[Alex645]

I'm confused by your statement - he was using the FA* 80-200 f/2.8 the lens you recommended isn't any faster.

True, both his lens and the last resort that I mentioned are f/2.8, but f/stops only represent the focal length divided by the aperture diameter. You can have two different f/2.8 lenses of different design quality with different light transmission values.

His 80-200mm FA* is an outstanding zoom designed for full frame film. However, there is a reason Pentax came out with a 70-200mm DFA* other than AF speed and slightly greater zoom range. Two ED and two super ED elements and Aerobright II nano-coating on all inner elements is there mostly for digital sensors that have less tolerance than film emulsion when it comes to chromatic aberration, resolution, and other parameters.

I started photography learning f/stops and my formal education ended learning cinematography with T/stops. If for some reason someone wanted to use a K1 system with these lenses, they would have to test the lenses for actual light transmission and set the aperture to T/stops.

I know many of us are not DXOmark fans, but they are one place where you can see their measured transmission value on identical max aperture lenses are different. The DA* 300mm at f/4 has a higher light transmission value of 4.4 whereas the DA 18-270mm at f/3.5 (which should clearly transmit more light) transmits less light at a 5.7 value.

[telesto]

Thanks to everyone for the great feedback! The general consensus seems to be that the pictures were too dark and the sensor noise caused the grainyness, which was more noticeable in the darker blue/black colors. Ok, so next time I put the EV offset to +1 and crank up the ISO until the EV meter is centered. Ironically, I was trying NOT to crank up the ISO for fear of noise, but it seems I took the wrong path and the noise got me anyway :/


I did have Noise Reduction on in the camera, and generally speaking, I would like to get a good JPEG straight out of the camera, as I'm not too good (or really like) post-processing. Right now, I'm shooting in JPEG+RAW so that if I get a "Wow!" picture I can play around with it later and see if it can be made better, but generally speaking, I'm not a pro and basically just want some nice pics for myself and to learn a bit about photography in the process. If anyone wants to have a closer look or play around with one of the RAW files, here is one:

https://www.mycloud.ch/s/S00662DEB01D3FE27CEDB60F95FDF901EB87A01F4DC


The rink was at a training hall, which is fairly new (less than 10 years), and the lighting wasn't too bad compared to some other rinks I've been to, but for sure not as well lit as say a NHL arena.

[UncleVanya]

The idea would be to bump the ISO to the point that f/2.8 at ~1/500 second is giving a good exposure, and then adjust for the colour noise during raw conversion. My experience is that I get less noise by raising the ISO while shooting than I do by raising the shadows in post. Also, a gentle massaging with a noise reduction during raw conversion can do wonders.

The confusion isn't related to that. The suggestion that the 70-200 dfa is a stop faster than the FA 80-200 was what I called out.

[UncleVanya]

True, both his lens and the last resort that I mentioned are f/2.8, but f/stops only represent the focal length divided by the aperture diameter. You can have two different f/2.8 lenses of different design quality with different light transmission values.

His 80-200mm FA* is an outstanding zoom designed for full frame film. However, there is a reason Pentax came out with a 70-200mm DFA* other than AF speed and slightly greater zoom range. Two ED and two super ED elements and Aerobright II nano-coating on all inner elements is there mostly for digital sensors that have less tolerance than film emulsion when it comes to chromatic aberration, resolution, and other parameters.

I started photography learning f/stops and my formal education ended learning cinematography with T/stops. If for some reason someone wanted to use a K1 system with these lenses, they would have to test the lenses for actual light transmission and set the aperture to T/stops.

I know many of us are not DXOmark fans, but they are one place where you can see their measured transmission value on identical max aperture lenses are different. The DA* 300mm at f/4 has a higher light transmission value of 4.4 whereas the DA 18-270mm at f/3.5 (which should clearly transmit more light) transmits less light at a 5.7 value.

Um... No. The da 18-270 isn't f3.5 constant. Your confusing several issues.

[Wheatfield]

The confusion isn't related to that. The suggestion that the 70-200 dfa is a stop faster than the FA 80-200 was what I called out.

Oh. I wasn't paying that any mind at all.

[Alex645]

Um... No. The da 18-270 isn't f3.5 constant. Your confusing several issues.

Correct it isn't f/3.5 constant, but when tested at f/3.5 the transmission of the DA 18-270 is less than the DA* 300mm at f/4. When they test a lens for transmission, they aren't changing focal lengths and max apertures.
Sorry if this is not clear or if I'm not explaining it clearly, but I am not confusing several issues.

IF f/stops were a completely accurate measure of light transmitted, T/stops wouldn't exist. But it's all about tolerance and what is an acceptable tolerance for one user and application may be unacceptable for another user in a different application.

[UncleVanya]

Correct it isn't f/3.5 constant, but when tested at f/3.5 the transmission of the DA 18-270 is less than the DA* 300mm at f/4. When they test a lens for transmission, they aren't changing focal lengths and max apertures.
Sorry if this is not clear or if I'm not explaining it clearly, but I am not confusing several issues.

IF f/stops were a completely accurate measure of light transmitted, T/stops wouldn't exist. But it's all about tolerance and what is an acceptable tolerance for one user and application may be unacceptable for another user in a different application.

Please supply a link. I'm flabbergasted as t stop differences are typically are not more than a stop (3.5 to 5.7 is about 1 and 1/3 stops) and most often less. But I apologize that I misunderstood your point.

Bear in mind that the fa* 80-200 is a very good design and while not equal to the dfa it is highly unlikely that it is more than a fraction of a stop difference. I can report that the da* 200 and the FA* 80-200 at f2.8 metered the same in my head to head shooting.

[Alex645]

Please supply a link. I'm flabbergasted as t stop differences are typically are not more than a stop (3.5 to 5.7 is about 1 and 1/3 stops) and most often less. But I apologize that I misunderstood your point.

Bear in mind that the fa* 80-200 is a very good design and while not equal to the dfa it is highly unlikely that it is more than a fraction of a stop difference. I can report that the da* 200 and the FA* 80-200 at f2.8 metered the same in my head to head shooting.

DXOmark is far from complete and does not include tests with a K-1. Here is a link that explains how they determine transmission values, and it is done across all full stop apertures.
DxOMark lens testing protocol and scores - DXOMARK

Here is the link that shows all the telephoto data including transmission values.
Lenses Database - DxOMark
(you may need to set the filters to see the results for Pentax KAF and telephoto lenses)

Pentax SMC DA* 200mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM = 3.1 transmission value
Pentax SMC DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 ED SDM = 5.7 transmission value
In this extreme example, it's over 1.5EV difference at the same aperture.

What would be really helpful to know is a transmission comparison between the FA* 80-200mm @ f/2.8 vs. DFA* 70-200mm @ f/2.8.

[WorksAsIntended]

So I had a chance too have a quick look at the raw. The noise is perfectly normal and mainly pushed because of underexposure.

Here is a quick n dirty developed version, although I got to say I am currently on a not callibrated laptop screen, so maybe I made a bad wb, I often get to "yellow" images on it. The exposure is pushed 1.2 ev. I also noticed strong vignetting in the raw file. Do you use a non original lens hood? I have not used a 80-200 in eight years, but I do not remember it this way.

The noise can be easily removed to a certain degree and the loss of details is marginable, also because the face is not "tad sharp" anyway, but still totally fine to me. I mean, a picture is to be looked at, not to be zoomed in imho.

You can right click it and download the file to get the full resolution file. I usually do not take 100% jpg quality but 96%, which is totally fine and less big, but in this case I just gave it all for demonstration purposes.

[telesto]

The exposure is pushed 1.2 ev. I also noticed strong vignetting in the raw file. Do you use a non original lens hood? I have not used a 80-200 in eight years, but I do not remember it this way.

Thanks, yea, ok, I was under-exposed. I'll set my EV meter to +1 next time. As for vignetting, yea, I noticed that also a bit with this lens, maybe the lens a little defective? Altho I think I didn't have a lens hood on at all. I guess that will help? I don't have the original, but one of those rubber collapseable ones, which is nice for when I'm at ice-level to put up against the glass to cut the glare out. The rubber is flexible and I can push it up to the glass nicely.

[WorksAsIntended]

Thanks, yea, ok, I was under-exposed. I'll set my EV meter to +1 next time. As for vignetting, yea, I noticed that also a bit with this lens, maybe the lens a little defective? Altho I think I didn't have a lens hood on at all. I guess that will help? I don't have the original, but one of those rubber collapseable ones, which is nice for when I'm at ice-level to put up against the glass to cut the glare out. The rubber is flexible and I can push it up to the glass nicely.

A lens hood does not help against vignetting but one that is too narrow will produce some.
Now that I thought of it I realized my own comparison does not make sense at all, because 8 years back I used the 80-200 on aps-c or film, not on digital ff where vignetting is more of a thing of course.
Maybe someone here owns the FA* and K1 and can comment on the vignetting?

[Alex645]

As for vignetting, yea, I noticed that also a bit with this lens, maybe the lens a little defective? Altho I think I didn't have a lens hood on at all. I guess that will help?

It is common for zoom lens at the largest aperture to vignette. Your lens is not defective; it's a design issue. Jpegs processing in camera corrects for this, but you will see it in the RAW file. This is one of the qualities that were improved (but not eliminated) with the DFA* 70-200mm f/2.8.

A lens hood would not fix this. It's mentioned because a hood that is too deep for the focal length, or a round one instead of a tulip could cause vignetting.

Most of us are not bothered by the vignetting unless you have a very light, plain background like ice or snow that really shows it. I have a wide angle prime that vignettes a lot, but I didn't notice it until I used it at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.....very white salt similar looking to ice or snow.

[mikesbike]

Thanks, yea, ok, I was under-exposed. I'll set my EV meter to +1 next time. As for vignetting, yea, I noticed that also a bit with this lens, maybe the lens a little defective? Altho I think I didn't have a lens hood on at all. I guess that will help? I don't have the original, but one of those rubber collapseable ones, which is nice for when I'm at ice-level to put up against the glass to cut the glare out. The rubber is flexible and I can push it up to the glass nicely.

The rubber lens hood sounds like a good idea. I know about refections when shooting through the protective plastic/glass barrier.

I don't see anything wrong with your learning more about camera light metering- how it works and what to expect it to do under various conditions. Your matrix multi-segment standard metering is usually just fine. But it is an automated system which can be fooled when dealing with certain tricky circumstances. It tries to read what is in the frame to determine an average lighting against the central area which is assumed to be the main subject location. It also tries to compensate for what it thinks is backlighting of the subject. If you are getting under or over exposure consistently with it, you can use your +/- compensation adjustment. However, there is no guarantee this will provide the precision you will need in all circumstances. Without being on location, accurately assessing the overall conditions is hardly possible for any of us.

One of the rinks I often have had to deal with has a side wall and a back wall at one end consisting of very large window areas, which would be in the background when shooting in that direction. This would completely change exposure if left in any AE mode setting or trying to accurately meter with them included in the frame and using the standard metering. At another part of the background, the skaters often pass in front of a sizable eating area with completely different lighting, then there is a large area of seating stands for spectators, and then of course other areas of plain walls and team seating. Such things are why other more precise metering alternatives, especially spot metering, are provided. You can bias the exposure by metering first so that proper exposure for the faces of the average players under the floor lighting is optimized. This is done by setting exposure using a mid-tone area or gray card under the exact lighting as the players. You can double check with test shots, but remember the rear LCD screen makes everything look brighter than it actually is. Then with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO kept stable by shooting in all-manual mode, your exposure will not change as environmental differences enter the frame. As long as the lighting on the players is constant, this will yield the best results. Then since you have manually set the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture to yield best exposure, as well as deliver what you need in order to deal with a fast-action scenario, you will then not likely need to make further adjustments using the +/- control.

Experience is the best teacher in learning how to do this precision fine-tuned exposure control, and also to know in advance when it will be needed.

[WorksAsIntended]

The rubber lens hood sounds like a good idea. I know about refections when shooting through the protective plastic/glass barrier.

I don't see anything wrong with your learning more about camera light metering- how it works and what to expect it to do under various conditions. Your matrix multi-segment standard metering is usually just fine. But it is an automated system which can be fooled when dealing with certain tricky circumstances. It tries to read what is in the frame to determine an average lighting against the central area which is assumed to be the main subject location. It also tries to compensate for what it thinks is backlighting of the subject. If you are getting under or over exposure consistently with it, you can use your +/- compensation adjustment. However, there is no guarantee this will provide the precision you will need in all circumstances. Without being on location, accurately assessing the overall conditions is hardly possible for any of us.

One of the rinks I often have had to deal with has a side wall and a back wall at one end consisting of very large window areas, which would be in the background when shooting in that direction. This would completely change exposure if left in any AE mode setting or trying to accurately meter with them included in the frame and using the standard metering. At another part of the background, the skaters often pass in front of a sizable eating area with completely different lighting, then there is a large area of seating stands for spectators, and then of course other areas of plain walls and team seating. Such things are why other more precise metering alternatives, especially spot metering, are provided. You can bias the exposure by metering first so that proper exposure for the faces of the average players under the floor lighting is optimized. This is done by setting exposure using a mid-tone area or gray card under the exact lighting as the players. You can double check with test shots, but remember the rear LCD screen makes everything look brighter than it actually is. Then with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO kept stable by shooting in all-manual mode, your exposure will not change as environmental differences enter the frame. As long as the lighting on the players is constant, this will yield the best results. Then since you have manually set the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture to yield best exposure, as well as deliver what you need in order to deal with a fast-action scenario, you will then not likely need to make further adjustments using the +/- control.

Experience is the best teacher in learning how to do this precision fine-tuned exposure control, and also to know in advance when it will be needed.

In addition I might add that the ability to read histograms is one worth to learn for such situations.
The back monitors Pentax (and most other companies) provide are imho bad to judge the exposure of the images. But you can always rely on the histogram to be working correctly.