Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2013, 08:35 PM   #16
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Now that all my gear is in (Ballhead, K>Q, Tripod Foot) I'll do the K105/2.8, K135/2.5 and K200/2.5 for you (and the thread) but I can't get it done before Saturday.
Great thanks to you, monochrome!
Looking forward to these tests.

Do you prefer using a "K" lens vs. a "M" type on the Q?

JP

02-13-2013, 08:41 PM   #17
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
I'm a little confused - in your first post you said you were looking for something to use on the Q that would give you around 500mm equivalent. Then later you said you are going to look for a 200mm-ish lens. Well 200mm on the Q gives you 1100mm equivalent.
02-13-2013, 08:47 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,426
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Great thanks to you, monochrome!
Looking forward to these tests.

Do you prefer using a "K" lens vs. a "M" type on the Q?

JP
JP: Since I just sold my M100/2.8 to another Q user (who immediately resold it here because he didn't like the PF it threw out for him with the K>Q adapter) I have NO M lenses. I've always had a fondness for K's, though I've tried and sold some wonderful M's (75~150, 50/1.4. 50/1.7 come to mind). I was in lust with Pentax in the 70's and I haven't gotten over it.

I'm paring things down to what I use - both lenses and bodies. A few of my really old Auto Tak lenses are at Eric's for lubrication because they haven't been exercised and my K2DMD ASA ring also got sticky again for the same reason. That's a sign I have more stuff than I use, so all the M's are now gone.

I have some oddball M42 lenses a buddy gave me. I'm really jonesing to try this Soligor 180/3.5 and the Vivitar 135/2.8 (previously mentioned). February sux in St. Louis, though - dark before I leave and by the time I get home from work.
02-13-2013, 09:00 PM   #19
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
I'm a little confused - in your first post you said you were looking for something to use on the Q that would give you around 500mm equivalent. Then later you said you are going to look for a 200mm-ish lens. Well 200mm on the Q gives you 1100mm equivalent.
Sorry about that ...

Yes, I am totally off-track with my "thinking".
I did say that I wanted to get to about 500mm but of course my mind started wandering beyond normal reasoning.
I am decidedly still looking into the 500mm "mark" but also exploring other possibilities.

Worse still ... I even mentioned the DA*300/4 !!! waaaay beyond the 500mm.
Again, apologies for the apparent misleading.

JP

02-13-2013, 09:17 PM   #20
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Sorry about that ...

Yes, I am totally off-track with my "thinking".
I did say that I wanted to get to about 500mm but of course my mind started wandering beyond normal reasoning.
I am decidedly still looking into the 500mm "mark" but also exploring other possibilities.

Worse still ... I even mentioned the DA*300/4 !!! waaaay beyond the 500mm.
Again, apologies for the apparent misleading.

JP
No apologies necessary! I myself get easily confused when I start throwing all these numbers and crop factors around. Just wanted to be sure that you are applying the 5.5x to the actual focal length of the lenses you are looking at.

I'm just getting started with the Q - only got my first Q body in December so I haven't had the chance to do any real testing outside like I want to. I've been testing different lenses from inside through our big glass window to get a feel of the different focal lengths. One of my main goals is to be able to shoot at the opposite bank of the river at my house where the 300mm will work well (1650mm eq). But at that focal length, objects are a little difficult to acquire in the LCD and need to have a fairly static subject plus use a remote or 2 second timer and on a sturdy tripod. To make all those things mentioned a little easier, I just bought an M 150 3.5 lens which will be 825mm eq. I think this is a nice compromise for a nice long focal length and to be able to hand hold if needed and be usable for ducks on the water that are moving/floating slowly. So far just with a little testing today I think this focal length is going to be just right for me.

Last edited by photolady95; 04-17-2016 at 02:39 AM.
02-13-2013, 10:48 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by cmohr Quote
does the Q-adapter have a Tripod mount????
My Chinese one does, but I think about 400 grams (15 oz) is about the weight limit.

I have ordered a macro rail and intend to attach one end through a spacer to the Q tripod point and have an adjustable lens support towards the other end with the sliding block on the rail attached to the tripod. This will allow me to adjust the balance point.
02-14-2013, 06:19 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Well, it becomes a matter of deciding what is the best:
1. In terms of IQ
2. Ease of use/handling
3. The final "reach" ... as long as I can get to a 35mm eq. of 500mm +, I'd be happy.
Since you're talking about 135-format equivalent, I don't see any advantage over the DA*300 on the K-5 (450mm equivalent) other than the smaller size of the Q package. Worse handling overall -- MF and just slower to operate, and worse IQ. Is this for when a smaller kit is needed?
02-14-2013, 06:34 AM   #23
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
Since you're talking about 135-format equivalent, I don't see any advantage over the DA*300 on the K-5 (450mm equivalent) other than the smaller size of the Q package. Worse handling overall -- MF and just slower to operate, and worse IQ. Is this for when a smaller kit is needed?
Pretty much what I was thinking/wondering.
The Q can be pretty fiddly when trying to lock focus on a bird, or anything live and moving.
At least for me it is.
But I still love the Q and its reach.

02-14-2013, 06:45 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
QuoteOriginally posted by robtcorl Quote
But I still love the Q and its reach.
As do I, and also just for its own sweet self. But "5.5x crop factor" is misleading. What the Q gives you is a roughly 3x advantage in linear pixel density. This is where the reach comes from, not the crop (you can, after all, crop your 135 or APS-C image to the same extent).
02-14-2013, 06:52 AM   #25
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
As do I, and also just for its own sweet self. But "5.5x crop factor" is misleading. What the Q gives you is a roughly 3x advantage in linear pixel density. This is where the reach comes from, not the crop (you can, after all, crop your 135 or APS-C image to the same extent).
So then which is it? Do you multiply the focal length of the lens by 3 or 5.5? I was just going by the norm that I've seen here on the forum of 5.5x.
02-14-2013, 07:02 AM   #26
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
So then which is it? Do you multiply the focal length of the lens by 3 or 5.5? I was just going by the norm that I've seen here on the forum of 5.5x.
I think what he means is "3x advantage over an APS-C camera like the K-5."

300mm x 1.5 (APS-C) = 450mm equiv.
300mm x 5.5 (Q) = 1650mm equiv.
1650mm (eq) / 450mm (eq) = 3.6 (or a 3.6x difference in FOV)

Add in the fact that the Q is 12MP and the K-5 is 16MP, and you really are closer to just a 3x difference in the images you'd get per-pixel.
02-14-2013, 07:09 AM   #27
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
I think what he means is "3x advantage over an APS-C camera like the K-5."

300mm x 1.5 (APS-C) = 450mm equiv.
300mm x 5.5 (Q) = 1650mm equiv.
1650mm (eq) / 450mm (eq) = 3.6 (or a 3.6x difference in FOV)

Add in the fact that the Q is 12MP and the K-5 is 16MP, and you really are closer to just a 3x difference in the images you'd get per-pixel.
OK - well that is what I have been doing/saying all along. As a matter of fact, each time I use the term "5,5x crop" I've used it along with the native focal length of the lens - ie. 300mm lens will be 1650mm equivalent.
02-14-2013, 07:18 AM   #28
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
I think you need to test it and gives us your review to add to the reference thread

It sounds like it could be a great option, I've been waiting for someone to try this lens out.
Oh wait someone did test it! https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested-q-r...ml#post2229504
Looks good from these test results.
I will test it out myself soon, when the adapter is in.


JP
02-14-2013, 07:45 AM   #29
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
JP: Since I just sold my M100/2.8 to another Q user (who immediately resold it here because he didn't like the PF it threw out for him with the K>Q adapter) I have NO M lenses. I've always had a fondness for K's, though I've tried and sold some wonderful M's (75~150, 50/1.4. 50/1.7 come to mind). I was in lust with Pentax in the 70's and I haven't gotten over it.

I'm paring things down to what I use - both lenses and bodies. A few of my really old Auto Tak lenses are at Eric's for lubrication because they haven't been exercised and my K2DMD ASA ring also got sticky again for the same reason. That's a sign I have more stuff than I use, so all the M's are now gone.

I have some oddball M42 lenses a buddy gave me. I'm really jonesing to try this Soligor 180/3.5 and the Vivitar 135/2.8 (previously mentioned). February sux in St. Louis, though - dark before I leave and by the time I get home from work.
Good info, thanks.

I also have a couple of good lenses which need a workout ... that's likely why they sometimes feel a little "stiff".
I should revise my "needs" and decide which to keep for good .

JP
02-14-2013, 07:50 AM   #30
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
As do I, and also just for its own sweet self. But "5.5x crop factor" is misleading. What the Q gives you is a roughly 3x advantage in linear pixel density. This is where the reach comes from, not the crop (you can, after all, crop your 135 or APS-C image to the same extent).
I interpret this to mean that there are three times more pixels in the area of the Q sensor vs. the same size area of an APS-C sensor , presumable a 16MP from a K-5?

The advantage then would be more than 3x if you're comparing to an APS-C sensor with less MP such as K-x or K10D or if I understand correctly?
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!
camera, da*300/4, iq, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what is the best lens for street snap? zswjy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 34 08-08-2012 11:05 PM
What is the Best Focal Length for a Portrait Lens? Drom Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 94 04-22-2012 02:00 PM
What is the best method to use to capture slow moving subjects with a manual lens? Vantage-Point Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 01-28-2012 01:34 PM
what is the best model to buy for landscape photography Unregistered Visitors' Center 15 01-12-2012 05:21 AM
What is the best way to try lens? Pigeon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-25-2009 12:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:22 PM. | 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