Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2016, 12:35 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
I would like to add:

OP has lenses covering 16mm to 300mm, a fast fifty, and one of the best and most versatile macro lenses I've ever used (I know because I own the SMC version). They don't need any more glass until they've taken those 20,000 pics I mentioned above and assessed where their best shots are clustering and whether anything is to be gained from buying more (particularly when it comes to expensive primes).

Most of the lenses I'm buying now are for my film bodies, because I've taken a look at the fairly large amount of shooting I'm doing and assessed where the gaps in my armamentarium are and what I need to either get shots I wasn't getting before or get the same shots with far less effort (which makes getting them more fun, so I can think more about how to jazz them up a little and struggle less with just making them in the first place). Most of what I'm buying now is filters, lens hoods... I've spent the last couple of months with a deglassed tele-extender which makes any of my lenses a macro (or at least ultra close focus) if that's what I want. I even deferred my (fully wife-authorised, LOL) purchase of the K-1 because I don't really need it at the moment, and I have the option between now and my birthday to handle one in a store and decide whether I even WANT it.

I know exactly what I want out of that camera - I've had a vague and increasingly firm notion ever since we were given a clear look at the control layout - and that along with all the other stuff it has will be enough to make me buy it IF the tactile reality matches my expectations.

If not, however, I know what several shoots in the theatre in my home town have taught me about the best single lens for that scenario. If in-store handling of the K-1 disappoints, a DA*50-135 is coming home with me instead: a specific lens for a specific need, based on hundreds of shots on multiple occasions under real-world conditions. THAT is how you decide to buy a lens - or any equipment, for that matter.
Thanks for the insight!

---------- Post added 12-23-16 at 01:37 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've quite enjoyed a number of 55-300 images. I wouldn't really consider the 300 4 unless you're planning to use it with a TC, where the extra sharpness might make a difference.



You could start your FA ltds collection, 31, 43 and 77, which could be a segue into suggesting some fast glass. But, the first thing I'd do would be analyze what images you have to find out what you use most. You've covered the basics. Covering "specifics" with high end glass, should be a little less experimental and a little more based on useage.
Thanks, those Limiteds you mentioned are the cream of the crop and priced accordingly.

---------- Post added 12-23-16 at 01:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I would disagree with the above.... shooting side by side with other shooters, I've seen the difference a filter can make, especially with regards to having a blue sky with puffy white clouds as opposed to blown out white cloudless sky, shooting the same scene, although, we do use polarizers, not UV on most of our landscape lenses.
So are UV filters worthless?

12-23-2016, 03:06 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,279
There is a great debate over UV filters. For film, they actually made a difference; for digital, the way the sensor responds (or doesn't) to UV makes them less of an issue from that perspective. But a filter sacrificed itself for the front element of my DA18-250 a few years back, and so I am more or less a believer. If you're going to shove your lenses near things and places you'd rather the front element didn't get exposed to (e.g. dogs, the grasp of small, sticky fingers on babies and small children, flying gravel at trailbike races), a filter is not a bad idea.

I use them on many of my older lenses because they also see use on film cameras. A lot. And because three of those lenses were once the property of my late father in law, and what my wife will do to me if the front elements get scratched where they might otherwise have escaped unscathed doesn't bear thinking about.
12-23-2016, 03:22 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,578
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
There is a great debate over UV filters. For film, they actually made a difference; for digital, the way the sensor responds (or doesn't) to UV makes them less of an issue from that perspective. But a filter sacrificed itself for the front element of my DA18-250 a few years back, and so I am more or less a believer. If you're going to shove your lenses near things and places you'd rather the front element didn't get exposed to (e.g. dogs, the grasp of small, sticky fingers on babies and small children, flying gravel at trailbike races), a filter is not a bad idea.

I use them on many of my older lenses because they also see use on film cameras. A lot. And because three of those lenses were once the property of my late father in law, and what my wife will do to me if the front elements get scratched where they might otherwise have escaped unscathed doesn't bear thinking about.
I am much happier with a filter on the front, because sooner or later my greasy fingers get on everything, and I'd much rather it was a filter. I'd be interested in seeing an actual test that would demonstrate how much a filter scouts you if anything. With a good filter, I'm willing to believe there are bad filters just like there are bad lenses, or at least, there used to be.

Last edited by normhead; 12-23-2016 at 03:47 PM.
12-23-2016, 03:34 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,173
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With a good filter, I'm willing to believe there are bad filters just like there are bad lenses, or at least, there used to be.
Have you seen this? https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/ It's extreme, but the comparison of the stacks of good filters with bad filters is interesting (as is the origin of their bad filter stack).

I'm in the "no filter unless under attack by sea spray" camp, but to each their own. As long as you're aware of issues they may cause (the biggest one for me was ghosting flare), and are ready to deal with it or know it's not a problem you'll run into, go nuts

12-23-2016, 03:49 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,578
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Have you seen this? https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/ It's extreme, but the comparison of the stacks of good filters with bad filters is interesting (as is the origin of their bad filter stack).

I'm in the "no filter unless under attack by sea spray" camp, but to each their own. As long as you're aware of issues they may cause (the biggest one for me was ghosting flare), and are ready to deal with it or know it's not a problem you'll run into, go nuts
Someone whip me up a demo. My FA 28-200 has an old "Skylight" filter on it. Honest, it makes digital look like film. It's better than any Photoshop type filter I've seen to give you that "film look". Makes you wonder how much of that "film look" was caused by bad filters.
12-24-2016, 12:50 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,173
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Someone whip me up a demo. My FA 28-200 has an old "Skylight" filter on it. Honest, it makes digital look like film. It's better than any Photoshop type filter I've seen to give you that "film look". Makes you wonder how much of that "film look" was caused by bad filters.
Cross posted in another thread, I was lazy and did a couple things at once. The last column show the awesomeness a $4 UV filter will get you on a k5iis + DA*300mm (MLU = Mirror Lock Up). It looks like stopping down makes things even worse. The UV filter shots also had a couple of extra trials as I couldn't believe how bad they were.

This filter has a purpose, there was speculation a few months back about some weird rings that turn up in some Northern Lights photos caused by UV filters (or not), so I wanted to try for myself and went for the cheapest UV filter I could find. All I need now are Northern Lights and I'm in business. A side benefit was learning that if you are going with a full time UV filter, definitely do not cheap out on it.

12-24-2016, 11:49 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
Interesting I had no idea filters played such a large role. I do suffer from LBA, a 15mm was now ordered too. I must stop for a while!
12-28-2016, 09:47 PM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
Finally got out to shooting yesterday at sunset. Took a handful of good shots out of 50 with the 35mm Limited, from scenery/landscapes to portraits to close ups it is a hell of lens. It was just 30 degrees and not snowing which means I didn't need the WR lenses, which challenged me to walk to get the photos instead of zooming. Also shot some indoors playing with DOF on the 50mm and bokeh. Along with several with the 16-85mm and one on the 55-300. I hope to shoot some with the 16-85mm more, 15mm Limited that I could not resist (on the way) and 55-300mm this weekend if weather allows. Also will break out the new tripod. Hope to post a couple in the thread this weekend too.

Now I have to save up for the next flagship APS-C Pentax K3 II replacement and decide on what to get next spring/summer the 100mm Macro and/or a 300 F4. Hmmmm decisions... I will get the good JPEGs in Lightroom and up this weekend from yesterday. Then you can all let me have it and tell me my equipment is too good for me!

12-29-2016, 09:29 AM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,279
QuoteOriginally posted by gm4life Quote
decide on what to get next spring/summer the 100mm Macro and/or a 300 F4.
Now that I have the 35 Macro for close ups and an 18-135 for wet weather on the K-5, my 100 Macro doesn't see much use. I'm hanging on to it sort of out of inertia and sort of out of interest to see how it performs on a K-1 when I eventually buy one. Unless you're avidly chasing after creepy-crawly creatures in moist and dank places, it's not the best choice IMO. Its strengths include the WR and really good build and image quality, plus being compatible with film on those bodies that can directly control the aperture. Weaknesses include a dreadful tendency to hunt (it ought to have had a focus limiter) and noisiness while doing so. Quick Shift isn't a luxury on this lens; it's a necessity.

In short, if your 100/2.8 vs 300/4 decision is on a knife edge with nothing in particular to favour either, I would lean towards the 300/4 and get the extra stop and a bit over the 55-300 at the long end. But if things that creep and slither are your major interest, the 100 is the way to go.

The 35, OTOH - if I had to nominate one lens to not be a disaster if it got stuck forever on my K-5, that would have to be it; normal FOV on APS-C, tolerably fast (2.8), ultra close to infinity focus, sharp as hell... there's nothing not to like, except that it doesn't quite cut it on full frame. I have the SMC version and I am content. If they reworked it into a D-FA Limited Macro with weather seals and full-frame coverage I'd seriously think about changing up.
12-30-2016, 12:10 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Now that I have the 35 Macro for close ups and an 18-135 for wet weather on the K-5, my 100 Macro doesn't see much use. I'm hanging on to it sort of out of inertia and sort of out of interest to see how it performs on a K-1 when I eventually buy one. Unless you're avidly chasing after creepy-crawly creatures in moist and dank places, it's not the best choice IMO. Its strengths include the WR and really good build and image quality, plus being compatible with film on those bodies that can directly control the aperture. Weaknesses include a dreadful tendency to hunt (it ought to have had a focus limiter) and noisiness while doing so. Quick Shift isn't a luxury on this lens; it's a necessity.
I'd agree with your entire post, spot on. Wrt to the DA100 though, I can confirm its a transformed lens on the K-1. The hunting behaviour is more or less eradicated in all but the lowest light, and you can now do hand held macros with AF, without swearing every other second. On apsc though, I think the DA35 macro is a better lens for most people (unless, as you say, creepy crawlies are your thing)

The DA300 is also fantastic on the K-1. So if you're looking to build up a lens collection to make the jump to the K-1 in the future, then either the 100 or 300 are good options. I'd agree though, the DA300 on the k-3 is a nicer to use lens than the 100 on the k-3.
12-30-2016, 01:35 AM   #41
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,563
QuoteOriginally posted by gm4life Quote
decide on what to get next spring/summer the 100mm Macro and/or a 300 F4
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
In short, if your 100/2.8 vs 300/4 decision is on a knife edge with nothing in particular to favour either, I would lean towards the 300/4 and get the extra stop and a bit over the 55-300 at the long end. But if things that creep and slither are your major interest, the 100 is the way to go.
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
the DA300 on the k-3 is a nicer to use lens than the 100 on the k-3.
I've got the FA*300 f4.5 rather than DA*300 f4, as well as the DFA 100 WR. I use the 300 more, because I lean to birds and wildlife shots, but I love both lenses. They are both really really sharp, do lovely colours, pleasant bokeh - each is a 10/10 for me (optically anyway - yes the AF hunts on the 100).

I agree that it depends on what you shoot. I prefer the 100 for flowers, insects and pets, and it is more verstatile for landscapes than the 300. I have used the 100 for birds when they are not far away, but it's not a substitute for the 300 in that regard. The 300 can do good flower shots too, and it's underrated for dramatic landscapes.

The 300 is worthwhile as a step up from the 55-300, even in good light; in less favourable conditions, or when a lot of cropping is required, it is way ahead. But if you only shoot birds/wildlife once in a while, it is probably an extravagance.

I guess I'm atypical (or mainly a tele guy) but I don't use my DA35 f2.4 a whole lot. I gravitate towards wider or longer.

As a general comment, if you have good zooms that cover a wide range of focal length, I figure that a prime has to offer something worthwhile for you that the zoom can't: e.g. faster aperture (FA 43, FA 77, DFA 100, FA*300), corner to corner sharpness (DA 35, DFA 100), really stellar centre sharpness (FA 43, FA 77, DFA 100, FA 300), 3D pop (FA Ltds, and maybe the 100 and 300), really attractive bokeh (FA 77), focal length that isn't covered (400), compactness and light weight (DA 35) or whatever. I've got 6 primes (and a 7th on the way) on that basis, but there are two of those that are probably marginal: DA 35 (does it give me that much more than the DA 18-135 and FA 43?) and Sigma 400 (compared to the FA*300+TC).

Last edited by Des; 12-30-2016 at 03:55 AM.
01-01-2017, 04:16 PM - 1 Like   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
Well the photographs are up on Photobucket, and I am now just getting around to posting them... All taken with the K3 II and no post image processing just resized to 1000 pixels.

Two photos below take with the DA SMC 50...





Next two photos below taken with the DA HD 16-85 at 85mm...





The next 12 were taken with the DA HD 35 Macro Limited...

























---------- Post added 01-01-17 at 05:23 PM ----------

A few more...

Next five taken with the DA HD 35 Macro Limited...











One low light snap from DA HD 55-300 at 300mm...



The final 15 are with the DA HD 15 Limited...



























01-01-2017, 06:11 PM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,371
As a photographic image, my favorite is your first outdoor shot with the shallow depth of field of the two Maraschino cherries. I like how they are a metaphor and how the bokeh shapes match their shape in the background. Technically, Iʻd suggest a square crop to eliminate the bright white area to the left and to use the rule of thirds on the subject. In terms of subject/content, itʻs almost impossible to ignore that the cherries were put there, making it staged and unnatural...which is fine for a CD cover or a meme, but it does affect the integrity of the image.
01-01-2017, 08:35 PM - 1 Like   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
As a photographic image, my favorite is your first outdoor shot with the shallow depth of field of the two Maraschino cherries. I like how they are a metaphor and how the bokeh shapes match their shape in the background. Technically, Iʻd suggest a square crop to eliminate the bright white area to the left and to use the rule of thirds on the subject. In terms of subject/content, itʻs almost impossible to ignore that the cherries were put there, making it staged and unnatural...which is fine for a CD cover or a meme, but it does affect the integrity of the image.
Those actually aren't cherries and are red berries that are natural the birds eat them all winter! I wish I had a cherry tree!!! Hopefully I am not a terrible photographer and have some potential.

---------- Post added 01-01-17 at 09:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Now that I have the 35 Macro for close ups and an 18-135 for wet weather on the K-5, my 100 Macro doesn't see much use. I'm hanging on to it sort of out of inertia and sort of out of interest to see how it performs on a K-1 when I eventually buy one. Unless you're avidly chasing after creepy-crawly creatures in moist and dank places, it's not the best choice IMO. Its strengths include the WR and really good build and image quality, plus being compatible with film on those bodies that can directly control the aperture. Weaknesses include a dreadful tendency to hunt (it ought to have had a focus limiter) and noisiness while doing so. Quick Shift isn't a luxury on this lens; it's a necessity.

In short, if your 100/2.8 vs 300/4 decision is on a knife edge with nothing in particular to favour either, I would lean towards the 300/4 and get the extra stop and a bit over the 55-300 at the long end. But if things that creep and slither are your major interest, the 100 is the way to go.

The 35, OTOH - if I had to nominate one lens to not be a disaster if it got stuck forever on my K-5, that would have to be it; normal FOV on APS-C, tolerably fast (2.8), ultra close to infinity focus, sharp as hell... there's nothing not to like, except that it doesn't quite cut it on full frame. I have the SMC version and I am content. If they reworked it into a D-FA Limited Macro with weather seals and full-frame coverage I'd seriously think about changing up.
Thanks great thoughts. I am not saying a 300 F4 is the only one on the list, I still would like the 100 Macro, would be a good portrait lens too. I do think I will get the 300 F4 first but who knows. Need to see the next APS-C flagship from Pentax before I finally decide. But I think you are onto something especially since I have the 35!

With regard to having one lens on a body I have to agree the great 35 Macro Limited is a honey of piece of glass. Although I do really like the 15 Limited too. You can make landscapes, portraits, close ups, street photography all work with it. Really a nice classic "50."

The other thing I loved was the 15mm gave an incrediblely wide photo but didn't feel "fishy" at all. Not a lot of distortion either just an incredibly sharp wide angle that isn't too huge for a moderately sized camera bag.

Last edited by gm4life; 01-01-2017 at 08:51 PM.
01-02-2017, 09:48 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 597
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
I'd agree with your entire post, spot on. Wrt to the DA100 though, I can confirm its a transformed lens on the K-1. The hunting behaviour is more or less eradicated in all but the lowest light, and you can now do hand held macros with AF, without swearing every other second. On apsc though, I think the DA35 macro is a better lens for most people (unless, as you say, creepy crawlies are your thing)

The DA300 is also fantastic on the K-1. So if you're looking to build up a lens collection to make the jump to the K-1 in the future, then either the 100 or 300 are good options. I'd agree though, the DA300 on the k-3 is a nicer to use lens than the 100 on the k-3.
Thank you for the thoughts. The other two pieces of glass I am considering in place of the 100MM Macro and 300 F4 is a 55 F1.4 and a 200 F2.8. The thing I like about the 55 is that it is very fast piece of glass and in line price wise with the 100 Macro. Since I already have the 35 LTD it is a thought and I am sure it would shoot the pants off of my 50 DA for portraits etc, it is nearly the perfect focal length. If I wanted something faster than the F4 on the 300 a 200 F 2.8 is slightly more compact and is VERY fast - might not be a bad option... I am not buying any of these today or tomorrow just food for thought.

No matter what road I go, I am looking at another 1,500 or so in glass... At that point I feel I would have plenty of sharp primes to compliment my zooms, along with them being faster lenses... I am at least trying to think through this.

Anyways if you had to select two from the following group what would you all get...?

Moderate Telephoto to be used for portraits, low light etc. Must be tack sharp and have good bokeh...

100mm F 2.8 Macro
55mm F 1.4 *

Longer Telephoto to be used for wildlife, birds etc... Would prefer to have something good for limited lighting...

200mm F 2.8 *
300mm F 4 *

Let me know also keep the thoughts coming on my currently posted pictures. Also how big of a deal is this SDM failure? If I am forking that much more out for glass I need to know.

---------- Post added 01-02-17 at 10:56 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
I'd agree with your entire post, spot on. Wrt to the DA100 though, I can confirm its a transformed lens on the K-1. The hunting behaviour is more or less eradicated in all but the lowest light, and you can now do hand held macros with AF, without swearing every other second. On apsc though, I think the DA35 macro is a better lens for most people (unless, as you say, creepy crawlies are your thing)

The DA300 is also fantastic on the K-1. So if you're looking to build up a lens collection to make the jump to the K-1 in the future, then either the 100 or 300 are good options. I'd agree though, the DA300 on the k-3 is a nicer to use lens than the 100 on the k-3.
Thanks for the thoughts... Now to make things interesting I am considering the 55mm F1.4 and 200mm F 2.8 as well. I will likely end up with either a 100mm Macro of a 55mm F1.4 and a 200mm F2.8 or a 300mm F4. Decisions the decisions. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

I am not doing this today or tomorrow likely in the coming months. i am going to snap with what I have for now!

Last edited by gm4life; 01-02-2017 at 09:57 PM.
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!
bag, books, camera, da, filter, filters, flash, glass, hd, hood, lens, lot, lowepro, money, pentax, pentax help, photography, photos, post, protection, pse, software, tripod, troubleshooting, uv, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So where does the Q go from here? barondla Pentax Q 56 06-08-2014 06:54 PM
where to go from here ehriking Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 05-23-2014 07:42 AM
Where do I go from here? spectamaniac Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 03-24-2014 11:32 PM
Second flash.... Where to go from here? Javaslinger Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 11-28-2012 03:57 PM
Landscape Best of 2010, Where Do We Go From Here? Clinton Post Your Photos! 2 01-09-2012 06:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 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