[repaap]

That just makes me curious, have you ever done a check in your PP software to fid out what percentage of you images are taken at ƒ2.8 or under for that "smooth bokeh"? For me it's 44 images out of 1300 images.

I have many 2.8 lenses, but not many 2.8 images. For the most part, living without 2.8 glass wouldn't affect me very often. I'm curious as to what those numbers look like for the average shooter. It makes me wonder how many have paid for capability they don't use.

Life is always full of unanswered questions.

Another interesting thing of note, looking at telephoto lenses, to check out the ƒ5.6 vs ƒ8 thing, I note that from 250mm, the diffraction limit seems to get pushed back from between 5.6 and8 for shorter lenses to ƒ8 to ƒ11 in the longer ones. I might have to look into that more.

out of 1800 photos I'v taken this spring shots taken @ 2,8 (that would be mostly my 70-200) is 198
1,4 is 22
1,6 is 16
1,8 is 28 (Fa 31)
1,9 is 34(FA 43)
2,0 is 17
2,2 is 21
2,5 is 11
2.8 is 198
3,2 is 43(I would have thought that I'd use this more actually)
3,5 is 38
4,0 is 57
4,5 is 51
5,0 is 30
5,6 is 185

Then it continues moreor less the same. so, peak at 2,8 and 5,6. This is actually quite common the way that I shoot. I have been busy with work this spring, so not so much flower/forest/hiking photos.


here is one with DFA 28 -105, where it does work well, but I could have got better lens for this too. I was tiered and had this lens on and it was overcast so I did not want to risk it.
I like it, but it could be better also. i had to bump ISO because it was windy too and I had to stop that movement.

[normhead]

out of 1800 photos I'v taken this spring shots taken @ 2,8 (that would be mostly my 70-200) is 198
1,4 is 22
1,6 is 16
1,8 is 28 (Fa 31)
1,9 is 34(FA 43)
2,0 is 17
2,2 is 21
2,5 is 11
2.8 is 198
3,2 is 43(I would have thought that I'd use this more actually)
3,5 is 38
4,0 is 57
4,5 is 51
5,0 is 30
5,6 is 185

Then it continues moreor less the same. so, peak at 2,8 and 5,6. This is actually quite common the way that I shoot. I have been busy with work this spring, so not so much flower/forest/hiking photos.


here is one with DFA 28 -105, where it does work well, but I could have got better lens for this too. I was tiered and had this lens on and it was overcast so I did not want to risk it.
I like it, but it could be better also. i had to bump ISO because it was windy too and I had to stop that movement.

Wow, you really got after it there. Those are very interesting numbers, compared to how I shoot, which would be mostly ƒ5.6 and over.

Of my photos 1020 are ƒ5.6 or smaller ƒ-stops.
202 are taken at ƒ stops wider than 5.6.

We are like polar opposites.

I guess that's why you have a DFA 70-200 2.8, and I have a 60-250 ƒ4.

[repaap]

Wow, you really got after it there.

Yup, Honestly I did not think that it is so much at 2,8...but it is. I really like the effect.



but I also use it stopped down

[normhead]

All my images at wider than ƒ4 total 144, and that includes mostly images that were shot that way because of low light.

Depth of field is almost always the issue for me.


Although there are times when 1.4 can be amusing....


But usually when I go wider than ƒ5.6 it's because I wouldn't have an acceptable exposure if I didn't.

[Serkevan]

Wow, you really got after it there. Those are very interesting numbers, compared to how I shoot, which would be mostly ƒ5.6 and over.

Of my photos 1020 are ƒ5.6 or smaller ƒ-stops.
202 are taken at ƒ stops wider than 5.6.

We are like polar opposites.

I guess that's why you have a DFA 70-200 2.8, and I have a 60-250 ƒ4.

Adding some more numbers here! Out of 1065 photos (trip to India), we have:
f/4 and wider: 30 -> Most of them, with the Tamron 90/2.5 macro and at f/2.4 (portraits).
f/4.5: 362 --> This is because, out of 477 photos taken with the Tokina 70-210/4.5, 310 were taken wide open (as I only used this lens during the different wedding ceremonies, half of which took place during sunset or later).
f/5: 72, f/5.6: 204, f/6.3: 110, f/7.1: 22, f/8: 78, f/9+: 10
Plus 177 taken with the M20/4 (no recorded aperture) but those were mostly f/8.


Interesting bit: The D FA 28-105 (381 shots) saw most use at either end: 118 photos (31%) were taken at 28mm, while another 108 (28%) were at 105mm. Most of the other photos fall between 45 and 80mm. For the 105mm shots, about two thirds were wide open. For 28mm, the most used apertures were 5.6 (38%), 8 (20%) and 6.3 (19%).
It should be noted however that there was always a CPL (about 1 stop) on the lens, I didn't have a tripod at any point and there were a fair bit of sunset shots or shots of stuff that moved - so I didn't want to close the aperture too much. As well, several of the 105mm shots were photos of people so I did want a bit of blur.


I'll load some other catalog that is more hiking- or city-oriented to see how this holds up.

[bxf]

But usually when I go wider than ƒ5.6 it's because I wouldn't have an acceptable exposure if I didn't.

Nice selfie, Norm

[repaap]

All my images at wider than ƒ4 total 144, and that includes mostly images that were shot that way because of low light.

Depth of field is almost always the issue for me.


Although there are times when 1.4 can be amusing....


But usually when I go wider than ƒ5.6 it's because I wouldn't have an acceptable exposure if I didn't.

Many times also for me the dim light is reason to open the iris more. But, yeah. I like Bokeh shots, that is true that it does create a problem with Dof.

[normhead]

Nice selfie, Norm

I'd need a heck fo a selfie stick to pull that off .

[beetee]

Hi there!
My first post on PentaxForums, despite I am shooting PENTAX for quite a while now.

I can only hope you will not tar and feather me for writing such a long post.

I gotta say I nearly lost hope in PENTAX proceeding on their way upwards quality-road,
since I missed some important aspects in the latest products...
But since I saw the presentation-video I found hope again, because of several reasons
(one of them was the presentation of the D FA *85mm f:1,4 and especially the D FA Ltd. 21mm which I think will pave the way for more photogs buying Pentax again...)
...
And THIS new patent shows,
they wil go up this road much further than all those nay-sayers prophesized...

I really enjoy the in-body SR with the moving sensor on old lenses.
But i gotta admit, as much as I love bedrock Pentax... there indeed is a reason I never sold my Sigma 50-500 DG OS HSM lens.
and guess what... It is the optical stabilizer. Having OIS or whatever you want to call it, is a real marvel for long tele-shots.
When I shoot above 130mm or so, I just turn off body-internal SR(which saves a lot of battery and prevents counter-acting of the sensor SR)
and the lenses OS is really like freezing the frame when it locks the AF
and I feel it a little bit more capable then I would,
when shooting the DFA 70-200 at 200mm with at/above F:5,6 and the in-body SR turned on.
The only thing left to hope is PENTAX considering at least one CFExpress slot in their upcoming cameras.
Not only because it could practically leave out the buffer when writing a burst of shots to the card(since with a good bus they would literally hop directly on to the card),
but more so because its way more robust...
I know all the talk from Sony A7III shooters on Youtube about their SD-cards doing pretty fine, and no one ever had an SD fail them, but i dont believe those stories.

I do photogaphy for a while now, and it has been at least 3 SD-cards that totally killed my day, and those werent the cheap ones.
The heat on those little chips of plastic is actually quite massive. I really feel the CF-slot in the *ist D and the cards did way better.
Nonetheless... I gotta stop phantasizing of the bright future and whatever they will do to top the release of the new 85mil...
(which specs-wise already looks like an Otus with AF, ...darn I want to have it!!)

Actually i wanted to say I am really happy PENTAX is going down that road with the stabilizer.
And despite the fact, that Pentax's own DFA 150-450 may be more capable in terms of colors or microcontrasts,
I also find panning wit my Sigma 50-500 and its OS instead of the K-1's in-body SR,
way superior to panning without in-lens stabilizer but sr turned on.

And not only that I would like to buy a more lightweight stabilised lens with a reach way above 200mm thats made for FF
... No! It also raises my hope to see something like a 150-600 also with an optical stabilizer built into the lens.
Or at least a Pentax version of the Tamron 28-300 Di VC PZD ... (which really is the finest do-it-all lens I ever used but its a shame the old Tamron for K-mount cant take a shower)
But whatever else will come ...,
looking at this development and all those lenses already presented in the vid,
This is fine and bright anniversary year!

Thank you PENTAX! Thank you so much. And HELLO to the forum.

[repaap]

Hi there!
My first post on PentaxForums, despite I am shooting PENTAX for quite a while now.

I can only hope you will not tar and feather me for writing such a long post.

I gotta say I nearly lost hope in PENTAX proceeding on their way upwards quality-road,
since I missed some important aspects in the latest products...
But since I saw the presentation-video I found hope again, because of several reasons
(one of them was the presentation of the D FA *85mm f:1,4 and especially the D FA Ltd. 21mm which I think will pave the way for more photogs buying Pentax again...)
...
And THIS new patent shows,
they wil go up this road much further than all those nay-sayers prophesized...

I really enjoy the in-body SR with the moving sensor on old lenses.
But i gotta admit, as much as I love bedrock Pentax... there indeed is a reason I never sold my Sigma 50-500 DG OS HSM lens.
and guess what... It is the optical stabilizer. Having OIS or whatever you want to call it, is a real marvel for long tele-shots.
When I shoot above 130mm or so, I just turn off body-internal SR(which saves a lot of battery and prevents counter-acting of the sensor SR)
and the lenses OS is really like freezing the frame when it locks the AF
and I feel it a little bit more capable then I would,
when shooting the DFA 70-200 at 200mm with at/above F:5,6 and the in-body SR turned on.
The only thing left to hope is PENTAX considering at least one CFExpress slot in their upcoming cameras.
Not only because it could practically leave out the buffer when writing a burst of shots to the card(since with a good bus they would literally hop directly on to the card),
but more so because its way more robust...
I know all the talk from Sony A7III shooters on Youtube about their SD-cards doing pretty fine, and no one ever had an SD fail them, but i dont believe those stories.

I do photogaphy for a while now, and it has been at least 3 SD-cards that totally killed my day, and those werent the cheap ones.
The heat on those little chips of plastic is actually quite massive. I really feel the CF-slot in the *ist D and the cards did way better.
Nonetheless... I gotta stop phantasizing of the bright future and whatever they will do to top the release of the new 85mil...
(which specs-wise already looks like an Otus with AF, ...darn I want to have it!!)

Actually i wanted to say I am really happy PENTAX is going down that road with the stabilizer.
And despite the fact, that Pentax's own DFA 150-450 may be more capable in terms of colors or microcontrasts,
I also find panning wit my Sigma 50-500 and its OS instead of the K-1's in-body SR,
way superior to panning without in-lens stabilizer but sr turned on.

And not only that I would like to buy a more lightweight stabilised lens with a reach way above 200mm thats made for FF
... No! It also raises my hope to see something like a 150-600 also with an optical stabilizer built into the lens.
Or at least a Pentax version of the Tamron 28-300 Di VC PZD ... (which really is the finest do-it-all lens I ever used but its a shame the old Tamron for K-mount cant take a shower)
But whatever else will come ...,
looking at this development and all those lenses already presented in the vid,
This is fine and bright anniversary year!

Thank you PENTAX! Thank you so much. And HELLO to the forum.

That was a nice opening post for long time user.


I have been one of those guys who believed in what Kenspo said(before he left), that future is bright with Pentax/Ricoh. ofcourse he could not stay and wait. Perhaps he saw that it is going to happen, but no idea when.

Now couple of yrs later, it is really coming. They aimed this propably for 100 yrs. celebration, but who cares if it is little late.


I'm really happy that they are doing this now/they have taken this path of, we believe in this, lets see where it will get us and we are facing this. Who cares about nay sayers. If some one has liked Pentax and is still loving it, this is great news. AND if it will pan out well, there will sertainly be more. I'm 100% sure about that. I'm going to buy most of new stuff 'new' (when I can afford it again, because of what is going on now) just to say, thank you. Also it is pretty good stuff coming. this and highest level.

[Kunzite]

Now couple of yrs later, it is really coming. They aimed this propably for 100 yrs. celebration, but who cares if it is little late.

I'm mostly unhappy with Pentax' speed... however, I've done some thinking.
They basically designed the D FA* 85mm f/1.4 twice. It had to be not merely very good, but excellent on future cameras with higher resolution.
And the K-new, it will likely be the biggest step forward they've ever made in the digital era. And it has to work properly from the beginning... unlike the K10D, unlike the K-5. That takes time.

[FozzFoster]

And the K-new, it will likely be the biggest step forward they've ever made in the digital era.

You Tube

You Tube

[phoebus]

I wonder if adding in-lens stabilization is an admission that for good AF on long lens, it is a requirement? In other words, the AF is doomed to fail if the image is bouncing around too much. Olympus added in-lens stabilization to their 300mm, (which has very good reputation and numerous images on the WWW to prove its capability) despite having good IBIS in their cameras.

If that is the case, maybe a new long prime with SR will hit the market to complement the KNEW ??? A 400/4 would be awesome

[normhead]

I wonder if adding in-lens stabilization is an admission that for good AF on long lens, it is a requirement? In other words, the AF is doomed to fail if the image is bouncing around too much. Olympus added in-lens stabilization to their 300mm, (which has very good reputation and numerous images on the WWW to prove its capability) despite having good IBIS in their cameras.

If that is the case, maybe a new long prime with SR will hit the market to complement the KNEW ??? A 400/4 would be awesome

The problem with the 150-600s I've seen is that are about the same as the 150-450 at 450, and then their IQ drops off considerably by 600, to the point I suspect a 150-450 with the 1.4 TC would probably out resolve them.

I also had the Sigma 120-400 with image stabilization. The stabilization was nice, the lens (two copies, sent both of them back) was soft.

There are times I can't lock the AF on a subject because my stance isn't solid and I've too much movement. My answer has always been to get out my tripod.

Here's the thing, the 70-300 is a 4.28 to one ratio. Not many lenses with that kind of ratio are good throughout their ranges the 60-250 being the exception. So clearly, we are talking about either a $1500 lens, or one with limited usefulness. God help us if it's a Tamron, not a new modern design.

[phoebus]

The problem with the 150-600s I've seen is that are about the same as the 150-450 at 450, and then their IQ drops off considerably by 600, to the point I suspect a 150-450 with the 1.4 TC would probably out resolve them.

I also had the Sigma 120-400 with image stabilization. The stabilization was nice, the lens (two copies) was soft.

Norm, I'm not asking for a 150-600...

If that is the case, maybe a new long prime with SR will hit the market to complement the KNEW ??? A 400/4 would be awesome

Chris