Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-13-2016, 06:42 AM   #91
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
QuoteOriginally posted by kvetcha Quote
Looks pretty nice to me!
That was my thought as well!

OK, it's not razor sharp but it's certainly got nice colour and contrast.

05-13-2016, 06:50 AM   #92
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
It's not bad for the budget lens really. My point is - it is pretty pointless to use that combo , to buy K-1 and match it with that grade lens. It's not legacy special glass, it's just an ordinary old zoom.

By other words, my $500 little Canon paired with budget modern 55-250mm- all around $600- gives me much better result compare to this $1800+ around $80 I paid for that Sigma. And it's nothing, really nothing very special in this combo. Does not make much sense.
05-13-2016, 06:57 AM   #93
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 92
Guess is goes to show how much the photographer matters vs. the gear.
05-13-2016, 07:00 AM   #94
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
QuoteOriginally posted by kvetcha Quote
Guess is goes to show how much the photographer matters vs. the gear.
Not really, it's a point of investment and budgeting, imo.

05-13-2016, 07:02 AM - 1 Like   #95
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,696
I have shot with some old lenses...quality is quite good on normal/wide class and less so with tele lenses. Super wides are also really hard to have good edges and good contrast. But you can still have some fun.

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 17:06 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
I forgot about cheapo Sigma 70-300mm DL super (not DG version) . After reading this thread I took it for the test.
Frankly speaking, it's an offense to put that lens on K-1 I mean, it's nice budget lens, and I started my long zoom journey with the similar Sigma APO, but to spend money on FF and put that glass on it? I don't think so.

The focus was not that completely bad in AF.S (burst mode), and started hunting much more in AF.C, especially when the battery indicator turned yellow.
Fringing is colorful, mostly purple, even if the aperture is closed down to f8.
Sharpness at 300 is typical for that lens- poor, I used to go till 250mm.

Ok, the long story short: I'd love to have that range lens for K-1, that weight as well, but in quality of DA*300 and under $1K
Here are totally unedited, as is pictures, and crops for closer look.
I also took couple shots with DA 55-300 WR and it is quite good actually, only vingettes 70-90 mm. range but other than that if you remoce hood, it works quite well.




---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 17:08 ----------

this is from M40-80/2.8-4 lens macro mode.
05-13-2016, 07:25 AM   #96
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 92
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Not really, it's a point of investment and budgeting, imo.
Oh, I'm not saying it's not worth investing in better gear. I'm just saying that a good eye is worth more than all the gear in the world. And you have a good eye.
05-13-2016, 07:37 AM - 1 Like   #97
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
QuoteOriginally posted by kvetcha Quote
Oh, I'm not saying it's not worth investing in better gear. I'm just saying that a good eye is worth more than all the gear in the world. And you have a good eye.
The thread is not about a good eye, or a talented photographer with any gear. It's about tests of cheap lenses on FF. That means not all of them worth buying for FF unless you already have it, and decide to use it or not. I never said it's a terrible lens, or you can't get interesting shoots with it. I said it's nice, but to me it does not make sense to spend money specifically to pair it with K-1. I also tried to demonstrate why it's not money wise.
Also, check the smile near word "offense"
05-13-2016, 08:13 AM - 1 Like   #98
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 209
A few shots with the dreaded FA 80-320 f4.5-f5.6.

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 10:25 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
The thread is not about a good eye, or a talented photographer with any gear. It's about tests of cheap lenses on FF. That means not all of them worth buying for FF unless you already have it, and decide to use it or not. I never said it's a terrible lens, or you can't get interesting shoots with it. I said it's nice, but to me it does not make sense to spend money specifically to pair it with K-1. I also tried to demonstrate why it's not money wise.
Also, check the smile near word "offense"

I think you are missing something here. Look at my following post. You see the house number sign picture? That could not have been taken with a $500 Canon. It was at 320mm and a 25th sec HAND HELD. A big reason to use a K-1 with older existing lenses is the superb image stabilization that body provides. So yes, it can make both photographic sense and economic sense to use an older lens with a new K-1 for that reason alone. The K-1 will produce the finest pictures that could ever be made with old lenses like that.

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 11:02 AM ----------

Using an old lens on a Nikon D810 or a high end Canon camera makes no sense. The reason it doesn't is that there is no image stabilization with old lenses and those camera bodies. High res Nikons and Canons need a tripod to use those old lenses under difficult lighting situations. If you have to take a tripod - why bring an old lens? The K-1 - because of its superb in body image stabilization can allow you to take difficult lighting conditions pictures with old lenses which may allow the good qualities of those old lenses to shine through.

The higher resolution a sensor is - the more image stabilization it requires. This is bad news for Nikon and Canon users in the future. They will have to scrap even their image stabilized lenses in the future because they won't have enough stabilization for the new high res sensor - even if they have adequate optical resolution. Pentax on the other hand - when the resolution goes up so does the capability of the IBIS.

Attached Images
     

Last edited by HoustonBob; 05-13-2016 at 08:42 AM.
05-13-2016, 09:22 AM   #99
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
It's not bad for the budget lens really. My point is - it is pretty pointless to use that combo , to buy K-1 and match it with that grade lens. It's not legacy special glass, it's just an ordinary old zoom.

By other words, my $500 little Canon paired with budget modern 55-250mm- all around $600- gives me much better result compare to this $1800+ around $80 I paid for that Sigma. And it's nothing, really nothing very special in this combo. Does not make much sense.
it doesn't make sense only because some of the old generic zooms can be pretty weak.

however, spend that same $80 on any number of good legacy primes, put 'em on an $1800 camera, and it'll be better than that canon combo you have.

or spend less than that $80 on a good legacy zoom, like one of the adaptall-2 sp lenses, you won't be disappointed with the pq.

we know it works like that because people have been doing it with sony ff cameras for a couple of years now, and this pentax ff camera takes a cleaner pic than what most of us have been using.
05-13-2016, 09:23 AM   #100
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
QuoteOriginally posted by HoustonBob Quote
I think you are missing something here. Look at my following post. You see the house number sign picture? That could not have been taken with a $500 Canon. It was at 320mm and a 25th sec HAND HELD. A big reason to use a K-1 with older existing lenses is the superb image stabilization that body provides. So yes, it can make both photographic sense and economic sense to use an older lens with a new K-1 for that reason alone. The K-1 will produce the finest pictures that could ever be made with old lenses like that.
You forgot IS in lens in Canon system, but again it's not a point, it was money wise example.

I was talking about Sigma 70-300mm. I can see the original files on my monitor, I provided MY opinion about that lens, about IQ, focus hunting, fringing, and the reasoning why I think it's not money wise option to BUY that lens for K-1.
If you are disagree with my opinion on Sigma 70-300mm, you have all rights to have own opinion on that lens.
Please, don't turn this thread in something else.
05-13-2016, 10:51 AM - 2 Likes   #101
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 209
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
You forgot IS in lens in Canon system, but again it's not a point, it was money wise example.

I was talking about Sigma 70-300mm. I can see the original files on my monitor, I provided MY opinion about that lens, about IQ, focus hunting, fringing, and the reasoning why I think it's not money wise option to BUY that lens for K-1.
If you are disagree with my opinion on Sigma 70-300mm, you have all rights to have own opinion on that lens.
Please, don't turn this thread in something else.
It doesn't make economic sense to drive a Ferrari to the grocery store; a cheap Kia sedan will get you there just as well. And if you are buying a Ferrari just to drive it to the grocery store I would question your sanity. However, if you already own a Ferrari and not a Kia then driving that top end car to the store does make sense.

If you already own a K-1 buying a cheap lens to cover a focal length you might only use rarely - and one in which you don't expect to do top end work does make sense also. It certainly makes more sense than buying a 500 dollar Canon and kit lens to do the same job - as your additional cost one way is $80 versus $1100. You buy a Ferrari to do Ferrari type things - any additional utility you get out of it is a bonus.

I bought my K-1 to use with my high quality primes - its ability to also use cheap lenses is a low cost bonus not a negative.
05-13-2016, 01:09 PM - 2 Likes   #102
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
Oops, posted M lens, sorry.

Last edited by micromacro; 05-13-2016 at 04:18 PM.
05-13-2016, 02:06 PM   #103
Loyal Site Supporter
Quartermaster James's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 609
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Too many lenses...
I know these words, but not in this order!

Except, of course, if followed by "too little time/money."
05-13-2016, 07:51 PM   #104
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,042
I'm surprised that F 35-70mm did not get good review on FF yet. It's sharp, and it seems faster on K-1 than on K5iis, but also it seems not that very sharp wide open on K-1. Anyway, one stop down, and it's all great. For the money a decent copy of this lens is very good. I shoot NY streets with that lens from the cab, and it did pretty good job.
I plan to use this lens mostly for still life.
Here is quick hand held night picture, ISO 10000.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo 
05-13-2016, 08:08 PM - 2 Likes   #105
Veteran Member
Dr_who's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 688
Clinical resolution is only a part of taking pictures. Many want full frame for aspect ratio, appearance, character such at the helios or the trioplan. The end result is what I look at, if they do it with a kit lens or a $20 helios that's not a problem.
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!
aberration, canon, dslr, ff, ff lenses, flickr, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, lens, lenses, mode, money, pentax, pentax k-1, post, range, reason, sense, sigma, stabilization
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone tried using a Schneider .6X WA HD ADAPTER 72MM THREAD to capture FF effect? choong_dc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 09-26-2015 07:48 PM
DA* 50-135 and close up filter have anyone tried it? Dario79 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 09-04-2014 11:49 PM
Cheap extension tubes on eBay.... ever tried them? Dewman Macro Photography 38 07-26-2014 05:55 PM
Has anyone tried Canon lenses on the Q/Q10? NeilGratton Pentax Q 14 05-31-2013 09:03 AM
Anyone tried the HDR capture on the K-x yet? timstone Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 03-24-2010 07:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM. | 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