Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2015, 07:21 AM   #121
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I Love being cantankerous, sometimes you make a point, but people say stuff that let's you know, they just don't get it. Some people just give up, I get loud.
LOUD? not really, you don't capitalize too much... Informed...yup, opinionated... OH YEAH. Heck I have a nibble mark or 2 from your posts, but I use your core posts as a sanity check... Not sure who's...

When I read your 1.2 comment and your mention of the DA14, I was chuckling, I had that chat with Susan the other day... Keeping a F50 1.4 "in case", yup that's a niche, 1.2 is "nichier" (yes, non-word on purpose)... We use a 12-24, rarely... It suits us fine and for panoramics. We use it portrait and stitch 24mps together. We don't do real estate, boat interiors, or too much architecture.... We also decided to Keep (on the shelf for now) a 18-135 DC WR as a main range backup in case either of us has a blowout (she's a seasoned pro and uses a super-zoom 18-270 scm regularly and a 150-500 as well). Probably heresy.... Maybe she'll have to give the PF Mag awards back...

I use a 3 lens solution 16-50, 50-135, 150-450 (with truss). The 18-135 is a VERY good lens...

06-27-2015, 07:54 AM   #122
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
LOUD? not really, you don't capitalize too much... Informed...yup, opinionated... OH YEAH. Heck I have a nibble mark or 2 from your posts, but I use your core posts as a sanity check... Not sure who's...

When I read your 1.2 comment and your mention of the DA14, I was chuckling, I had that chat with Susan the other day... Keeping a F50 1.4 "in case", yup that's a niche, 1.2 is "nichier" (yes, non-word on purpose)... We use a 12-24, rarely... It suits us fine and for panoramics. We use it portrait and stitch 24mps together. We don't do real estate, boat interiors, or too much architecture.... We also decided to Keep (on the shelf for now) a 18-135 DC WR as a main range backup in case either of us has a blowout (she's a seasoned pro and uses a super-zoom 18-270 scm regularly and a 150-500 as well). Probably heresy.... Maybe she'll have to give the PF Mag awards back...

I use a 3 lens solution 16-50, 50-135, 150-450 (with truss). The 18-135 is a VERY good lens...
Now that doesn't surprise me at all. (the pro doing the 18-270 thing). We don't use the Sigma 18-1250 much, but that's largely because it has decentered, and then wouldn't focus. It's back at Sigma and we are really hoping it will be back here before our season starts. I can tell you 100% for certain, it's not the same IQ as many of my other lenses, and I can also tell you, when I use it, I don't care.

From my old "what lens" post which I can no longer find.... one is a DA*60-250 one is the Sigma 18-250 is one really worth twice the money. My buddy Jerry who was standing beside us shooting a Canona with a 200mm prime has almost this exact same image in his store at 8x10 and as far as I know has sold about 20 of them. I seriously doubt he would have sold fewer if they'd been taken with the 18-250. When people go on about the need to be using the sharpest or the fastest or the whatever-ist, way too often they are talking theory, not practical experience.

Too often people quibble over things that don't matter. That's what living in your own mind will do. You start imagining all these scenarios where you need this or that lens, when in many cases, you're better off with a superzoom that lets you get the shot. People talk about convenience as if it doesn't really matter. Well convenience doesn't matter unless you miss a shot because of a lens change, and then it's the only thing that matters. Superior IQ does count for squat if you're missing images trying to achieve it. Not doing a lot of lens changes saves time, and saving time gets you to different locations faster. Using primes, you may not even get to a lot of places superzoom users get to, because they spend more time scouting locations and less time fiddling with their camera bags. There is a lot in these lens discussions that comes directly from a lack of real world shooting experience and the the lack of printing experience so they understand exactly what they need for what size print.

Eastern Red Wolf DA*60-250-- Sigma 18-250 - which is which? An 18-135 image would have fallen right between these two images in IQ, but what exactly would that count for? Both are useable. How could it matter what lens I had on the camera if I don't really prefer one image over the other? I'm willing to bet the image would have been just as printable, saleable and enjoyable taken with my old Vivitar 135 ƒ2.8, arguably the worst lens in my collection. So what is everyone going on about?

The appeal of these images is not even influenced by the difference between 2100 lw/ph and 1700 lw/ph on a test chart. Because these images were not taken on a sturdy tripod with a two second delay in a studio setting with no wind etc., there is simply no discernible difference even pixel peeping.





The first question that comes to mind for me when people are going on about really sharp lenses is, 'Show me an image that you've taken that would have benefitted from using a sharper lens?" ( Hint, if you aren't shooting on a tripod, using the sharpest lens available isn't even going to improve your work one bit. Not shooting on a tripod, you may as well use a superzoom., using a super sharp lens won't increase your IQ even a little bit.) ) People need to do that, before they start proclaiming to the world that they have to have the sharpest, fastest, whatever-ist lens.

And if you are going to proclaim you have to have these things on the forum, show us the picture that made you realize you needed something better. Nine times out of 10 the issue isn't what the person thinks it is.

Last edited by normhead; 06-27-2015 at 08:32 AM.
06-27-2015, 08:31 AM   #123
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Now that doesn't surprise me at all. (the pro doing the 18-270 thing). We don't use the Sigma 18-1250 much, but that's largely because it has decentered, and then wouldn't focus. It's back at Sigma and we are really hoping it will be back here before our season starts. I can tell you 100% for certain, it's not the same IQ as many of my other lenses, and I can also tell you, when I use it, I don't care.

From my old "what lens" post which I can no longer find.... one is a DA*60-250 one is the Sigma 18-250 is one really worth twice the money. My buddy Jerry who was standing beside us shooting a Canona with a 200mm prime has almost this exact same image in his store at 8x10 and as far as I know has sold about 20 of them. I seriously doubt he would have sold fewer if they'd been taken with the 18-250. When people go on about the need to be using the sharpest or the fastest or the whatever-ist, way too often they are talking theory, not practical experience.

Too often people quibble over things that don't matter. That's what living in your own mind will do. You start imagining all these scenarios where you need this or that lens, when in many cases, you're better off with a superzoom that lets you get the shot. People talk about convenience as if it doesn't really matter. Well convenience doesn't matter unless you miss a shot because of a lens change, and then it's the only thing that matters. Superior IQ does count for squat if you're missing images trying to achieve it. Not doing a lot of lens changes saves time, and saving time gets you to different locations faster. Using primes, you may not even get to a lot of places superzoom users get to, because they spend more time scouting locations and less time fiddling with their camera bags. There is a lot in these lens discussions that comes directly from a lack of real world shooting experience and the the lack of printing experience so they understand exactly what they need for what size print.

Eastern Red Wolf DA*60-250-- Sigma 18-250 - which is which? An 18-135 image would have fallen right between these two images in IQ, but what exactly would that count for? Both are useable. How could it matter what lens I had on the camera if I don't really prefer one image over the other? I'm willing to bet the image would have been just as printable, saleable and enjoyable taken with my old Vivitar 135 ƒ2.8, arguably the worst lens in my collection. So what is everyone going on about?

The appeal of these images is not even influenced by the difference between 2100 lw/ph and 1700 lw/ph.





The first question that comes to mind for me when people are going on about really sharp lenses is, 'Show me an image that you've taken that would have benefitted from using a sharper lens?" ( Hint, if you aren't shooting on a tripod, using the sharpest lens available isn't even going to improve your work one bit. Not shooting on a tripod, you may as well use a superzoom., using a super sharp lens won't increase your IQ even a little bit.) ) People need to do that, before they start proclaiming to the world that they have to have the sharpest, fastest, whatever-ist lens.

And if you are going to proclaim you have to have these things on the forum, show us the picture that made you realize you needed something better. Nine times out of 10 the issue isn't what the person thinks it is.
I like the top one for presence, the bottom one for pose. I'd say there was a 2-3kt breeze in it's face. DOF is greater in the top... Top Siggy?
06-27-2015, 08:34 AM   #124
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
I like the top one for presence, the bottom one for pose. I'd say there was a 2-3kt breeze in it's face. DOF is greater in the top... Top Siggy?
The way we can tell is that the 60-250 has slightly smoother bokeh, but in our mind, not enough to affect the saleability of the print, and if it was, just blur the background in post... so ya, the top one is the Siggy.

To me, the need for more expensive glass is completely centered on those instances when I need a faster shutter speed in low light. If I don't need that, (or the faster focussing that an ƒ2.8 lens brings, even if you're shooting at ƒ5.6) I don't need even ƒ2.8.


Last edited by normhead; 06-27-2015 at 09:21 AM.
06-27-2015, 08:42 AM   #125
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
1.2 is useless. You neeeed this lens:




f/0.95 is useless too. You neeeed this one:

06-27-2015, 08:57 AM   #126
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
f/0.95 is useless too. You neeeed this one:
Zeiss also used to play this game, but with real stuff



http://petapixel.com/2013/08/06/carl-zeiss-super-q-gigantar-40mm-f0-33-the-f...ens-ever-made/

Last edited by D1N0; 06-27-2015 at 09:41 AM.
06-27-2015, 09:11 AM   #127
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
"Real stuff" which can't take a picture?
06-27-2015, 09:40 AM   #128
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,348
yeah it Really can't take a picture

06-28-2015, 01:38 AM   #129
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The only question I have with the electric motors is, in 20 years when my DC motor in my 18-135 finally gives up the ghost, what are the odds of Pentax even having parts?
No problem, we'll just print our own with our 3-D printers.
06-28-2015, 03:24 PM   #130
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
@normhead - I'm always impressed with your photography for the subject matter, and your last two examples here are no exception. One thing I have noticed is your distinct style of post-processing. It's an interesting mix of saturated and desaturated colors. Sometimes there is a lot of contrast and other times a lot less. Another thing I noticed is that the images look over-sharpened in software. The rendering of the pine needles looks very contrasty and that's what makes me think there is a lot of digital sharpening. I'd tone it down a bit and let the colors transition more gently. The needles may look less sharp but maybe a "sharper lens" (however would define that) could make up for it. It's hard to tell from these scaled-down image samples. Sharpness can also be tested on the animal's fur. There is so much fine detail there! Would I be able to pixel peep and start resolving individual hairs? Or, would it just look like well arranged salt-and-pepper hair? It's an academic question though. The real question would be what print size are you targeting? 4"x6" or 24"x36"? That ought to drive most of the conversation.
06-28-2015, 05:38 PM   #131
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
@normhead - I'm always impressed with your photography for the subject matter, and your last two examples here are no exception. One thing I have noticed is your distinct style of post-processing. It's an interesting mix of saturated and desaturated colors. Sometimes there is a lot of contrast and other times a lot less. Another thing I noticed is that the images look over-sharpened in software. The rendering of the pine needles looks very contrasty and that's what makes me think there is a lot of digital sharpening. I'd tone it down a bit and let the colors transition more gently. The needles may look less sharp but maybe a "sharper lens" (however would define that) could make up for it. It's hard to tell from these scaled-down image samples. Sharpness can also be tested on the animal's fur. There is so much fine detail there! Would I be able to pixel peep and start resolving individual hairs? Or, would it just look like well arranged salt-and-pepper hair? It's an academic question though. The real question would be what print size are you targeting? 4"x6" or 24"x36"? That ought to drive most of the conversation.
When I publish to the forum, my ideal time devoted to these images is probably between 30 seconds and a minute. I apply what I feel is an appropriate preset, and if things look pretty good I don't go beyond that. When we print images we often work on them for a half hour, per single image, so you aren't seeing on the web anything like what we print. Our standard print sizes are 13x19 from our printer or 20x30 canvas. For wild life images like the wolf we usually don't print more than 11x14 with 4x6 and , 5x7 and 8x10 being more common.

But, when I rework an image to be perfect... I never repost the image on the forum, it goes full size into a jpeg print folder usually resized to 300 dpi for the size of print I might want and labelled so I know which file is for which size. 300 DPI is important for Canon printers, it get's ou into their high def print mode with the most possible detail.Have had sites where the final image was posted at web size when trying to sell prints, but selling prints on the web tends to be a waste of time, and I doubt any of those pages still exist. The last time I went to our website the "Images for Sale " page had been taken down in favour of image promoting out guided trips.

Here is a straight from raw image with no processing. As you can see, you can easily make out individual hairs, and the pine needles are quite sharp. I don't believe you can actually add anything that isn't in the raw. You merely accentuate the raw, until you get something that looks like what you saw.



When you look at our work on the web, unless I've decided right away that I want to print an image, and I can't even remember when the last time that happened was, you probably won't ever see finished work. Usually what I print is an image that has come back to me over and over. Once I''ve randomly passed by an image 4 or 5 times, and each time I've thought "I should print that", at some point I'll get it out, probably strip away the posted changes and start from scratch to eliminate halos from applying definition and not carefully masked dodges and burns and other artifacts. Especially when noise has been accentuated by sharpening. For prints I often turn all sharpening off and use noise reduction as well. As for the treatment of contrast, compared to other guys I know who have run studios and sell their work, I tend to be towards the high contrast end of the scale by default, but there is an image I'm working on to print at some point, and it's a low contrast image. I'm not tied to high contrast...but for web purposes, I like the images to have some pop to them.

Because I work with fairly large prints, I also prefer images that have some context, that don't have the animal filling the frame.


Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2015 at 06:07 PM.
06-28-2015, 10:28 PM   #132
Senior Member
lgbalfa's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 106
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
It would be a shame if the DA 18-135 were discontinued without a successor having HD coatings. Personally, I don't care for the coating one way or another but if they help keep this lens in production then I'm all for them. This lens is actually very, very good. At wide angles it is almost prime-like. Start zooming in and you can tell it's a zoom but the IQ is still plenty good for cropping and printing. It's the perfect travel zoom with a good usable range, WR sealing, and quick focusing.
what is the advantage of having HD coatings?

---------- Post added 06-29-15 at 01:36 AM ----------

HD coating i see came out in 2012.

if this technology has been out since 2012, kind of strange it is not on the 18-135.
06-29-2015, 05:03 AM   #133
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,348
The main advantage is flare reduction I believe. Other advantages are in the eye of the beholder. The 18-135 doesn't have it because it was introduced before there was HD. They'd need to refresh it into the HD Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR.
06-29-2015, 06:00 AM   #134
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Someone said that SMC reduced 95 of the glare, and the HD reduced maybe another .5 %. That being said, that would be about a 10% improvement over SMC and should be noticeable. It would seem to be a few months now since the 18-135's disappeared. They are still selling kits with 18-135s so they aren't completely off the market yet but, if they are like the other lenses, there will be a 4-6 month lag before the new HD coated ones start appearing.
06-29-2015, 06:04 AM   #135
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iloilo City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,098
Yes I believe HD is for flare reduction. However, tests done in the in depth review showed that this lens doesn't show much flare. As a matter of fact, if I remember it right, you have to shoot directly towards the light or the sun to have flare. But whatever it's worth, adding HD coating would be a plus.
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!
18-135, 18-135mm lens, amazon, aperture, bit, canon, coatings, day, dc, else, hd, lens, lenses, niche, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, post, ricoh, screw drive, sigma, usa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is K-3 being discontinued? jotagustavo Pentax K-3 48 03-02-2015 05:38 PM
Trying to swap my 18-55 WR kit lens for its 18-135mm equivalent Styx1284 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 01-21-2014 06:53 PM
645D being discontinued - for new model? interested_observer Pentax Medium Format 9 09-28-2012 11:35 AM
Tri-x (320) being discontinued in 120/220 Clicker Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 02-27-2010 09:33 PM
Are FA-Limiteds being discontinued or not? KL Matt Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 03-21-2007 09:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 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