Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-01-2015, 08:35 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,992
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot?
That's the "regi" part of the Registax name I'm guessing -- registration. In any case, yes it aligns all the images. It can take a snippet of crappy video of the night sky and turn it into a great looking still by combining 100s of frames. (Which is how I think it is usually used instead of with full-size DSLR images -- it always seems to crash if I try to use it to stack "normal" images.)

09-01-2015, 08:54 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 564
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot?
Thanks! I used 2 seconds interval for several moon shots (up to 10 frames, but I discard the first ones ffrom dach series). And yes for a moon shots there is no problem for Registax to combine them. But I do not tried this with the objects filling the frame more then the big moon seen on the black sky.
09-02-2015, 11:12 PM   #48
Senior Member
klaus123's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 205
In my view the DA55-300 is not too bad.

I had the K300/4 (not on Q), but sold it because of the massive CAs.

Here is a DA55-300 Examplew taken with a Q10



Last edited by klaus123; 09-04-2015 at 02:32 PM.
09-03-2015, 08:45 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
. . . I don't think the Tamron 70-200 has an aperture ring . . .
No, but the optical equivalent is available in its previous form as the Adaptall SP 80-200/2.8 (30A) which does have an aperture ring. Mine works very well with either the Adaptall - Q or the PK - Q adapters. The smaller 19A may be an even better fit for the Q's but I no longer have one to try.

09-15-2015, 04:43 AM   #50
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 72
I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up.
09-15-2015, 02:37 PM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by CheepShot Quote
I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up.
Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells.
09-18-2015, 02:44 PM   #52
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 72
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells.
I had one in a Nikon mount, the Sigma 300 F4 primes are exceptionally sharp and would be a great match for the Q at a fraction of the cost of the 300mm DA*. My copy had pinpoint focus, much better than the 70-300mm VR I had.

There's one for sale in the marketplace, the seller also is selling a Q. He may have tried it.

Last edited by CheepShot; 09-18-2015 at 02:53 PM.
09-29-2015, 03:58 AM   #53
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 83
as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
Better than
Sigma AF 4/100-300
Sigma AF 70-300 APO
Tamron AF 70-300 Di

But:
Haven't tried it on my Q/Q7 but only on my Pentax dslr.

Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling!
Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q.
BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q.

09-30-2015, 07:16 AM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by pleo Quote
as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
Better than
Sigma AF 4/100-300
Sigma AF 70-300 APO
Tamron AF 70-300 Di
Yes, I would expect a prime lens to work better than a zoom lens at its extreme,
which is why I'm looking for an older prime to use with my Q because I use my zooms mostly at their 300mm extreme and I'd like to get better detail on those closely packed sensor pixels.

QuoteOriginally posted by pleo Quote
Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling!
Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q.
BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q.
That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do.
10-05-2015, 12:33 AM   #55
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 83
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
....

That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do.
200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!?
10-05-2015, 08:32 AM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by pleo Quote
200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!?
I have a Q-7, which is a 4.7X crop-factor.

I have moved our bird-feeder several times.
I'm not quite sure where it will be this coming winter, but probably a little farther than it was last winter.
This is the kind of picture I take in our backyard.

The ultimate goal is taking pictures of warblers in the wild ... and they are both small and skittish (so I can't get nearly this close to them)




Last edited by reh321; 10-05-2015 at 09:01 AM.
11-24-2015, 02:41 PM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
Consider a Tamron Adaptall SP 350mm mirror lens. Size and weight fits the Q's 'personality' and there's no CA. And also consider that LOTS of practice will be a big part of the price you pay for really good extreme telephoto images with ANY gear.
Has anyone here actually used a 300mm mirror lens with a Q?
They have the advantage of no CA and are much lighter than standard lenses.

The ultimate issue for any adopted lens, though, is how it resolves, does it resolve down to the tiny pixels on a Q's sensor, and you need to actually take some pictures to have much information on that.
11-25-2015, 09:07 AM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
Here's the Tamron/Adaptall SP 500/f8 on the Q. The 350/5.6 should be even better and more useful. There's also an Adaptall to Q adapter rather than the PK-AD + P-Q set-up. Results on the Q7 are even better.


12-01-2015, 10:46 AM   #59
Site Supporter
danmdan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: East Anglia, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 53
I use a 300mm Vivitar f/5.6 lens on my Q7, with good results. Tried it out today, but weather dull and with little sunlight.

Here are 2 shots using an ISO of 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed at F/8 ---
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
01-03-2016, 12:11 PM   #60
Forum Member
Phenix jc's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 51
Hi,
Here's a Quick & Dirty test of 3 300mm :

Nikon 300mm 4.5 AI (not Ais)

Nikon 300mm 4.5 IFED

Tamron 60-300 3.8-5.4 23A

Camera : Q7, so 1380mm 24x36 here
higher speed 1/500e, lower speed 1/50e
Distance : 50m ?
Handheld on a Bean bag with IS (SR) on
Model : Michel.

Caution :
1/ It's made Q&D
2/ Samples may vary

Let's go,

First the scene full frame with each lens, sharpening for web images applied :










And now 100% crops :
zero pp, OOC JPEG.

AI











IFED :











23A









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!
300mm, 300mm tele, buck long 300mm, camera, da*300, lens, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wide angle best bang for the buck? ismaelg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 04-04-2015 01:09 AM
Best bang for the buck in telephoto lenses? pentaxmz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 08-13-2014 07:04 AM
Best bang for my buck 35mm film processing? Lacrosse321 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 04-26-2012 09:25 AM
Long & Fast , Best Bang for the Buck? seacapt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-21-2009 03:52 PM
Best "bang-for-the-buck" flash? lastdodobird Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 24 02-13-2009 11:32 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 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