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database)

Again, I'm using an unpainted Fotodiox adapter, same target as last time. All of the telephone pole shots are straight out of the camera.

@f3.5


@f5.6:


@f3.5 crop:


@f5.6 crop


@f8 crop


At f3.5 the image is pretty sharp, but there is some purple fringing present.
The next stop is f5.6, and there is just a hint of purple fringing left. The image has sharpened up considerably, and looks really amazing. Sharp, contrasty, with vivid color.
At f8 the fringing goes away completely, but things start to get less sharp, and contrast is reduced slightly.

So at 560mm and f5.6, it's way, way, wayyyyyy sharper than my 500mm f8 mirror. Hell, at f3.5 it's still way sharper.

The macro makes this lens extremely useful as well, but at extreme macro (with the match macro adapter attached) you'll have OOF areas with a green tint in front of the focal plane, and a purple tint behind the focal plane.

This is a photo of a 45rm record, taken at f3.5, near minimum focus distance with the matched adapter:


As you can see, it's VERY sharp for macro work. As you move back from super macro and minimum focus distance, the green/purple mostly goes away.

Charles.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
01-20-2013, 06:10 PM   #139
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Original Poster
Thanks everyone for the new reviews, there appear to be some good candidates in the bunch. Adding all up to here to the index.

01-20-2013, 06:18 PM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,250
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
Hey Sledger: Another thought occurs... Did you paint the inside of the adapter flat black? Some others have had problems with internal reflections causing low contrast with some lenses on that adapter. I painted mine as soon as I got it. Just mask everything off well & hit it with the flattest black you can find.
Follow up and last comment about the PD adapter.
I gave it three coats of flat black, although there was still a little sheen.
Made no difference to the quality of my results.
So, either I'm an idiot (my first choice) or none of the lenses I have are suited.
Bottom line, a have a free adapter to give away to anyone who pays the postage, I'm not interested in it any longer.
01-20-2013, 07:31 PM   #141
Pentaxian
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,439
QuoteOriginally posted by sledger Quote
Follow up and last comment about the PD adapter.
I gave it three coats of flat black, although there was still a little sheen.
Made no difference to the quality of my results.
So, either I'm an idiot (my first choice) or none of the lenses I have are suited.
Bottom line, a have a free adapter to give away to anyone who pays the postage, I'm not interested in it any longer.
Are you sure that the setup with tripod and everything is sturdy enough? Have tried 12s shutter release? You should be able to get better results.
01-20-2013, 10:18 PM   #142
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,225
Sledger, sorry you are having such a hard time with adapted lenses. You have at least one lens that does well on the Q. The Pentax 55-300 is used a lot by snostorm with good results. It has good sharpness and contrast with no fringing. Shot at ISO 200 or less, it is capable of nice results. Post a few shots with this combo. If they aren't good the forum members should be able to help you figure out the solution. Don't give up yet the Q is great fun with ultra tele.
thanks
barondla
01-20-2013, 11:09 PM   #143
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,249
Pentax FA 31mm f1.8 limited

Another with the FA31 (with the Pentax adaptor), tripod with remote release, no flash, f5.6.





Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 01-29-2013 at 09:52 PM. Reason: the other shot was with the K-5 IIs....
01-21-2013, 04:03 AM   #144
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,249
Pentax FA 31mm f1.8 limited

Another with the FA31, this time hand held with a moving subject.



Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 01-29-2013 at 09:52 PM.
01-21-2013, 08:19 AM - 1 Like   #145
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,298
DA* 300/4 with TCs

I wanted to see just how far I could push this lens, to see if it would be possible to capture any features of Jupiter, so I did some testing indoors before attempting the challenge of field photography with such a tiny angle of view. While I have the Pentax L-converters, neither one fits on the DA*300, so I used the cheap 4-element TCs I have available. I wasn't really expecting this to work, so I was surprised and pleased by the results. One key is of course the extraordinary resolution of the lens. The other, I think, is that even cheap TCs do well at the image center, and with the Q that's all we see.

My test subject is a printed box shot from about 6 meters away. I put the box at an angle so that I could then select the best-focused part in PP, and hence to take focusing variation out of the comparison. I used flash to also take motion blur out of the comparison, and didn't adjust the power, other than putting a diffuser on for shots where I was getting overexposure, so I've adjusted exposure (and white balance) in PP. I did sharpening subjectively, trying to maximize detail in each shot without creating sharpening artifacts. For each configuration I took one shot wide open and another down one stop; in each case the stopped-down shot was better. (I also did two stops down with the lens alone; it was no better than one stop down.)

All 100% crops.

1. Lens alone. In the thick gray lines I can see some texture, but not detail per se.
Name:  _IGP0854.jpg
Views: 1644
Size:  133.4 KB

2. With 1.4x. Now the texture of the thick gray lines resolves into nearly vertical rows of dots, but it's hard to discern separation between the dots.
Name:  _IGP0858.jpg
Views: 1638
Size:  123.5 KB

3. With 2x. Now I can clearly see the separation between the dots in the thick gray lines.
Name:  _IGP0860.jpg
Views: 1641
Size:  121.8 KB

4. With stacked 1.4x and 2x. I see no loss of detail compared to the 2x alone.
Name:  _IGP0862.jpg
Views: 1641
Size:  118.4 KB

To my eye, each addition in magnification adds additional detail, or at worst does not lose any detail, while making the image larger. I'm surprised for several reasons. One reason is that while the lens has proven itself on the Q, magnifying it by an additional 2.8x is asking a lot. Another reason is that these are cheap TCs, and while I knew that both perform well at the image center, at least on APS-C, again this is really pushing things. A third reason is diffraction. With both TCs and the lens at 5.6, this is effectively f/16.
01-21-2013, 03:27 PM   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Hi baro-nite,

I use printed boxes to test lenses indoors also -- in the same way you've done, with flash.

I believe your explanation of why this works on the Q is correct. It's using the very best section of a very good lens and magnifying it. Add a densely packed very good imaging sensor, and you've got something.

I regularly use either a Sigma EX 1.4x APO or Tamron F 1.4x PZ MC4 stacked on an F 1.7x AFA on one of my 300mm f2.8s (Tamron SP 300/2.8 mod 60B, Sigma EX 300/2.8 APO, or FA* 300/2.8) to get a surprisingly good, as well as compact and relatively lightweight 714mm f6.3 AF lens on my DSLRs. The crop factor helps here also, but not to the same degree. Edge/corner sharpness or resolution is not much of a concern for me in birding as I shoot just about everything in landscape with the subject centered then crop in post to common print formats for composition. I now regret passing on both of the A series Long version TCs years ago when the market prices were more affordable. . .I'm thinking that with the K-5 IIs' AF sensitivity, even the A 2x L might AF with the AFA in good light.

This is a great demonstration of why we should push things as far as we can with the Q, and think outside the box. We've already proved that the Q and its tiny sensor can be pushed farther than any of the early theoretical detractors thought it could. No reason to assume and be bound by limits that may not be as evident as originally postulated.

IMO that Jupiter shot with this rig is nothing but amazing!

Scott
01-21-2013, 03:48 PM   #147
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
DA* 300/4 with TCs
Very cool Baro-nite - added to index.
01-22-2013, 09:15 AM   #148
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,246
Da 18-135

Hi guys I finally got the DA 18-135 out on the Q with what I believe are good results. Stopped down 1 click on the Photodiox adapter hand held. All reviews of this lens I have read point to soft corners but with the Q who cares, it's sharp @ center. I like carrying the the SMC-M 135 better but I think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper. Cormorant @ 135, building @ 18 both reduced and sharpened. Also based on reviews the lens is good wide open and drops in sharpness after f5.6 (1 stop), I shot it open and 1 stop down and stopped down 1 click is best.

Hans
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 

Last edited by hnikesch; 01-22-2013 at 09:26 AM.
01-22-2013, 09:45 AM   #149
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
Da 18-135 Hi guys I finally got the DA 18-135 out on the Q with what I believe are good results. Stopped down 1 click on the Photodiox adapter hand held. All reviews of this lens I have read point to soft corners but with the Q who cares, it's sharp @ center. I like carrying the the SMC-M 135 better but I think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper. Cormorant @ 135, building @ 18 both reduced and sharpened. Also based on reviews the lens is good wide open and drops in sharpness after f5.6 (1 stop), I shot it open and 1 stop down and stopped down 1 click is best. Hans
Hans you continue to amaze with your hand holding skills. Early on I tried the 18-135 but I did not like the focusing action so left it aside. This gives me motivation to try it again.
Adding review to the index, thanks!
01-22-2013, 10:31 AM   #150
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,298
Pentax Adapter Q for K-mount lens: aperture settings

It's been noted elsewhere that the aperture ring on the Pentax K->Q adapter turns past 0 on the scale, about half a step beyond. Does 0 really mean 0? I did a quick test, photographing a gray wall lit with off-camera flash. I then checked how much exposure compensation was required in RAW processing to get the same mean brightness level. My findings:

Reference point is turning the ring until it stops (at the N in OPEN). Compared to this, the 0 setting is a quarter-stop slower. The 1/2 setting is .9 stops slower. The 1 setting is 1.3 stops slower.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
200mm, 50mm, adapter, auto, camera, f1.8, f2.8, flickr, focus, hawk, infinity, lens, macro, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, shot, shots, smc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has anyone tried Canon lenses on the Q/Q10? NeilGratton Pentax Q 14 05-31-2013 09:03 AM
Ideas on diffusing the onboard flash of the Q? Tonto Pentax Q 28 05-19-2013 11:46 AM
Pentax Q lenses tested by Photozone Mistral75 Pentax Q 9 11-16-2011 12:11 PM
Dumb Question: Adapted Leica lenses on film bodies? Why not??? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-26-2011 12:05 AM
Could Pentax sell you on the Q if they had better lenses? devorama Pentax Compact Cameras 17 06-29-2011 09:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top