Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2016, 08:00 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
redpit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Athens
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 702
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
Okidoki!

Here's SR off at F2.8



And here's SR off at F5.6

The 5.6 image is much better, but to tell you the truth from what I see, I find it hard to believe that these spots are in focus...
How do you focus? Have you taken multiple images to compare them and keep the best one? Also since you would like to take portraits with this combo, why don't you try some portraits trying to focus on the eye and see if you can make it and how the lens performs in portraiture...

10-14-2016, 08:20 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
Another wrinkle, many of the non-official adapters for non-Q lenses have internal glare from paint that is more reflective than it ought to be -- enough to noticeably degrade images. Flocking the internal surface with a bit of black fabric or a better paint job can help there. (Also without the Pentax Q-K adapter any adapted lens will be using the electronic shutter which will give you rolling shutter effect at times with anything moving -- not an issue here, just something else to keep in mind on the Q.)
10-14-2016, 10:42 AM   #18
Junior Member
makkan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 44
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by redpit Quote
The 5.6 image is much better, but to tell you the truth from what I see, I find it hard to believe that these spots are in focus...
How do you focus? Have you taken multiple images to compare them and keep the best one? Also since you would like to take portraits with this combo, why don't you try some portraits trying to focus on the eye and see if you can make it and how the lens performs in portraiture...
Well that is sort of my main problem. It's really difficult to see if things are in focus, even I have focus peaking on. It's sort of peaking in spots all over the screen not as "grouped" as on the 01 Standard Prime.

I think my next step will be using a tripod and timer and multiple focus points, just to make sure what to expect from the lens.

---------- Post added 10-14-16 at 10:43 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Another wrinkle, many of the non-official adapters for non-Q lenses have internal glare from paint that is more reflective than it ought to be -- enough to noticeably degrade images. Flocking the internal surface with a bit of black fabric or a better paint job can help there. (Also without the Pentax Q-K adapter any adapted lens will be using the electronic shutter which will give you rolling shutter effect at times with anything moving -- not an issue here, just something else to keep in mind on the Q.)
This isn't flocked on the inside but it was definitively not the most expensive adapter out there.
10-14-2016, 10:59 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,891
Manual focus with Live View is good if you're zoomed in. Note that in dim light, focus peaking can be useless.



10-14-2016, 11:18 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,892
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
This isn't flocked on the inside
Quick comparison check -- use a black permanent black Magic Marker on all inside surfaces. That may (usually) does the trick if reflections are an issue.
10-14-2016, 12:00 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
Hi,

I'm trying to get the best results from my Soviet era Industar 26m 50mm/2.8 lens on the Pentax Q. I've really tried to get my subjects in sharp focus, but I still end up with unsharp photos. Am I doing it wrong or do I have unrealistic expectations when viewing them at 100 % in Lightroom.
So far I've only shot hand held as well as resting the camera on the padded back of a chair for support. And I think at 1/60 and 1/80 it should be at least a bit crisper than this. But maybe the crop factor making the 50 mm a +300 mm tele comes into play here.

I'd love to hear your suggestions on how to get sharper photos or tell me that I'm too much of a pixel peeper.
Based on my own experience, I have several pieces of advice for you:

(1) don't believe what anyone else tells you {including me, I guess}

(2) learning to use adapted lenses is a slow, tedious process

(3) in most cases, native Q-mount lenses will work better than anything else you get

(4) newer lenses will tend to work better than older lenses

(5) in testing, avoid anything that could degrade the image or otherwise cause problems {for example, in my testing, I attached the flat paper target to a wicker chair; getting the lens in exact focus was easy, because the wicker pattern caused the focus peaking to really "pop"}

(6) a "loupe", such as made by Hoodman, is essential to seeing well enough to manually focus

I won't go through all of my experiences right here, right now - some of them are summarized in an early thread
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/284804-baby-steps.html
but my summary is that there is no silver bullet that will get you good images quickly.

On page 3 of that thread is summary of some back-yard testing I did using a paper target. In that series of tests, I tried various apertures on three different lenses; I went methodically, and since I analyzed everything only when I was done, I couldn't use earlier steps to skip later steps. I did discover that my older lenses cannot compete with my newer ones. I did discover that my best lens did best around f/8-f/11; the thing people who focus on diffraction don't tell you is that two forces move results in opposite directions - smaller aperture causes diffraction to creep upwards making image worse, but it also causes you to use better-then-better part of the lens making image better.

Last edited by reh321; 10-14-2016 at 12:21 PM. Reason: added point (6)
10-14-2016, 12:33 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,892
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
(3) in most cases, native Q-mount lenses will work better than anything else you get
What reh said is good advice. The Q-system is quite useful and very usable but it's certainly best used with its native AF lenses unless you're an experimenter. The Q7 + 01, 06 and 08 lenses and a few close-up filters is capable of doing 98% of anything I've EVER done with a Pentax in half a century - and that includes much work product.
10-14-2016, 02:07 PM   #23
Pentaxian
johnyates's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 1,191
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
but I don't intend to use the lens with a tripod. I was hoping to use it for portraits.
Most portrait photographers use a tripod.

10-14-2016, 03:09 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,824
One thing to mention is that portraits often don't need stunning sharpness. You only need some detail in the eye closest to the camera, everything else can be slightly blurred or soft, for artsy purposes. A brutally sharp lens is not great for portraits, because it renders all zits, blemishes, wrinkles, and other unsightly parts that all human beings have on their face. Of course, if the lens is way too blurry, has too much CA, odd ghosting, then it might be even more useless. The worse the lens is, the more artistic you have to get to get beautiful photos (and beautiful does not necessarily need sharp)
10-14-2016, 03:48 PM   #25
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,469
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
But I only have the 01 Standard Prime so they're not really comparable.
The 01 is a hard act to follow - it is a fine lens designed for the Q. Its results are close to apsc formats which says a lot when you realise how much the Q image from it has to be enlarged.
10-14-2016, 06:59 PM   #26
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
Personally I would get rid of that lens and that adapter and purchase a Pentax 06 lens which would provide you with a great sharp portrait lens and facilitate using all of the features that Q series has to offer. You can pick one up NEW one off of Ebay for around $129 which includes shipping. I have seen previous owned copies sell for $100. Otherwise you might just be wasting time with a lens that cannot produce the results you expect and time is money..
10-14-2016, 10:55 PM - 2 Likes   #27
Junior Member
makkan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 44
Original Poster
First of all a great thank you to all of you for taking the time to look at my blurred photos and giving me various tips, feedback and critique. I really appreciate it and though I would love to reply to each and every one of you in quoted comments.. I'm not going to.

My next steps will be.

1. Borrow a tripod from work and set up a good environment to test the Industar 26m at different focal lengths and different apertures, in good lighting to keep ISO at 125. Taking all shots with a timer.
2. Using a proper hold and stance when shooting manually. I know this, heck I used to shoot photos at work each day for over 5 years when I was in the magazine industry, I learned quite a lot during that time but it's been a good 6 years since I held a camera for work purposes. I used sloppy technique in these photos and I know it. Although I should mention I never taken telephoto shots before. Notice how I never refer to myself as a professional
3. Practice, practice, practice and more practice.

I bought the Industar on a whim, yes, I was lured by some incredible bokeh in the photos shown in the eBay ad. Also I thought it would be cool to have Soviet era lens.

4. Get the 06 lens. I'm already looking for a great deal on eBay.
10-15-2016, 02:07 AM   #28
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,469
Cool - and while you are cruising fleabay grab yourself something like a Takumar 55mm 1.8 . They are real bang for buck and represent about as good as you are going to get in M42 vintage. Alternatively get a Kmount adapter and a M50mm 1.7 - also cheap as chips and about as sharp as you are going to get. It is quite likely your industar is suspect and these lenses will let you see the potential with these adaptions for little cost. But remember this area is about creativity not bleeding edge performance.
10-15-2016, 08:29 AM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by makkan Quote
I bought the Industar on a whim, yes, I was lured by some incredible bokeh in the photos shown in the eBay ad. Also I thought it would be cool to have Soviet era lens.
I have a Mir-1 under the same reasoning - but I use it on a K-30. In general, by the nature of small sensors, people using "Q" cameras tend not to think in terms of bokeh.
10-15-2016, 09:06 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,824
Industar lenses are generally not known to be super sharp, but they have their own temperament. You can try to copy the composition and light of the photos that lured you in, maybe you can build on that. I've seen great photos taken with lomo lenses, like pinhole or Holga lenses. But they take a lot of work. I didn't know your photo history, so my first reply was meant for somebody who is really new, sorry if you already knew most of what I wrote.
I'd say keep that lens, have fun with it, learn how to use it. Maybe it won't be your go-to lens, but you can still have some fun with it and snap some good photos You can also try searching websites like 500px, Flickr for photos taken with Industar lenses to see what others have squeezed out of them. Thing is, though, that with Soviet lenses there is huge sample variation. Even if its same lens model, one can be really sharp, and another really bad.

I hope you post some photos that you are proud of, once you get the hang of this lens
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, crop, expectations, flickr, focus, leica, lens, m39, mirrorless, mm, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, photo sharpness, photos, portraits, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, spots, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Acquired an mx with takumar. I have no desire for it. What should I do? swanlefitte Pentax Film SLR Discussion 15 04-02-2016 03:34 PM
Do you like unrealistic photos? Zandroido Photographic Technique 30 11-03-2012 10:21 PM
Do I have LBA or have I simply lost my mind? Lowell Goudge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 01-07-2010 11:44 PM
What do I have to do to be on Pentax Photo Gallery? feronovak Photographic Technique 7 09-10-2007 12:44 PM
I have achieved sharpness Tom Brown Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 03-30-2007 08:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 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