[pearsaab]

Awesome work Amy! Are you using a tripod or monopod? With 2750mm at your disposal I guess using the house as a blind is possible

larry i need to look back...i may have used both but thinking the tripod...will look at pictures tonight and hopefully will remember

[ivoire]

3 with the vivitar 70-150mm

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[pearsaab]

michael great bif...is the king that color...pretty cool!!!

[pearsaab]

Awesome work Amy! Are you using a tripod or monopod? With 2750mm at your disposal I guess using the house as a blind is possible

larry these were done on the tripod...no handholding

[hnikesch]

3 with the vivitar 70-150mm

Nice BIF, I have yet to get a nice one with my Q, and what a colorful kingfisher, nice shots

Hans

[ivoire]

Amy and Hans... thats pretty much the color of the kingfisher in Goa. When it flew the wings were a brilliant blue. Very difficult to get it in flight as they are fast. I tried for 2 years to get KF pics in Florida with no success. Two showed up early morning in Goa and had to be shot at high iso

[IMG][IMG] [/IMG][/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[pearsaab]

Amy and Hans... thats pretty much the color of the kingfisher in Goa. When it flew the wings were a brilliant blue. Very difficult to get it in flight as they are fast. I tried for 2 years to get KF pics in Florida with no success. Two showed up early morning in Goa and had to be shot at high iso

[/url] [/IMG][/IMG]

[/url] [/IMG]

yep kingfishers here are fast too...the most frustrating bird i know and they are laughing at you the entire time

[ivoire]

and they are laughing at you the entire time

which makes it doubly annoying

[ChopperCharles]

This is a handy lens for APSC. It's reasonably sharp, gets closer than the 55-300, and unlike my 500mm mirror, actually produces more detail in an image than the 55-300. (500 mirror is murky and blurry in comparison, meaning that an image straight out of the camera taken at 300mm with the DAL55-300 lens actually looks better upscaled than the 500mm mirror looks, even after sharpening and contrast adjustments)

The Sharpshooter works well in APSC because it's light, and because the Kx and K-01 have such great high ISO sensitivity it's easily hand-holdable. It does have some CA though.

This CA is rather bad on the Q. The purple (and red/green for OOF areas) fringing at f6.3 is so bad it's hard to tell if you're looking at purple fringe, or focus peaking. It's better at f/8. Colors are surprisingly bold, rich, and saturated. I was expecting low contrast from what others have written about this lens, but I find it to be nice and contrasty. I will compare this to my 55-300 and 500mm mirror once sunlight conditions are similar (overcast today :/).

Overall, the fringing at f/8 is rather large and unfortunate. The lens is usable, but it's not really a good fit for the Q. Stopping down more than f/8 is going to decrease resolution, and I'm already shooting on a tripod at ISO800, in order to get shutter speeds right around 1/1000. That's still not hand-holdable on the Q, almost entirely due to the jello effect with the Fotodiox adapter. It's also easier to focus stopped down, because the fringing is so bad wide open that I can't tell what's fringe and what's peaking.

Anyhow, I paid $50 for the lens, and plan to use it on the K-01 more than the Q, so I'm not really upset. Not in the least


f/6.3


f8


Charles.

[VisualDarkness]

This is a handy lens for APSC. It's reasonably sharp, gets closer than the 55-300, and unlike my 500mm mirror, actually produces more detail in an image than the 55-300. (500 mirror is murky and blurry in comparison, meaning that an image straight out of the camera taken at 300mm with the DAL55-300 lens actually looks better upscaled than the 500mm mirror looks, even after sharpening and contrast adjustments)

The Sharpshooter works well in APSC because it's light, and because the Kx and K-01 have such great high ISO sensitivity it's easily hand-holdable. It does have some CA though.

This CA is rather bad on the Q. The purple (and red/green for OOF areas) fringing at f6.7 is so bad it's hard to tell if you're looking at purple fringe, or focus peaking. It's better at f/8. Colors are surprisingly bold, rich, and saturated. I was expecting low contrast from what others have written about this lens, but I find it to be nice and contrasty. I will compare this to my 55-300 and 500mm mirror once sunlight conditions are similar (overcast today :/).

Overall, the fringing at f/8 is rather large and unfortunate. The lens is usable, but it's not really a good fit for the Q. Stopping down more than f/8 is going to decrease resolution, and I'm already shooting on a tripod at ISO800, in order to get shutter speeds right around 1/1000. That's still not hand-holdable on the Q, almost entirely due to the jello effect with the Fotodiox adapter. It's also easier to focus stopped down, because the fringing is so bad wide open that I can't tell what's fringe and what's peaking.

Anyhow, I paid $50 for the lens, and plan to use it on the K-01 more than the Q, so I'm not really upset. Not in the least


f/6.7


f8


Charles.

The resolution and sharpness surprised me big time!

[ChopperCharles]

So, more tests with the Spiratone confirm, it's largely useless on the Q. In real world situations it is virtually impossible to focus, and while resolution looks good in the shots above, if it's impossible to focus, then that doesn't mean a damn thing. But not only focus, but at 2200mm the slightest vibration also makes the image useless. If the light is not good, shutter speed is too low. It really can't drop below 1/2000, even if teh tripod is planted on concrete. If the light is good, the fringing softens the image beyond usefulness.

Overall, for the Q the 55-300 is a better lens. I may try a moon shot with this setup, but... well, judge for yourself. This is the best of about 25 photos. While the above image looks great, real-world use ends up with images like this:



I was trying my best to nail focus on the words on the white box. Just couldn't get them in focus, in 25 or so shots. This is as close as I got, and it's not just a focus issue, I think it's focus, camera shake, and ghosting/fringing all rolled into a really bad image.

Charles.

[crewl1]

was trying my best to nail focus on the words on the white box. Just couldn't get them in focus, in 25 or so shots. This is as close as I got, and it's not just a focus issue, I think it's focus, camera shake, and ghosting/fringing all rolled into a really bad image. Charles.

Thanks for the follow up Charles. I also have a bunch of really nice shots of my neighbor's roof vents by lenses that don't do so well on birds with the Q

[ChopperCharles]

So far my favorite lens on the Q is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, followed closely by the FA100 f3.5 macro. I'll snag a 300 f4 one day, but really need to justify that expense first.

Charles.

[drougge]

I have a bunch of terrible, cheap CCTV lenses. Some of them aren't too bad though, and here I've compiled a test of two of them, one 2.8mm f/2 and one 4mm f/1.2.

Short summary:

• Both are CS mount (so you'll have to make your own adapter).
• Neither covers the sensor, but they are ok in square mode.
• Both have a lot of distortion.
• Neither is all that sharp.
• Both are decently fast.
• Neither will let you get the whole image in focus (too much field curvature).
• The 4mm has quite a bit of CA, the 2.8mm doesn't.
• The 4mm has a decent focus ring, the 2.8mm focuses by pushing against the front and turning.

First, a FOV comparison including some lenses you might be more familiar with.

2.8mm CCTV CS mount lens


4mm CCTV CS mount lens


Q 04 toy wide (6.3mm)


Q 01 standard prime (8.5mm)


DA16-45 @16mm on K5 (not cropped)



And now some sample images with each. All images clickable of course. Distortion is sometimes (partially) corrected. Also CA is sometimes corrected on the 4mm shots.

2.8mm f/2



4mm f/1.2


I thought I had already made a post about the 4mm, but I can't find it, so maybe not.

[pearsaab]

i got home in time to do some playing...tried to shoot the same shots with the sigma 500mm and the q with the p-k adapter setting 1 and the da300...some of the 500 i cropped but will try to point them out...there are more in flickr if you're interested i think i may try to go back and make the 500 cropped to be the same as the q...will see what i can do

q with 300



IMGP9394
by pearsaab, on Flickr
IMGP9394 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

sigma 500



IMGB0194
by pearsaab, on Flickr
IMGB0194 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

q wiith 300

IMGP9386
by pearsaab, on FlickrIMGP9386 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

sigma 500 cropped



IMGB0163
by pearsaab, on Flickr
IMGB0163 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!