[hnikesch]

My favorite lens on the Q easy to handle for a long lens about 750mm FOV. Same shot as the 200 above. Shot the 135 at each stop from f3.5 to f11 and it was best at f5.6. Added a little contrast and sharpened

Hans

Edit: After shooting out doors and not through glass I found almost no PF and better sharpness when shooting at f6.3

All shots with Photodiox adapter painted flat black inside

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by hnikesch; 01-24-2013 at 11:02 AM.

[hnikesch]

Because I got the Q for Tele shots I tested the Tamron @300mm 7 shots from f5.6 to f16 and the best results were at f8 ~ f6.3 & f10 only slightly less sharp. Reduced and added slight bit of contrast and sharpened. I found very little difference between the DAL 55-300 and the Tamron 70-300 with both stopped down about 2 stops


Hans

Edit: After some additional shooting out doors and not through glass I found the DAL 55-300 noticeably better than the Tamron

All shots with Photodiox adapter painted flat black inside

[hnikesch]

I shot the DAL from F5.8 through f11 and found the sharpness about common from f5.8 thru. f7.1 then things got less sharp. The best shot with the least PF was at f7.1 So with the DAL I have some latitude with apertures and still get a good image but the sweet spot seems to be about f7.1 or 2 clicks on the fotodiox adapter. Reduced and sharpened. I found very little difference between the DAL 55-300 and the Tamron 70-300 with both stopped down about 2 stops

Hans

After some additional shooting out doors and not through glass I found the DAL 55-300 noticeably better than the Tamron

All shots with Photodiox adapter painted flat black inside

[crewl1]

Thanks Hans, added your reviews to the index.

[VisualDarkness]

Because I got the Q for Tele shots I tested the Tamron @300mm 7 shots from f5.6 to f16 and the best results were at f8 ~ f6.3 & f10 only slightly less sharp. Reduced and added slight bit of contrast and sharpened. I found very little difference between the DAL 55-300 and the Tamron 70-300 with both stopped down about 2 stops


Hans

Am I the only one seeing tilt shift effect in this pic? As if the lens isn't vertically aligned.

[Sagitta]

Am I the only one seeing tilt shift effect in this pic? As if the lens isn't vertically aligned.

I'm seeing it as well. It has a definite zone where it blurs out at both top and bottom.

EDIT: I'm awaiting taxes to grab a Q10, once I do I'll be testing it on my El Cheapo set of stuff. Hopefully at least a few of the lenses behave themselves. I'm particularly interested in seeing how my Sears 135 macro (the 'glow' lens) behaves with the Q.

[VisualDarkness]

I'm still waiting for my Q-PK Kiwi adapter and one lens I'm really interested in testing is my Sigma 20/1.8. It's not long enough to be a birding lens, more for portraiture. It is apparently decently sharp in the center and got good close focus focus ability.

By the way, what does the colour of the links mean?

[crewl1]

The different colors occurred because I copied the first set of links from Baro-nite.
When I get a chance I will re do to see if that fixes the colors.

[hnikesch]

Am I the only one seeing tilt shift effect in this pic? As if the lens isn't vertically aligned.

Sorry for using that image, It is caused by the electronic shutter, The image was hand held @ 1/200 sec. with a 3rd party adapter without a shutter. Slight camera movement during the exposure can cause the jello effect that many here have talked about. It's not the lens, it was Me, way to slow of a shutter speed for 1650mm with electronic shutter. I wanted ISO 125 and should have used a tripod.

Hans

[hnikesch]

I'm seeing it as well. It has a definite zone where it blurs out at both top and bottom.

EDIT: I'm awaiting taxes to grab a Q10, once I do I'll be testing it on my El Cheapo set of stuff. Hopefully at least a few of the lenses behave themselves. I'm particularly interested in seeing how my Sears 135 macro (the 'glow' lens) behaves with the Q.

I have two copies of the Sears 135 f2.8 macro lens and have used it on the Q. One copy noticeably better than the other. The lens works well but must be stopped down to about f5.6 to get the best out of the lens. At that point it's almost as good as my SMC-M 135 f3.5. I am going to try it for macro stuff and will post the results later. I was not pleased with the results at f2.8.

Hans

Update: I did a few shots to look at the Sears 135 f2.8 Macro vs the SMC-M 135 f3.5 hand held close ups. The upper is the Sears, lower the SMC The SMC is quite a bit better both close up and Tele work. Both at f5.6 hand held 1/100 sec. ISO 1250 added a little contrast and sharpened. I had hoped to use the f2.8 but...

[snostorm]

I have two copies of the Sears 135 f2.8 macro lens and have used it on the Q. One copy noticeably better than the other. The lens works well but must be stopped down to about f5.6 to get the best out of the lens. At that point it's almost as good as my SMC-M 135 f3.5. I am going to try it for macro stuff and will post the results later. I was not pleased with the results at f2.8.

I have a JC Penney 135 f2.8 that got a brief try on the Q, then got re-relegated back to the "got it really cheap, but not really worth it" drawer. My M42 Super Tak 135 f3.5 is a much better lens, and much more size appropriate for the Q.

Scott

[hnikesch]

I have a JC Penney 135 f2.8 that got a brief try on the Q, then got re-relegated back to the "got it really cheap, but not really worth it" drawer. My M42 Super Tak 135 f3.5 is a much better lens, and much more size appropriate for the Q.

Scott

I think my Sears is in the same category "not really worth it", it's much larger than the SMC-M 135 f3.5 and not as good.

Hans

[hnikesch]

After ordering 4 C mount lenses and getting 3 CS mounts (Returned) I finally got one it's a 4mm cctv c mount. I was hoping for something a little wider but this one works. Got it through Amazon from Advance Security Products $19.45 incl shipping. It really looks nice on the Q and the DOF is vast. It focuses easily using peaking and 4X. I am still holding out for a 2.5mm. Several images of the back yard ISO 125 @1/500 sec. it is a fixed aperture at about f2, I like it it will be fun to play with walking around and street shots. Images straight out of the camera no PP or sharpening.

Hans

[crewl1]

I wanted to wait a bit to do the review on the Bigma with the Q since I just received it over Christmas, but I took it out today and learned quite a bit about it's tendencies so I am ready to post.

(This is not a review of the lens in it's intended application as I have found the lens to perform better on my K-5 than any Sigma 500mm zoom I have previously tested.)

Wide open the Bigma natively is a little soft and sharpens up at f8-f11, but that puts it into the diffraction zone on the Q.
Nevertheless it can produce decent results if you stop it down one stop on the adapter, where at the long end the lens is running at f8.

For some reason the short 50mm ( 275mm eq) end of the zoom is not very good on the Q, it produces fuzzy results no matter the aperture - you can do better with a native 300mm zoom such as the DA55-300 or even a Tamron 70-300.
Once you zoom in past 100mm, the Bigma produces decent images all the way up to 500mm to give a whopping 2750mm equivalent.

The output is not as sharp when compared to the 'gold standard on the Q' DA*300 but pictures are reasonably detailed and can be cleaned up in post fairly well.
If you need the reach, the Bigma +Q can deliver as long as you have good light and a solid mount.

The samples below were shot at 500mm, ISO 125, 1/500 sec with the Pentax adapter set at position 1 for approx f8 aperture.




Overview shot for distance perspective. Hawk was at the top circle, heron at the bottom circle.

[snostorm]

Hi Larry,

Nice!

The perspective shots are really needed to understand what the advantages are with super tele and the Q.

I'm almost starting to regret passing on a MF Sigma EX 500 f4.5 APO that Kerrick James offered quite a while back on the MP here. It wasn't right for what I do with my DSLRs, but it probably would rock with the Q. . .

Scott