[fredberg]

Hi
I hope to get some good advice to solve my Problem…
My iMac can't read the lens information correctly, when using my lenses at my PENTAX K5 II
For an Example, it says "Tamron" and a really wrong "mm-number", when it was supposed to say "Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 II Macro".
Is it possible my new camera can't read/compare lenses in the right way?
I have NEVER had any Problems using my now "old" PENTAX K2000 (also digital DSLR, of course).
I really hope there is a way to solve my Problem. I have to shoot Pictures which are sharp.
Thank you for helping me
Kind regards,
Louise, Aarhus area, Denmark

[paulh]

Welcome to the forums. I have a Sigma 28-90 macro, which is almost the same lens as yours. My editing software identifies it as "Tamron 35-90 f/4" , but I don't worry about it. As far as your unsharp photos, it would be helpful if you could post some examples with the exif intact. Then we can try to find a solution. You might have to calibrate/fine tune the AF on your K5II for this lens - a feature your K2000 probably didn't have. Does the problem occur with any other lenses?

[fredberg]

Thank you paulh
Yes, it occurs with all my lenses. (All Sigma zoom lenses…)
I have tried to upload an Image, but I did not succeed. I am new to this Forum, therefore I have to find out about uploading Images. I will try harder an hopefully I have success in a short while. Thank you so much for taking you time helping me - I really appreciate it

---------- Post added 03-28-14 at 07:25 AM ----------

fredbergfoto | Blog med et udvalg af mine fotografier, og lidt om andre emner, der optager mig?

---------- Post added 03-28-14 at 07:28 AM ----------

Skønne Pernille… | fredbergfoto

Please have a look at this post - there is no exif-datas. I will try to find them and post them in this thread

[elliott]

There is overlap in the lens ID tags when dealing with third party lenses, it is nothing to worry about. The focal length reported in the EXIF should still be correct. The only thing the lens ID is used for is in camera corrections when processing JPGs, which wouldn't be there for third party lenses anyway.

[fredberg]

[elliott]

It looks to have focused fine. You were at 80mm and wide open aperture, I think it performed pretty well given the circumstances and the slight softness works for portraits. If you want sharper images you're going to have to stop down to at least f8 with that lens.

I think the difference you are seeing between the K2000 and K-5 is the improvement in resolution, the K-5's sensor is a lot more demanding of lenses.

[fredberg]

Thank you Elliot.
I will try to use f8 and have a look at the picture. (My weakness is using AF way to much, I know for sure. I have to experiment much more using manual, when I have the opportunity I have to just "go for it"...

I am happy to be a part of this forum, you are all very nice and i appreciate your help very much!

[DSims]

I think that's the worst lens I ever had on my Pentax. And I had more than one - purchased new - so it wasn't a bad copy. It's just a bad lens with poor image quality.

Actually, I think the box said it was a 28-80, but inside was a 28-90 (maybe one was a 28-80, but at least 2 of the 3 boxes had the 28-90 - all purchased cheap on closeout).



Besides the fact that you'll possibly never get excellent Image Quality out of that lens on any camera, a below-average lens will look even worse when put on the K-5 II (with its higher resolution). So it may be OK on the K2000, but may never be on the K-5 II. Nevertheless, you should try the AF fine adjustment. But don't expect too much.

[sam-joseph]

Your K5 II deserves a macro lens to show what it's capable of. Look for a good condition FA 100 f2.8 (try tom1803 on eBay), and you'll see how good the camera can be. Well, that worked for me anyway.

Regards

[ak_kiwi]

I think that's the worst lens I ever had on my Pentax.

Probably depends on the application - I personally found the 28 -90 variant not too bad

[Oldbayrunner]

To me those are within the range of being able to work with. Depending on your processing software they would be fine for being able to do a little unsharp masking or portrait touch up and obtain a much improved difference., It is when they have excessive blurring that it becomes difficult to correct.

[johnyates]

My weakness is using AF way to much, I know for sure.

Especially with a zoom lens. Your chances of your camera's AF system actually giving you good focus is often dependent on what focal length you have the zoom set at.

If you want to see real sharpness, get yourself a prime lens and take the time to do the necessary AF fine adjustment. You'll be blown away at what your camera can do. The DA35/2.4 and the DA50/1.8 are both quite inexpensive and give impressive results.

[DSims]

Probably depends on the application - I personally found the 28 -90 variant not too bad

I'm glad it's worked for you - mine was so far behind the DA18-55 in overall IQ that I thought maybe I had a bad one - until I tried the 2nd and 3rd copy and realized they were made that way!

[adwb]

I have a couple of third party f2.8 zooms 24-60 and 26-70 hsm sigma and and a 70-200 f2.8 tamron all the tamron lenses report the correct data the sigma ones do not and all the 2.8 images are soft if you crop or pixel peep thay don't improve till you get to f4 or smaller.
All test reports say the same it's the way they are made.

[DSims]

I have a couple of third party f2.8 zooms 24-60 and 26-70 hsm sigma and and a 70-200 f2.8 tamron all the tamron lenses report the correct data the sigma ones do not and all the 2.8 images are soft if you crop or pixel peep thay don't improve till you get to f4 or smaller.

Does this include the Tamron?

Anyway, this is generally what I've found, and it's why Pentax/Sony/Nikon/Canon glass is usually better and costs more. But sometimes Tokina glass can be an exception to this rule.