Adapted lenses tested on the Q : the reference thread

**crewl1** · 01-04-2013, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by snostorm

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. . .

Yes I think that combo would be pretty awesome since it could be sharp before going deep into diffraction.

stormtech · 01-04-2013, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

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

Impressive results once again! And thanks again for showing the setup with the distance of your subjects - as Scott says it makes so much more of a difference seeing the actual scale of distance. I have to remember to do the same.

Really jealous of your weather - so wishing I could be outside doing the same!

**crewl1** · 01-04-2013, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by stormtech

Really jealous of your weather - so wishing I could be outside doing the same!

Agreed but when it gets nice out your way it is really worth it. I dont like the snow myself.

hnikesch · 01-05-2013, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

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

That is quite a reach and the images held up very well, you can't complain about sharpness nice job Larry

Hans

VisualDarkness · 01-05-2013, 01:00 PM

I would call this lens a no go.

Bloomy, blurry and contrast-less at anything past the pseudo macro. Changing aperture doesn't seem to anything really except DOF in close focus range. Sharpness and contrast is so bad that peaking doesn't work for focusing and to be honest neither do my eyes. If you want this effect go to something smaller like CCTV lenses as this is size for nothing. I will try it again but my hope is nearly nil, my K-5 can keep this lens.

Shots with Q and the KIWI adapter. Two handheld (one landscape and one macro) and one on tripod, can you tell the difference on the far away focus ones? Can you even find the focus?

SonDa5 · 01-05-2013, 07:11 PM

VisualDarkness any chance there is condensation inside the lens and all the light reflecting off of the snow is effecting image processing? REad some bad reviews on this lens and it may be that the lens quality it hit or miss during production.

Earlier this week I was in San Francisco and had terrible image problems with my Q. In my images on high res it looks like there is patches of the image that are blurry and I think it may have been caused by taking my warm Q out of my coat pocket and exposing it to the cold early morning air.

VisualDarkness · 01-05-2013, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by SonDa5

VisualDarkness any chance there is condensation inside the lens and all the light reflecting off of the snow is effecting image processing? REad some bad reviews on this lens and it may be that the lens quality it hit or miss during production.

Earlier this week I was in San Francisco and had terrible image problems with my Q. In my images on high res it looks like there is patches of the image that are blurry and I think it may have been caused by taking my warm Q out of my coat pocket and exposing it to the cold early morning air.

One of the shots the far focus is from inside through a window so no chance of condensation inside the lens on that shot. The leaf shot is in the kitchen so no condensation there either. It looks like the coma (that's the thing the lens got real problems with) simply is enhanched so much that everything just glows when put on the Q. I'm going to try it again but I think the is past the lens limits here, I like it on the K-5 though (despite its quirks).

mgbirder · 01-05-2013, 09:02 PM

I did a preliminary test of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (using flat black painted Fotodiox Adapter), in my study with fluorescent light using a paper with text on a cork board, from about 2 meters away, i used only 4x focus assist, according to this test i would say the Tamron is sharp wide open from 70mm to 135mm and needs 1 click at 200mm

Here is one of the first "real life" photos i have taken with this combo that i like, this was with the Fotodiox adapter - 2 clicks, no CA´s at all

, he was about 10 - 15 meters away
And the corresponding "Behind the Scenes" Shot...
A short video of a Green Heron:

You Tube

Shanti · 01-05-2013, 10:44 PM

Will get my Q this week and a OM to Q adapter to play with,plan to use my OM 200 4 for now,and when I find a cheap K to Q with aperture control then will try my DA300+ AF1.7 not even sure how long it is over 2000mm that will be wild...will post some results when they come..

**crewl1** · 01-06-2013, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by mgbirder

I did a preliminary test of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (using flat black painted Fotodiox Adapter), in my study with fluorescent light using a paper with text on a cork board, from about 2 meters away, i used only 4x focus assist, according to this test i would say the Tamron is sharp wide open from 70mm to 135mm and needs 1 click at 200mm.

I will post some outdoor shots in the next days

Look forward to the shots MG. Just edit your post and I will add it to the index at the front once the samples are added. Thanks!

**crewl1** · 01-06-2013, 10:04 AM

This lens is known to exhibit purple fringing on DSLR's and when adapted to the Q the purple tendencies are exaggerated.
I do not recommend this lens for the Q in tele mode.

There is a previous test of this lens that shows better results so I may have a different version or my copy is defective.

I tested it in tele mode only, so I am not vouching for its performance in macro mode.

Since this lens has an aperture ring i left the Pentax adapter on the L (lens) setting so I could control the aperture from the lens.

At 300mm this lens is wide open at f5.6, and at that setting the images have a soft focus look with small objects lacking detail with hints of purple fringe through the image.

The lens sharpens up at f8 and f11, but then it exhibits wide purple fringe surrounding the areas of difference in contrast.

To start to remove the purple fringe it must be stopped down to f16, but by then the images lack detail due to diffraction.

Sample wide open

Sample at f8

Sample at f16

**crewl1** · 01-06-2013, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by 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

Hans my results were very different than yours. I debated adding my review in but thought it might help users see both extremes. Is yours the A17 version as well?

hnikesch · 01-06-2013, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Hans my results were very different than yours. I debated adding my review in but thought it might help users see both extremes. Is yours the A17 version as well?

Yes Larry it is a A17, I did not remove PF on the images I posted. I will play more with it tomorrow and post more results. I did see more PF on the Tamron than the DAL 55-300 when shooting both on my Kr. I am hoping it continues to produce good results because I like to carry both, the DAL on the Kr and the Tamron on the Q, It's nice to have the zoom. I am shooting it set between f8 and f11 with SR set on continuous and FL set to 250 to allow for some zoom.

Hans

post_eos · 01-06-2013, 08:07 PM

Tried this one out last night. I was bored and it was the first lens I grabbed out of the case.

Decently sharp, nice contrast. Nicer than some 300s I've had.

Both photos: Fotodiox K to Q Adapter with aperture control
First photo: 1/160 f4 3200iso
Second photo: 1/13 f5.6 3200iso

**crewl1** · 01-07-2013, 12:08 AM

Thanks for the review post_eos the lens looks like a winner. Can you tell us what aperture you used for your shots and which adapter you are running?
Thanks!

01-06-2013, 10:04 AM	#56
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Tamron 70-300 LD Di Tele Macro This lens is known to exhibit purple fringing on DSLR's and when adapted to the Q the purple tendencies are exaggerated. I do not recommend this lens for the Q in tele mode. There is a previous test of this lens that shows better results so I may have a different version or my copy is defective. I tested it in tele mode only, so I am not vouching for its performance in macro mode. Since this lens has an aperture ring i left the Pentax adapter on the L (lens) setting so I could control the aperture from the lens. At 300mm this lens is wide open at f5.6, and at that setting the images have a soft focus look with small objects lacking detail with hints of purple fringe through the image. The lens sharpens up at f8 and f11, but then it exhibits wide purple fringe surrounding the areas of difference in contrast. To start to remove the purple fringe it must be stopped down to f16, but by then the images lack detail due to diffraction. Sample wide open Sample at f8 Sample at f16

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

01-04-2013, 03:02 PM	#46
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by snostorm 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. . . Yes I think that combo would be pretty awesome since it could be sharp before going deep into diffraction.

01-04-2013, 04:37 PM	#47
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by crewl1 Overview shot for distance perspective. Hawk was at the top circle, heron at the bottom circle. Impressive results once again! And thanks again for showing the setup with the distance of your subjects - as Scott says it makes so much more of a difference seeing the actual scale of distance. I have to remember to do the same. Really jealous of your weather - so wishing I could be outside doing the same!

01-04-2013, 05:20 PM	#48
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by stormtech Really jealous of your weather - so wishing I could be outside doing the same! Agreed but when it gets nice out your way it is really worth it. I dont like the snow myself.

01-05-2013, 06:10 AM	#49
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Originally posted by crewl1 Overview shot for distance perspective. Hawk was at the top circle, heron at the bottom circle. That is quite a reach and the images held up very well, you can't complain about sharpness nice job Larry Hans

01-05-2013, 07:11 PM	#51
SonDa5 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 70	VisualDarkness any chance there is condensation inside the lens and all the light reflecting off of the snow is effecting image processing? REad some bad reviews on this lens and it may be that the lens quality it hit or miss during production. Earlier this week I was in San Francisco and had terrible image problems with my Q. In my images on high res it looks like there is patches of the image that are blurry and I think it may have been caused by taking my warm Q out of my coat pocket and exposing it to the cold early morning air.

01-05-2013, 07:28 PM	#52
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by SonDa5 VisualDarkness any chance there is condensation inside the lens and all the light reflecting off of the snow is effecting image processing? REad some bad reviews on this lens and it may be that the lens quality it hit or miss during production. Earlier this week I was in San Francisco and had terrible image problems with my Q. In my images on high res it looks like there is patches of the image that are blurry and I think it may have been caused by taking my warm Q out of my coat pocket and exposing it to the cold early morning air. One of the shots the far focus is from inside through a window so no chance of condensation inside the lens on that shot. The leaf shot is in the kitchen so no condensation there either. It looks like the coma (that's the thing the lens got real problems with) simply is enhanched so much that everything just glows when put on the Q. I'm going to try it again but I think the is past the lens limits here, I like it on the K-5 though (despite its quirks).

01-05-2013, 10:44 PM	#54
Shanti Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Western Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 927	Will get my Q this week and a OM to Q adapter to play with,plan to use my OM 200 4 for now,and when I find a cheap K to Q with aperture control then will try my DA300+ AF1.7 not even sure how long it is over 2000mm that will be wild...will post some results when they come..

01-06-2013, 09:50 AM	#55
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by mgbirder I did a preliminary test of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (using flat black painted Fotodiox Adapter), in my study with fluorescent light using a paper with text on a cork board, from about 2 meters away, i used only 4x focus assist, according to this test i would say the Tamron is sharp wide open from 70mm to 135mm and needs 1 click at 200mm. I will post some outdoor shots in the next days Look forward to the shots MG. Just edit your post and I will add it to the index at the front once the samples are added. Thanks!

01-06-2013, 10:12 AM	#57
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by 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 Hans my results were very different than yours. I debated adding my review in but thought it might help users see both extremes. Is yours the A17 version as well?

01-06-2013, 02:59 PM	#58
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	Originally posted by crewl1 Hans my results were very different than yours. I debated adding my review in but thought it might help users see both extremes. Is yours the A17 version as well? Yes Larry it is a A17, I did not remove PF on the images I posted. I will play more with it tomorrow and post more results. I did see more PF on the Tamron than the DAL 55-300 when shooting both on my Kr. I am hoping it continues to produce good results because I like to carry both, the DAL on the Kr and the Tamron on the Q, It's nice to have the zoom. I am shooting it set between f8 and f11 with SR set on continuous and FL set to 250 to allow for some zoom. Hans

01-07-2013, 12:08 AM	#60
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Thanks for the review post_eos the lens looks like a winner. Can you tell us what aperture you used for your shots and which adapter you are running? Thanks!