[THoog]

The various white bodies do look better with silver lenses, IMHO. This is one reason I didn't want a white one, because I just finished my DA Ltd collection (in black), and I'm not starting over in silver!

@mtngal has posted a few pictures of her setup:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/184-pentax-k-s1-k-s2/278080-new-toys.html

[robthebloke]

I've tried to find pics of the K-S1 body with silver lenses from the net - without much success. The shipped kit lens looks OK with the body, but generally all the other lenses are black. Does any of you have this camera with its colouring in white background (white/grey; cotton beige; or any of the sweets collection) and silver lenses? Do the silver lenses match the combination, or am I destined to go on with the kit lens from now on?

Ask and you shall receive

[THoog]

Time to revive this thread. Anyone can post K-S1 pictures on it - show off your photos!

I finally got a chance to PP & post some flower pix:

[PhotoHeron]

Photography is about having fun and your shots are great too.

[THoog]

More fun with the K-S1 in the past couple weeks:

[THoog]

I think these are all with the FA 100-300 4.7-5.8, the "Plastic Fantastic" of 300mm zooms.

[mtngal]

Really nice shots! I'm impressed with your pictures, do you think it is better than the 55-300?

I haven't been taking many pictures recently, only of the progress they are making on my house, and the mold on the backside of the drywall they took off. But today I took the K-S1 out with the A*300 for the first time. I haven't shot with this lens in a long time and I should probably sell it if I'm not going to use it, thinking of talking to KEH when they are in Pasadena next Saturday.

I can't decide if it's just because I'm out of practice using a long lens or if if I can't manage a heavy lens any more, but only 1 or 2 pictures out of 15 didn't have camera shake at 1/400 shutter speed. Unfortunately, those two sure looked good, I really love the image quality, and it's smaller and lighter than the DA*300, useful when I don't want to take a big camera bag. I've done reasonably well with the lighter 55-300 but I know from past comparisons I've made that the zoom doesn't come close. I'm thinking of spending a couple of days shooting with the A*300 to see just what shutter speed I can manage with it.

So I wonder how the 100-300 compares to the 55-300, would it be a step up? if I can't manage the A300, would I gain enough quality to make it worth looking for one?

[mtngal]

To follow up about the K-S1 and the A*300: You know, if you are going to be evaluating a camera/lens combination for camera shake, it helps to have SR turned on... I hadn't noticed but the last time I used the camera I was shooting this scene with the camera on a tripod and using off-camera flash (bare, I wasn't interested in the quality of the light)



K-S1, DA40 Ltd. Grim sight, I know, and the reason I'm not going to be buying any camera equipment for a while.

When I finally realized that I had the SR turned off, I turned it back on and used 1/400 sec shutter speed. What a difference! The only shots I took that showed some camera shake were the last 2 shots, when I was getting tired. It's still not a combination I would want to shoot with for any length of time, but it's not as overwhelming as I thought this morning. Holding most of the weight in my left hand, holding it on the big focus ring close to the front element seemed to work reasonably well, with my right hand only providing some extra stability. The weight of the combination is all at the front element of the lens, which would be difficult if it were a zoom or AF lens, but it's not. The focus ring is well dampened, so if I'm careful, I can manage it. And even with my cataracts I could still see the focus well enough - better than I can with some AF lenses!

These aren't exactly inspiring shots, but I thought they came out nicely:

Another grim sight, this one taken on National Forest land, across a narrow valley (the San Andreas Fault Zone) from my subdivision. The drought is having a huge impact on what was a healthy forest a few years ago. Bark beetles have moved in and are killing many of the trees not far from where I live. It's going to be a VERY long summer.



My subdivision, I actually can pick out my house (barely) in this picture. I didn't think I could see it from this point, which I have often visited over the years, but I was pretty sure I picked it out when I was looking through the viewfinder. When I looked on the monitor, I could definitely see it (mine is much smaller than many and barely a speck on this reduced size picture. But it does give a good idea of the area I live in). The houses are probably a mile and a half, perhaps more, away. When I pixel-peeped to see if there was any shake, I could clearly see the building's wavy lines from the atmospheric conditions.



This last one is a 3 frame stitched panorama, taken landscape and stitched to make it more vertical. This is early May and we should still be green, not going brown so soon. The dead trees are noticeable on the national forest land in the background. But what really caught my eye was the interrupted road.



Decisions, decisions! Do I sell the A*300 and use the DA 55-300 with the DA*300 for tripod use only? Or do I keep all 3 lenses and use the A more often? I had forgotten how nice a lens the A300 is, how its character is so different than either the DA*300 or the DA55-300.

[THoog]

Really nice shots! I'm impressed with your pictures, do you think it is better than the 55-300?

It's a tough call. I guess it depends on your application.

The DA 55-300: offers flexibility on the wide end, is a little faster across the range, is a little bit shorter, and is available with quick-shift and WR. It's a great all-rounder.

The FA 100-300/4.7-5.8: is 50g lighter, and (IMHO) has smoother bokeh and is a little sharper, at least in the center. It has a 3-D "pop" effect that I haven't noticed with the 55-300. It looks like copies sell for less than $50 fairly often on eBay, but you never know what you're getting - I paid ~$75 on a KEH sale, plus ten bucks for a nice Takumar 58mm metal hood. It easily beats the usual 70-300mm, 80-320mm, and 100-300/4.5 consumer zooms. I think some of the PF user reviews saying it is soft either have bad copies or are confusing the f/4.7 with the f/4.5. The most common criticism is the plastic build, but that's the "heavy=expensive (=good)" mentality.

Some other shots with the K-S1 and FA 100-300/4.7:

Peony, 180mm @ f/5.6 (I was just playing around - it's a bit long for 'gardening')


100% Crop (1200x800)


Iris, 100mm @ f/13 (I accidentally bumped the mode dial to Tv instead of Av - it's got no business having background blur this smooth at f/13!)


100% Crop (1200x800)


Indy Zoo, 155mm@f/5.6:


100% Crop (1200x800)


Indy Zoo, 240mm@f/5.6:


100% Crop (1200x800)


Indy Zoo, 300mm@f/5.6:


100% Crop (1200x800)


These two are with the K-5II instead of the K-S1; the 100-300/4.7 has become my go-to lens for butterfly shots:

Zebra Longwing, 250mm @ f/5.6


Paper Kite, 210mm @ f/5.6

[mtngal]

It's a tough call. I guess it depends on your application.

The DA 55-300: offers flexibility on the wide end, is a little faster across the range, is a little bit shorter, and is available with quick-shift and WR. It's a great all-rounder.

The FA 100-300/4.7-5.8: is 50g lighter, and (IMHO) has smoother bokeh and is a little sharper, at least in the center. It has a 3-D "pop" effect that I haven't noticed with the 55-300. It looks like copies sell for less than $50 fairly often on eBay, but you never know what you're getting - I paid ~$75 on a KEH sale, plus ten bucks for a nice Takumar 58mm metal hood. It easily beats the usual 70-300mm, 80-320mm, and 100-300/4.5 consumer zooms. I think some of the PF user reviews saying it is soft either have bad copies or are confusing the f/4.7 with the f/4.5. The most common criticism is the plastic build, but that's the "heavy=expensive (=good)" mentality.

Again, impressive results. I may have to start haunting KEH's website for one. I've never been impressed with the DA55-300 - yes, it can take good pictures. It's reasonably sharp, the picture quality is acceptable but I'm not "friends" with it. It's main advantage to me is the fact it's lighter than the other lenses I have that reach 300. If I hadn't bought the A*300 first, I would probably be perfectly happy with it (and I probably would not own a bag full of limited and DA* lenses either!).

I have a week to think about whether I should sell the A or not, before KEH is here. I know I'd get more money if I were to sell it outright (KEH has to make a profit, I understand that), but if I were to go through that effort I would never sell it. I'd keep talking myself out of it, as I have always loved this lens. I'd love for it to be used by someone who would equally love it, but I don't think I could pack it up and actually take it to the post office. After yesterday I'm less inclined to sell it.

Thanks for the feedback!

[THoog]

Again, impressive results. I may have to start haunting KEH's website for one. I've never been impressed with the DA55-300 - yes, it can take good pictures. It's reasonably sharp, the picture quality is acceptable but I'm not "friends" with it. It's main advantage to me is the fact it's lighter than the other lenses I have that reach 300. If I hadn't bought the A*300 first, I would probably be perfectly happy with it (and I probably would not own a bag full of limited and DA* lenses either!).

I have a week to think about whether I should sell the A or not, before KEH is here. I know I'd get more money if I were to sell it outright (KEH has to make a profit, I understand that), but if I were to go through that effort I would never sell it. I'd keep talking myself out of it, as I have always loved this lens. I'd love for it to be used by someone who would equally love it, but I don't think I could pack it up and actually take it to the post office. After yesterday I'm less inclined to sell it.

Thanks for the feedback!

I understand. I would have a hard time letting an A*300 go - but then, I consider LBA to be an unappreciated art form. I enjoy having lenses of different character and exploring their natures, even if some sit on the shelf for months or years between shoots - so long as I don't "love them to death" through unintentional neglect.

I'm still getting my head fully 'round the 100-300/4.7-5.8's strengths and weaknesses, but so far, if Pentax would put its optics in a "modern" WR tube similar to the DA 55-300, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. That and the 18-135, with a small prime for dim/indoors work, would be my compact 3-lens "day at the zoo" kit. Pentax has an odd habit of working my wishlist...

[THoog]

Okay, one last bunch, then I think I'll have this "shooting flowers with the 100-300/4.7 on the K-S1" thing out of my system. (It stopped raining for about an hour yesterday, so I went for a quick walk.)

Phlomis, 300mm@f/5.6 (bee's knees)


A rose is a rose..., 210mm@f/5.6 (Hey! There are finally roses in the new rose garden!)


...is a rose, 210mm@f/5.6


Poppies, 170mm@f/5.6

[Clothears]

I was here on the Wirral at the weekend consorting with the niece as she married husband 3.0. Here's a couple of shots from the gardens. The kit lens does quite well but does suffer from flare. It also seemed to me that, when viewed at 100%, noise was apparent even at ISO 400. Earlier in the day it had been gloomy so for the ceremony I was at 400; dropped down to 100 as the weather improved.

[Clothears]

Since returning home from my niece's wedding, it's clear that the F2.4 35mm Plastic Fantastic is a great lens that matches the K-S1 resolution very well. It looks like my old Pentax-M f3.5 135mm does a good job, too, although that'll be more fiddley for shooting. Equally good is the Pentax-FA f1.4 50mm, although unfortunately Lightroom seems not to have a lens profile for it.

I'm much less impressed, however, with the 55-300 zoom. Rather fuzzy.

[clackers]

.

I'm much less impressed, however, with the 55-300 zoom. Rather fuzzy.

It is what it is, Clothears, a consumer zoom and you've outgrown it. I still carry it from time to time when hiking because it's small and is better than nothing. :-)