Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-18-2014, 09:12 AM   #16
Veteran Member
kkoether's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 575
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You must understand this is a consumer tele zoom. It will do wonder in a zoo, or if you shoot big animals not too far away. Or general use. It will need good light to perform well. And you'll not crop anything out of it even if you had a 36MP body (that doesn't exist on APSC) simply because the sharpness is so-so at 300mm.


HUH???


The original using a DA-L 55-300mm at 300mm.



1280 x 800 Pixel crop from the original RAW file from above.



That boat was moving approximately 150 mph in this shot. I took this 3 days after receiving my K-3.

08-18-2014, 09:57 AM   #17
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,665
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Ahaha, beware ! That where you could spend all your money.

As savoche said, the 55-300 is a nice consumer zoom for wildlife, portraiture outdoor, architectural details, sports and so own. You can buy a very innexpensive version of it (DAL) for a very good price used. Or go for the WR version that is going to cost more money for exactly the same optical quality.

You must understand this is a consumer tele zoom. It will do wonder in a zoo, or if you shoot big animals not too far away. Or general use. It will need good light to perform well. And you'll not crop anything out of it even if you had a 36MP body (that doesn't exist on APSC) simply because the sharpness is so-so at 300mm.

Many that really shoot wildlife spend lot of time hunting for it with very expensive stuff (several thousand dollar of it) and their are not even sure to get one good shoot each time they go out. This is just to say you have to understand it. There nothing bad and no risk with that 55-300, but you might soon find you need more reach for birds, or want more sharpness, light overall, and then it just kill your wallet. This is the kind of practice that cost a lot. Either you have the money and love then that's ok, either you'll better limit yourself.


Overall, that K50 + sigma/tamron 17-50 f/2.8 + 55-300 + DA50 seems like a very nice starter kit, covering all kind of usage with a nice compromize in term of price and quality.

You said your photo where not all good with your previous gear. That's mean it is likely not only the gear fault as a a good photographer would have manage some great shoot anyway. The next step is then to train, take lot of photos, learn from your errors, read, train more...
I agree with most of what you say, but not with the sharpness of the 55-300. It's a bit weak wide open at 300mm, true, but stop it down to f/7.1 or f/8 and it is quite a lot better than any other 300mm zoom out there. If you want anything sharper you will have to go to a prime, a DA*300 for instance - which really is in another league, both the quality and the price. And the size and weight.

The only reasonable zoom option I'm aware of with markedly better quality is the DA*60-250. Still twice the weight, and more than twice the price.

That said, there is quite some room for cropping on a 24mp camera, even on a 16mp one, with the 55-300. Unless you plan to print poster size. But then you should get yourself a 645Z

Another thing is that with today's cameras you can use slow lenses in low light with reasonable success. The picture below was taken with the slow 55-300.

Is it noisy? Yes,
Does it lack a bit of detail due to noise reduction? Yes.
Is it still usable? Yes, in my opinion it is.
Could I have taken that image with a 300/2.8? No.

K-5, DA55-300, 87.5mm, f/4, ISO20,000



(Yes, I know I could (and should) have used a slower shutter, but I tend to stick to fast shutter speeds on that lens just in case I have to use it at 300mm - things happen quickly in the bush )
08-18-2014, 11:55 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
Hello kkoether,

Let met first say I have nothing against your image, and if they please your that's perfect. What I will say next it not at all to critize the shoot you are happy with or anything.

It just let say a matter of what you think you want, what is enough for you. This is maybe more important to the the poster than to us... We already know.

Let see how a 100% crop of a 50-135 look like... Not same kind of subject just because I have already a crop from 50-135 available in flickr, just to see the sharpness:




To me, it still look look good. This a 100% crop on K3 taken at 80mm, equivalent to 400mm focal lens due to the 5X crop factor.

Just compare to what you got from the 55-300 full image. The 55-300 shoot, the full shoot doesn't look like it it is really sharper or supperior to that.

Between the crops it is night and day.

Yes it is 50-135, not the same as a 300mm lens and the 100% crop maybe doesn't surpass the 55-300 at 300mm. But the crop if from a 80mm shoot, not a 135mm one. And the crop give an effective 400mm. Imagine if we took from a 135mm shoot and just crop enough to have 300mm equivalent. Not a 100% crop. this would have look a lot better.

i don't say anybody have to buy anything, I don't want to say that 55-300 is bad lens. It is good for the price. It is just that high quality telezoom are expensive, very expensive. And we spoke only of 300mm. 500mm is even worse. That what I wanted to explain from initial comment.

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 09:03 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
K-5, DA55-300, 87.5mm, f/4, ISO20,000



(Yes, I know I could (and should) have used a slower shutter, but I tend to stick to fast shutter speeds on that lens just in case I have to use it at 300mm - things happen quickly in the bush )
That shoot is interresting because of its subject. It work because there lot of light in fact on the subject himself (that is over exposed). You took 1/500s. If it was a common subject, you would have just trashed the shoot.

That not really I think how one would like to take a baby shoot. I do not say this is not possible. I do not say you don't have the right to do it. Or that you should not be happy with the 55-300 shoot you've got.

What I'am saying is that if you want to get some good ambiant light pictures of your baby, an innexpensive transtandard f/2.8 lens (doesn't cost more than the 55-300 WR) would help both of the light and also for subject isolation.

Of course nothing is mandatory. But I was trying to provide the poster with something that would help him achieve the goal and that would remain quite cheap.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-18-2014 at 12:05 PM.
08-18-2014, 12:39 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,829
If it were me, and I knew a lot of the shots I'd be taking are indoors and close, I'd look at the DA21mm - a lens I have, which is super, and small. Also the "plastic" DA35mm f2.4 is a strong contender. I still would not rule out the 16-45, as it's a very wide lens at 16mm, and inexpensive.

When you move into long zooms, as mentioned above, you're going to have a lot of compromises to consider. That's what research is for, and don't blame a lens if it cannot do everything extremely well. The 55-300 is good for what it is, but it's not as fast as Tamron's 70-200 for instance. Of course, it's less costly...

08-18-2014, 12:41 PM   #20
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,665
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
To me, it still look look good. This a 100% crop on K3 taken at 80mm, equivalent to 400mm focal lens due to the 5X crop factor.

Just compare to what you got from the 55-300 full image. The 55-300 shoot, the full shoot doesn't look like it it is really sharper or supperior to that.

Between the crops it is night and day.

Yes it is 50-135, not the same as a 300mm lens and the 100% crop maybe doesn't surpass the 55-300 at 300mm. But the crop if from a 80mm shoot, not a 135mm one. And the crop give an effective 400mm. Imagine if we took from a 135mm shoot and just crop enough to have 300mm equivalent. Not a 100% crop. this would have look a lot better.

i don't say anybody have to buy anything, I don't want to say that 55-300 is bad lens. It is good for the price. It is just that high quality telezoom are expensive, very expensive. And we spoke only of 300mm. 500mm is even worse. That what I wanted to explain from initial comment.

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 09:03 PM ----------



That shoot is interresting because of its subject. It work because there lot of light in fact on the subject himself (that is over exposed). You took 1/500s. If it was a common subject, you would have just trashed the shoot.

That not really I think how one would like to take a baby shoot. I do not say this is not possible. I do not say you don't have the right to do it. Or that you should not be happy with the 55-300 shoot you've got.
Of course a DA*50-135 is a lot better than a DA55-300. Anything else would be tragic on behalf of the DA*, and for everybody who has paid the premium to get one. But I still disagree with your claim that there's no room for cropping on the 55-300. But fair enough, I suppose we just have vastly different standards for what is "good enough" for everyday use.

QuoteQuote:
What I'am saying is that if you want to get some good ambiant light pictures of your baby, an innexpensive transtandard f/2.8 lens (doesn't cost more than the 55-300 WR) would help both of the light and also for subject isolation.

Of course nothing is mandatory. But I was trying to provide the poster with something that would help him achieve the goal and that would remain quite cheap.
That's a different topic. For portraits you use a lens suited for portraits - like your suggestion for a 17-50/2.8 or a fast prime. Nobody's suggesting you should take a baby shot with the 55-300, and certainly not at ISO 20,000. The point, talking about long lenses, was that with today's cameras you can get a picture, almost no matter the speed of the lens. Or to put it another way: when it comes to long lenses there is quite a price to pay for better performance than the 55-300. In money, in bulk, and in weight.

As I said, I agree with almost everything you said in your previous post. Just not on the uncropability (if that were a word) of the 55-300.

Oh well. @manooti sorry for trampling all over your thread - hopefully our little disagreement contains some bits of value to you
08-18-2014, 01:04 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
If it were me, and I knew a lot of the shots I'd be taking are indoors and close, I'd look at the DA21mm - a lens I have, which is super, and small. Also the "plastic" DA35mm f2.4 is a strong contender. I still would not rule out the 16-45, as it's a very wide lens at 16mm, and inexpensive.

When you move into long zooms, as mentioned above, you're going to have a lot of compromises to consider. That's what research is for, and don't blame a lens if it cannot do everything extremely well. The 55-300 is good for what it is, but it's not as fast as Tamron's 70-200 for instance. Of course, it's less costly...
16-45 is good, that true... But it is f/4, that why I would not recommend for something that want to shoot a baby indoor. It provide less subject isolation and need to bump more the isos. The price is good in both cases. The sharpness is the same and for practical purpose, there is no big difference between 16 & 17mm.

Agree that the 55-300 is good lens too ! Just don't ask it too much.
08-18-2014, 01:16 PM   #22
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,665
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
16-45 is good, that true... But it is f/4, that why I would not recommend for something that want to shoot a baby indoor. It provide less subject isolation and need to bump more the isos. The price is good in both cases. The sharpness is the same and for practical purpose, there is no big difference between 16 & 17mm.

Agree that the 55-300 is good lens too ! Just don't ask it too much.
Yep, the 16-45 is good as an allround lens, but I agree that it might be a tad slow for isolating the subject. Supplementing with a 35/2.4 or a 50/1.8 could be an idea - even with a 17-50/2.8 in the bag.
08-18-2014, 08:56 PM   #23
Veteran Member
kkoether's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 575
There's no way I would have ever cropped a shot that tight with my K200D. Not enough pixels. It's not as sharp as it maybe could have been but still it was pretty impressive to me. Here's another shot at 300mm with the boat moving slower and left to right. Easier to catch focus for sure. No crop on this shot.





I'm still developing my technique with the K-3. It's miles beyond what my K200D is capable of. Note to self....... stay less than 300mm to get a sharper picture. The lens does go a bit soft at 300mm.

08-18-2014, 11:02 PM   #24
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
Of course a DA*50-135 is a lot better than a DA55-300. Anything else would be tragic on behalf of the DA*, and for everybody who has paid the premium to get one. But I still disagree with your claim that there's no room for cropping on the 55-300. But fair enough, I suppose we just have vastly different standards for what is "good enough" for everyday use.



That's a different topic. For portraits you use a lens suited for portraits - like your suggestion for a 17-50/2.8 or a fast prime. Nobody's suggesting you should take a baby shot with the 55-300, and certainly not at ISO 20,000. The point, talking about long lenses, was that with today's cameras you can get a picture, almost no matter the speed of the lens. Or to put it another way: when it comes to long lenses there is quite a price to pay for better performance than the 55-300. In money, in bulk, and in weight.

As I said, I agree with almost everything you said in your previous post. Just not on the uncropability (if that were a word) of the 55-300.

Oh well. @manooti sorry for trampling all over your thread - hopefully our little disagreement contains some bits of value to you

Haha. I'm actually learning quite a bit on lenses. Carry on
08-19-2014, 02:28 PM   #25
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Original Poster
Just got my camera in.. it's great.

One problem. The battery is scratched. Small but for being new it should not be there.

Should I worry about the camera and lenses too?

Within a couple of hours I took close to 1000 photos. I like using everything on manual. Focus, aperture, iso and shutter. It's great. Now I see why I need a faster prime lense.

Would ebay be ok to purchase an old school fast prime?

Thanks for everyone's help on this. Also the hd recording isn't really bad at all. It beats my dedicated hd recorder hands down. Mic might be an issue outside though.
08-19-2014, 11:27 PM   #26
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,665
Congratulations!

Buying lenses on eBay is OK, but be careful. Do your research, bid low. Sometimes you will get junk, but most of the time you'll end up with nice stuff, and sometimes even at bargain prices.

It is safer buying here on the marketplace, though. Reasonable deals, few incredible bargains, but safer than the bay.

If you want to check the shutter count on your camera you can do so here.
08-20-2014, 02:29 AM   #27
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
Congratulations!

Buying lenses on eBay is OK, but be careful. Do your research, bid low. Sometimes you will get junk, but most of the time you'll end up with nice stuff, and sometimes even at bargain prices.

It is safer buying here on the marketplace, though. Reasonable deals, few incredible bargains, but safer than the bay.

If you want to check the shutter count on your camera you can do so here.

Thanks for that link it was amazing info. Thats all I need to hear about ebay lol. Just needed that extra push to stay away. I was planning on taking a trip to BH photo for some gear and maybe a lens or two. Will check out the market here too.
Lots of info in this thread about lenses but still not sure which one to go with. Mainly want 2, a telephoto and a low light indoor performer.
08-20-2014, 05:34 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,829
Craigslist (and other places) can be good sources for old lenses, too. Of course you might need to buy an older body and some now worthless accessories to get those lenses... But if you're generous you can donate the film bodies and old kit lenses etc. to local high schools which still teach photography.

Not everyone knows what they have in vintage gear, which can be good or bad - you'll need to be careful.
08-20-2014, 06:46 AM   #29
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
Craigslist (and other places) can be good sources for old lenses, too. Of course you might need to buy an older body and some now worthless accessories to get those lenses... But if you're generous you can donate the film bodies and old kit lenses etc. to local high schools which still teach photography.

Not everyone knows what they have in vintage gear, which can be good or bad - you'll need to be careful.
Ah I see. Was thinking maybe an adapter plate to fit current models. Like the m42 adapter for the canons.
Bh is looking better and better lol
08-20-2014, 07:27 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,829
All K-mount work fine. adapted lenses aren't as convenient but there are plenty of guys using M42 lenses on modern bodies - the dual-wheel bodies are well suited for full manual use. You will have to be adept at searching when looking at Craigslist, unless it says Pentax people might not know what the lens is for, and probably won't know how to figure it out. If it says Asahi or Takumar that's simple enough, but when looking at say Vivitar etc. it's a lot trickier. It just takes time, though, and maybe you buy a collection and have to resell most of it - or just skip it.
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!
135mm, 300mm, baby, camera, crop, flickr, k-3, lens, light, lot, pentax, pentax help, photography, shoot, subject
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New member, new to DSLR's. THatfield Welcomes and Introductions 7 01-27-2014 01:37 AM
People Berry picking herp photos Post Your Photos! 9 07-28-2013 11:04 PM
New here - new to pentax dslr's in genral mallory Welcomes and Introductions 7 05-22-2013 08:05 AM
Pentax DSLR photo sniper..new DSLR? John Hill Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 08-23-2012 02:52 AM
New to Pentax (and film cameras!) - help with picking out a flash to purchase? crankybird Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 3 01-24-2009 07:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 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