Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-05-2013, 08:03 PM   #331
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,509
Pentax 16-45 @ 24mm / Tokina MF AT-X 24-40 f/2.8 @ 24mm

These studio shots are JPEGs unaltered from the Q output, shot with a generic, painted adapter on tripod, 5000 degrees WB closely matching the full-range neutral FL lighting. Pentax DA 16-24 peaks in sharpness at f/5.6, but the f/4 setting is nearly as good. Contrast and lack of CA is prime class. Rendering cool, but accurate. The 16-45 zoom will perform well on the Q throughout its range, but probably peaks near 24mm.

The Tokina 24-40 is very good in several aspects (despite suffering from this unfair comparison) - f/4 is peak at wide end (posted here), but the f/5.6 is nearly a dead heat. On the up side, aperture has limited impact - even f/2.8 is decent for portraiture - minor blooming reduces contrast but still acceptable. While resolution is never great, rendering warmth and excellent saturation lends this lens toward portraiture and video. The lack of apparent contrast can be easily compensated for when shooting RAW, making the lens more generally capable when stopped down by 1-2 stops - yielding a far-more naturally sharp look. This lens is very small and smooth for a fast zoom, and handles silently with a long throw - ideal for video shooting. Two field issues down-rated this lens originally - barrel distortion on FF film (not field relevant given the Q crop), and very apparent poor contrast performance against light (most likely flood light reflections contributed to reduced contrast even in the controlled studio situation).

1) Pentax DA 16-45 @ 24mm - f/5.6
2) Tokina MF AT-X 24-40 24mm - f/4

Attached Images
   
03-05-2013, 08:11 PM   #332
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
1) Pentax DA 16-45 @ 24mm - f/5.6
2) Tokina MF AT-X 24-40 24mm - f/4
The DA 16-45/4 is way too neglected by Pentax and this shows that it deserves better! Re-release it as a WR or some kind of of semi-star lens would be wonderful!
03-05-2013, 09:35 PM   #333
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,509
Pentax 16-45 @ 35 / Tokina MF AT-X 24-40 @35 / Pentax A-35-105 @35 / Pentax FA35

Studio test of these four lenses yield distinctive, unexpected results from unaltered JPEGs out of the Q. Once again, the shots were taken with lenses mounted on the generic, painted adapter, 5000 degree WB closely matched to the neutral full-spectrum FD lighting. The 16-45 performs best at f/5.6, but f/4 very nearly matches in lack of CA, and high sharpness and contrast - unlike the prime 35 and 35-105, aperture settings are not critical to good performance.

Tokina once again lacks contrast, but with RAW processing to enhance contrast will get very close to the quality of the FA 35 at f/4 and f/2.8 - even beating it for lower CA; performs well even at f/2.8 - much better than the 35-105 wide open.

This A-35-105 is not strong on the wide end even on regular crop sensors (expect much better at 50mm, and superior performance on the long end); actually, the lens probably is closer to 37mm at widest; it is best by far at f/4.5 with good contrast, but still not quite as sharp as the Tokina at f/4 or 5.6; blooming significant wide open.

The FA 35 is a fine FF lens and good on digital crop sensor due to its consistent edge to edge performance; on the Q this sample has evident CA up to f/2.8, and is cleanest at f/5.6 - a surprisingly disappointing result.

1) Pentax 16-45 @ 35 f/5.6
2) Tokina MF AT-X 24-40 @ 35 f/5.6
3) Pentax A-35-105 @35 f/4.5
4) Pentax FA 35 f/5.6
Attached Images
       

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 03-05-2013 at 09:44 PM.
03-06-2013, 05:10 AM   #334
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,684
QuoteOriginally posted by bonfire Quote
Yes, I did. Not too long ago on this thread, post #269, but just a couple of random shots.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested-q-r...ml#post2273920

The M*300/4 works great on Q. The contrast and color were great.
I was using a China made K adapter, handheld but leaning on window sill when making that shot.
I also have tried using K300/4 but the results were not as great.
thanks for the update. I have one on the way and am anxious to try it out. Your shot is very encouraging.

03-06-2013, 05:34 AM   #335
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tsing Yi
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
thanks for the update. I have one on the way and am anxious to try it out. Your shot is very encouraging.
You won't be disappointed. M*300/4 works very well on my K5 too. But without a tripod holder, it is very difficult to get a steady shot so I have ordered the P-K adapter from Pentax hoping that would give me lots more fun.
Enjoy !
03-06-2013, 08:16 AM   #336
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bonfire Quote
You won't be disappointed. M*300/4 works very well on my K5 too. But without a tripod holder, it is very difficult to get a steady shot so I have ordered the P-K adapter from Pentax hoping that would give me lots more fun.
Enjoy !
I missed this one , will add it to the index.

Everyone, please remember to use 'advanced' mode when adding a review and put the lens name in the title.
This makes it appear in bold font at the start of the post and will help differentiate it from a discussion reply.
Thanks all for your reviews, keep 'em coming.
03-07-2013, 03:24 PM   #337
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 33
MTO 500mm f8 Cata C/FD

I found my old Canon AE-1 from garage. There were couple of lenses and all of them were stuck, dusty and generally bad shape. Lightly or badly, one I couldn't get to working order. Body is dead meat.

Here's sample of MTO:
03-07-2013, 03:27 PM   #338
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Mamiya Sekor EF 50mm f1.7 DIY EOS

Full open it's bad, improves a lot @5.6

@1.7


@5.6


03-07-2013, 03:31 PM   #339
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Vivitar 200mm f3.8

Viv is ok. Nothing exceptional, but steady performer.

@3.8


@5.6


@8
03-07-2013, 07:42 PM   #340
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,509
QuoteOriginally posted by K9-K5 Quote
Full open it's bad, improves a lot @5.6

@1.7


@5.6
I should say so; but wide open is no worse than expected. No wonder that lens was a bit of a cult classic back in the day. Some of the better old optics are going to do quite well adapted to the Q.
03-07-2013, 10:47 PM   #341
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,298
Vivitar 80-200 from 1970s

Posting from another thread to illustrate reach of this camera.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-119.html#post2303368
03-08-2013, 03:04 AM   #342
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 33
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I should say so; but wide open is no worse than expected. No wonder that lens was a bit of a cult classic back in the day. Some of the better old optics are going to do quite well adapted to the Q.
Maybe I was too harsh at first. I have to study it little better.
03-08-2013, 05:12 PM   #343
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,655
DFA 100mm with P-K adapter

a few shots with the q and dfa 100mm with the pk adapter...originally aperature set at 2.5 but the acorns at the end were set at 8 the acorn looks like a pumpkin




IMGP8998
by pearsaab, on Flickr
IMGP8998 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


_IGP9895
by pearsaab, on Flickr
_IGP9895 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!







IMGP9007
by pearsaab, on Flickr
IMGP9007 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
03-10-2013, 09:47 AM   #344
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 33
"Field test" of that Mamiya above, @f5.6





03-10-2013, 01:39 PM - 1 Like   #345
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Da 55-300 handheld

Hi All,

Though there's still a lot of snow on the ground, it warmed up enough the past few days for me to get in some early spring practice with the DA 55-300 handheld.

I'm shooting the Q with the Pentax K2Q OEM adapter, Chinese 2.8x hood loupe for the Nikon J1 modded to move the frame left to clear the buttons on the Q, NoStar Red Dot sight. The Q is set up to shoot jpeg ***, in-camera sharpness at -4, Hi ISO NR set to "Low", some tweeks to the colors to match what I see, single shot mode fired from the shutter release button, handheld, but leaning back against a wall, shooting at a small tree @ 15 feet (5m) away, so the birds are anywhere between 12 and 18 feet (3-6m) away. I set up Ev comp to -1 to prevent blow outs (which I should have changed for the second day, but forgot) and set Auto ISO to 125-1600, Tv priority, center-weighted metering, lens wide open at f5.8 at 300mm except for the single 200mm shot I'm posting. I used Focus Peaking with no magnification to focus. I should get better at this as time goes on. SR was set to activate at time of exposure only.


In PP, I adjusted for brightness and contrast and used Topaz DeNoise for NR and Topaz InFocus to sharpen, downsized in 4 steps, and only cropped about 10 pixels from each side of the downsized image to eliminate some artifacts left from the sharpening. I like a very clean background and am something of a sharp freak, so the two Topaz plugins are always part of my PP workflow.

The first day was clear, so the birds were in direct sunlight for the most part.

This is the best shot of the day for feather detail. 1/640, f5.8, ISO 250. This shows what the lens is capable of on the Q if everything goes right


1/640, f5.8, ISO 250


1/640, f5.8, ISO 250


1/640, f5.8, ISO 160


1/640, f5.8, ISO 320


1/640, f5.8, ISO 250. This is a good illustration of the DOF gained by shooting at longer distances with the crop factor of the Q. If I shot this with my K-5 at 510mm from a much closer distance, the tail (and probably the feet) would have been out of focus.


These last four are from the second day when it was medium bright overcast (could see shadows)

1/640, f5.8, ISO 800. This one shows that the DOF is still pretty thin, as the head is not really in focus.


1/640, f5.8, ISO 640. There's a bit of lateral CA (green/red) on the branch in the upper left, but downsized it's hardly noticeable.


This one's at @ 200mm. 1/640, f4.5, ISO 400. This one shows that the bokeh can get a little busy if the background is at the wrong distance.


Same guy, same place, at 300mm. 1/640, f5.8, ISO 1250 !!!. There's a bit of PF at and under the nose and around the white spot on the branch, but downsized, it almost disappears. This one was really a surprise. I would not have expected ISO 1250 to yield this much detail with the tiny sensor, especially with the image a bit underexposed. Other than the K-5s, I've never trusted any of my DSLRs to shoot birds or animals at 1250.


Bottom line, this is going to be my default long to super tele zoom for handholding with the Q. At 440g, the DA 55-300 less than half the weight of the lightest of my premium 300s, and so far, this trumps the superior glass for handholding at 1674mm (35mm) EQ. Just for reference, my other 300mm lenses are:

Canon FD 300 f4 L converted to K,
FA* 300 f4.5,
Tamron SP 300 f2.8 mod 60B,
Sigma EX 300 f2.8 APO,
FA* 300 f2.8,
Tokina 100-300 f4 AT-X SD (MF),
and a Sigma EX 100-300 f4 APO.

. . . so the kit zoom is beating out some pretty impressive company to get the call for this purpose.

With the DA 55-300 CA/PF is well controlled by the ED elements, and though more evident at full size, is only a minor concern, and can be easily fixed in post if wanted. If I could design the perfect long zoom for handholding with the Q, it would have the size and weight of the DA 55-300, be a parfocal zoom (same focus point for all FLs), and it would be a one-touch (push-pull) zoom. That lens doesn't exist, so the very impressive DA 55-300 will have to do. . .

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; 03-10-2013 at 01:44 PM.
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 03:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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