Originally posted by Daedbird Good shots, and just goes to show that the photographer and the lens are just as important as the camera body.
I am glad to see that with the 85mm......Oh how I wish Pentax would release a spiritual successor to the A* 85mm 1.4......I would buy, potentially whatever price it may be...
Thank you! Yes, I was able to get some pretty sharp results with the Rokinon 85, but I admit it's like pulling teeth. The margin for error -- even at f/4 or so -- is so, so slim. I wear my "manual focus lens" badge with pride, but I wouldn't have minded a little AF help during a few parts of the concert
.
Here's another for good measure in case anyone is thinking about this body/lens combo:
I blew out the highlights a bit and would've liked to have the Fender in better focus, but I was really happy with the low noise overall and sharpness of his fedora! This was ISO 1600, 1/125 and around f/4 (EXIF isn't captured for aperture with this lens). Shake Reduction was turned off, as I find it's not that helpful with a non-stationery subject. (Learned that from someone here and can't for the life of me remember who it was that suggested turning it off.)
P.S. Just wanted to clarify from above that the person talking up Canon/Nikon and/or "it must be the light" wasn't the house photographer. It was another viewer posting underneath his gallery (and then mine) on a Facebook page. The house shooter was very helpful, willing to share space, etc., so I don't want to inadvertently knock him.