[ChristianRock]

Right, you can just go and sit in the corner and be grateful we don't wash your mouth out with soap. And there'll be no dinner for you tonight. Would you talk to your mother with that filthy mouth?

(It's probably a good thing I've never been a parent.)

On my defense, I said primitive not in a pejorative way. I'm into lots of things I call "primitive" but wouldn't trade for anything else in the world - my cast iron pans, for example. And cooking over an open fire - even at home (I use a firepit with a grill on it when I have the chance - anyone ever had hickory flame grilled steaks?).
There's even websites and youtube channels that talk about "primitive living" though I don't get too crazy about it. I'm not about to go self-sustained anytime soon... my wife wouldn't let me anyway, she enjoys the suburban life too much
Anyway, that was the context of my use of the word "primitive"... something that is basically considered out of fashion and something most people expect to stay in the past - but that doesn't speak about qualitative characteristics at all...

I'm assuming changing these setting changes focus, correct? They don't just fine-tune AF function while focus remains correct. If so, then I would print a test target and mount it on a wall and tripod the camera square to it and run through a range of setting and check the image for optimum focus. When found, infinity should work correctly also.

I was afraid to change that number too severely so maybe a larger number might actually be optimum.

Also...when adjusting focus this way, should I use a fast lens, like 50mm f/1.4 wide open?

I used my DA 35 2.4 and tested close focus to infinity and it all seemed fine - I don't have a lot of AF lenses and my SMC-F 50 1.7 has been in the K-S1 bag at home while the K10D stayed in the office where I work... but I plan on testing it again with the Sigma 30 1.4 because it's not seeing use at home - the DA 35 Limited has basically taken over its spot... but I bought the Sigma for the K10D anyway. A fast f1.4 normal is what a camera like the K10D needs to stay in low ISO shooting, and the Sigma is a perfect match for it. I've had lots of fun with it already.

[Dartmoor Dave]

On my defense, I said primitive not in a pejorative way. I'm into lots of things I call "primitive" but wouldn't trade for anything else in the world - my cast iron pans, for example. And cooking over an open fire - even at home (I use a firepit with a grill on it when I have the chance - anyone ever had hickory flame grilled steaks?).

There's even websites and youtube channels that talk about "primitive living" though I don't get too crazy about it. I'm not about to go self-sustained anytime soon... my wife wouldn't let me anyway, she enjoys the suburban life too much Anyway, that was the context of my use of the word "primitive"... something that is basically considered out of fashion and something most people expect to stay in the past - but that doesn't speak about qualitative characteristics at all...

I hadn't thought about it that way around, but you're right. Pretty much all the things that appeal to me in life could be categorised as "primitive" but in a positive way. And I've always loved what's called "naïve" art, where people with minds that haven't been welded shut by academic training respond honestly to the world around them. I wouldn't be insulted in the least if somebody called my snaps and my choice of gear "naïve photography".

[ChristianRock]

I hadn't thought about it that way around, but you're right. Pretty much all the things that appeal to me in life could be categorised as "primitive" but in a positive way. And I've always loved what's called "naïve" art, where people with minds that haven't been welded shut by academic training respond honestly to the world around them. I wouldn't be insulted in the least if somebody called my snaps and my choice of gear "naïve photography".

I agree and I would absolutely think the term "naïve art" would be a compliment to me if it were ever attributed to me.

My sister used to have what I would consider relative good taste in art. Then she went to painting and art classes for a few years and started liking all this garbage that I can't stand but I think she's mostly back to her senses now, as her arts studying was over 20 years ago...

[Wasp]

Shiny things.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Under the hawthorns with El Cheapo.

[paulh]

Under the hawthorns with El Cheapo.

Dave, you're getting some wonderful images with that setup!

From 5 years ago with a Sigma 17-70 DC macro: (at high noon, unfortunately)

[subsea]

Under the hawthorns with El Cheapo.

Dave, I'm beginning to think that I need one of those "El Cheapos". They don't happen to come with a few ponies, do they?

[rayallen]

Under the hawthorns with El Cheapo.

What a very peaceful and pleasant image to start my day with. You have really worked your magic on that one, Dave. You and El Cheapo make a wonderful team.

[ChristianRock]

What a very peaceful and pleasant image to start my day with. Ypu have really worked your magic on that one, Dave. You and El Cheapo make a wonderful team.

And don't forget the K10D... and the ponies I mean the props

Dave, you're getting some wonderful images with that setup!

From 5 years ago with a Sigma 17-70 DC macro: (at high noon, unfortunately)

What was the story with that Sigma again? When I first joined the Club here you seemed to post with it a lot. Then you went through a bunch of other standard zooms and seem to have settled on the 18-135 I think?

My DA 16-45 has developed a horrible decentering on the top right. I think it's because the "wobble" has gotten very bad with it. I'm still testing and it seems like if I hold the front of the lens in the right position, the softness goes away... still, I might need a new standard zoom soon. I'd like f4 or faster... so no El Cheapo for me, I am probably not as talented as Dave to make good use of it...

[Dartmoor Dave]

Thanks for the kind words, folks.

Christian, I'm sorry to hear about the decentring in your 16-45mm. The wobbly front barrel used to worry me when I had mine, but it was the lens being fully extended at wide angle that I really didn't like. One day I was taking a wide angle shot that happened to have some people in it, and one of the women assumed from the extended lens that I was taking a sneaky telephoto shot of her and took exception. After that I was always nervous using the lens if there were people around, and I didn't keep it for long.

I'm very interested in the new 16-50mm that's just been announced, although it'll be out of my price range at first. Prices for the older 16-50mm are likely to drop though, so I'll be keeping an eye on ebay for one of them.

[paulh]

What was the story with that Sigma again? When I first joined the Club here you seemed to post with it a lot. Then you went through a bunch of other standard zooms and seem to have settled on the 18-135 I think?

My first-version 17-70 was a pristine copy I'd purchased from PF member SpecialK years ago. Sadly, that lens and a few other things were sold on when we were trying to dig out from an avalanche of medical bills But I only had it for a year or so. Before that, my Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90 macro served as my everyday lens, and it served me pretty well. I used it, various primes and the 18-55 for awhile before I got the 16-45, which I'm very happy with. I finally ended up with the 18-135 last year as my daily driver.

[ChristianRock]

My first-version 17-70 was a pristine copy I'd purchased from PF member SpecialK years ago. Sadly, that lens and a few other things were sold on when we were trying to dig out from an avalanche of medical bills But I only had it for a year or so. Before that, my Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90 macro served as my everyday lens, and it served me pretty well. I used it, various primes and the 18-55 for awhile before I got the 16-45, which I'm very happy with. I finally ended up with the 18-135 last year as my daily driver.

Ah, so you didn't sell it because you didn't like it. I was wondering about that. I had to sell my best guitar once because of medical bills and have never since bought anything as nice... but anyway.

Ideally I'd get myself another 16-45 as I love the sharpness and the bold colors, but if mine is having this issue mainly because of build quality, that makes me a bit uneasy.

The old Sigma 18-70 2.8-4.5 sells quite cheap, about the same as the 16-45. I'm still not a big fan of the 18-135 and I do like the DA 17-70 but its SDM fails often... I've been looking at Tamron and Sigma 17-50 2.8 lenses as well, but a lot of the Tamrons are being sold cheap because of issues caused by its poor build quality. The Sigma 17-50 is quite big.

Anyway. Thanks for helping a bit with my thought process. Honestly I think that old 17-70 had quite a good reputation back in the day and I thing its pictures are a bit more "alive" than the newer Contemporary version - which in the hands of a good photographer like our Club's own Ray is capable of wonderful results as well. But the used copies cost more than the 17-50 2.8 usually...

[paulh]

Ah, so you didn't sell it because you didn't like it.

Not at all - it's a great zoom, and if I found another v.1 at the right price I might snap it up Sorry about your troubles with the 16-45 - a case of great optics in a not-so-great package.

[rayallen]

in the hands of a good photographer like our Club's own Ray is capable of wonderful results as well. But the used copies cost more than the 17-50 2.8 usually...

Thank you for the special mention, CR. My only Sigma 17-70 experience is with the Contemporary version and I could not be happier with it. I bought it as an upgrade from my WR 18-55 and it has fulfilled that role very well.
In fact, I have just been out and have taken a few images with it on the K10D. I love its silent focussing. And the build quality is first class.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Has anyone done (or would be willing to do) some comparison shots between the Sigma 17-70mm and the Pentax 18-55mm? By comparison shots, I mean photos taken in a real-world photography situation to show differences in rendering styles rather than just sharpness.