Had to stay home to be here and sign for the Sigma 300mm f/2.8... Most of these taken with the 2x or 1.4x TC. (I wish Exif could detect this, cause I forgot already) None too cheap ... You think it was worth it? (I do ) I'm surprised how the 5+ lb. lens wasn't too heavy for me. Using this handhold.

o Full rez to be found here (and here).
o All were shot RAW w/some post processing to WB, noise reduction, histogram stretching, etc. (I may never shoot just JPEG again!)
o All were shot handheld except the last one.
o Shot location: from: 40.929256,-73.402952 to: - Google Maps (by that little turn-around in the center)

(I'm pretty sure these were with the 2x; boat race was about 2/3 or 3/4 mile away; in full-rez you can see the boundary orange flag with black X off on the right perfectly)


(tone shift from playing with the drop-in polarizer filter it comes with)


(I think the next 3 were no TC; based on google maps link provided boats were under 100 yards away)






(I think this from here down was with the 1.4x TC ; this boat was about 250+ yards away)


(about 100 yards away)




(resting on an open Jeep door's windowsill, I think no TC; subject approx 93.2 million miles )


Hope you enjoyed.
-steve

[MShawn63]

Very nice shots. I really like boats on the water there is something so relaxing about it. Thanks for sharing.

Shawn

[hamidlmt]

A stunner of a lens! Super shot, even with teleconverters! Yeah... I'd say it was worth it!

[Petthefish]

Wow I love the old boats moored up looks like a winner of a lens you got there rp

[Buddha Jones]

Love the boats, amazing colors, very vivid, good stuff!

[kenyee]

The 2x has noticably less pop than the others, but that may be from the subject matter.
Any 2.8 shots to isolate the subject more? :-)

Have fun in Tanzania...looks like you're all set ;-)

[m8o]

The 2x has noticably less pop than the others, but that may be from the subject matter.
Any 2.8 shots to isolate the subject more? :-)

Have fun in Tanzania...looks like you're all set ;-)

I agree. I realized I should probably not use the polarizer filter with 2x, as there's too much light lost. Edit: Also though, note the subject distances. There was a lot more misty sea air between me and the subjects when I was using the 2x. I need to shoot the boats straight and with both TCs (3 TCs actually, as I have the Pentax 1.7 AF TC now too!) for my and everyone's benefit.

There's a UV filter provided too (that I couldn't use because I ruined it trying to clean it; got dirty because I thought the drop-in frame was empty as the filter was so clear, and I put a finger print on it my first few minutes of ownership )

I have a bunch of test shots @ f/2.8; most deleted. With subjects about 8 - 10 feet away (Black-Eyed Suzie's) f/2.8 was noticeably softer then f/8. There's one notable test I took at f/2.8 vs. f/something-much-higher on the exact same flowers I can post when I get home.

---

Last edited by m8o; 07-27-2007 at 12:14 PM.

[KennJ]

Great shots. Congrats on the new lens. It's a winner for sure and will make for some fun shooting on your trip.
Kenn

[vievetrick]

Curious how much did you pay for the lens? Nice shots

[m8o]

$2279 @ 47th St. Photo (blows B&H outta the water on that item), though they don't list it for Pentax. Then about $350 for the two TCs, + tax + shipping. It adds up.

There's been times already I wished it was a 100-300 zoom (f/2.8) so I could widen out, but it's not made for Pentax.

[vievetrick]

Lucky you. I am hoping to spend money on new glass soon. but hope to get more then one for that price. I do wish I had it though. Thanks for sharing

[daacon]

Beautiful shots of the boats ! I love that 93 million mile subject - don't think the teleconvertor was needed. Looks like money well spent enjoy !

[Bud]

Those "minus the TC" shots are superb!

[m8o]

Any 2.8 shots to isolate the subject more? :-)

Not sure if you were looking for a comparison or just a shot with really shweet bokeh, but here's an example of close distance bokeh response of the lens: From f/2.8 -> f/8 -> f/13
(... sorry the framing was off on the f/8 one)

f/2.8


f/8


f/13

[m8o]

Lucky you. I am hoping to spend money on new glass soon. but hope to get more then one for that price. I do wish I had it though. Thanks for sharing

I'm sure you know but Sigma's Bigma [50-500] though a lot slower is pretty beloved for its utility and great shots it takes (just not for use in lower light), and there's the 100-300 f/4, both in the $1000 range (that latter one being about $100 more).

The 100-300 f/4 was what I was shooting for about a month ago( got screwed by the local retailer Sigma sent me to to put in the order; they held my deposit for 7 days before ordering it from Sigma and by then the one they had was gone). I only have the 2.8 because I was sure I could get that at this late date (with help from a rep there), and wasn't sure I could have the Bigma or 100-300 f/4 in time (though the manufacturing run was just completed and the lenses on their way from Japan, I'm leaving for my trip in a week and a 1/2 @ this point).