|
Forum: Sold Items
04-19-2017, 04:20 PM
|
| |
Too bad I bought one of these two months ago. It's a great lens, and that's a very fair price!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
02-25-2017, 09:10 AM
|
| |
Yes, but I'm having the problem with my Pentax F50 f/1.7, as well.
In fact, when I tested it with my Sigma 18-250 and Sigma 50-500, I noticed it there, as well. I just didn't notice it earlier, because the high DOF of those slower lenses masked the effect a bit. It wasn't until I started shooting with faster lenses that I noticed it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
02-24-2017, 02:12 PM
|
| |
Thanks so much for this post! I feel better knowing that someone has actually done this with the Debug menu.
I will read up on the K-x focus correction, and if i have any questions, I will reply or PM you (if you're OK with that).
Thanks again!
Greg
---------- Post added 02-24-2017 at 03:13 PM ----------
OK, I should do this FIRST, before playing with the DEBUG stuff. I cannot recall what firmware version I'm at but if it isn't current, I should do that, first.
Thanks!
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
02-22-2017, 02:38 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
02-22-2017, 01:20 PM
|
| |
Hey, everybody!
I have a K-3, and I'm pretty sure the camera itself has some back-focusing issues.
I didn't really notice it when I first bought the camera, mostly because I was using is with the 18-250, and I think in increased DOF masked some of the back-focus.
Last year I bought a Tamron 70-200 f./2.8. I've noticed the back-focus when shooting wide open at the long end. I thought maybe it was just that lens, but then I tried some tests with my 50mm f/1.7, and I see it with that lens, as well.
I don't have a lot of fast lenses, but I did just buy a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and now I'm worried and annoyed at the back focus.
I've dialed in the global Max +10 in the AF adjustment, and that helps some, but it still seems to focus about five or so feet behind the subject. I generally use center-point AF; I haven't done any comprehensive tests, but it appears to be worse when I use something other than center-point AF.
I'd like to send it into Pentax for assessment and adjustment, but I was surprised at the cost.
I went to Ricoh's site, and found this:
US Product Repair Service | Ricoh Imaging Support
That web page has a link to Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation - Service & Repair
Unfortunately, that site lists a single generic cost of $312.50.
That seems expensive, especially something that likely won't involve any replacement parts.
I tried contacting CRIS, but they apparently no longer service Pentax cameras.
I read some threads on the Debug Menu; some mentioned that it may allow AF adjustments greater than 10. But I was not able to get any specific confirmation on that, or any specific instructions on how to do it.
Has anyone used the debug menu to modify the AF adjustment?
Does anyone know of any other places in the U.S. that do Pentax repairs?
Thanks,
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-03-2017, 12:37 PM
|
| |
Thanks for all the replies!
I have to admit, I'm more drawn to the Sigma 50-150. I'm still concerned about SDM failure, and I don't want to mess with converting it to screw-drive. Most have reported that the HSM auto-focus is faster, as well, and that would be a plus for me, as well.
The better color and rendering that some have reported in the Pentax is not as big a deal to me, personally. I'm a hack, not a photo artist. (I never shoot RAW.)
But, I am reconsidering the Tamron 28-75; I've found some on sale recently for less than $200, and I'm tempted by that price.
I will have to do some re-testing at 50mm, 70mm, and 28-50mm, to see how those FLs work for me. I know 70mm is sometimes not wide enough when I shoot with my 70-200mm, but I didn't want to move down all the way to a 28-75mm; I wanted some more FL overlap, to minimize lens swapping. But now I'm wondering if 50mm might still be lacking in width. I was shooting some Christmas stuff (kids unwrapping packages, that sort of thing), and my 50mm was sometimes still a bit long.
I have the 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5, which is a bit too slow, but I can play around with it and see if the range is more workable.
Thanks again!
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-31-2016, 12:08 PM
|
| |
Hello, all!
I own a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and I quite like it. However, sometimes I'd like just a little more wide range, but still keeping a constant f/2.8.
I'm not really interested in the 24-70 or the 28-75, because I don't need to go THAT wide. I'm generally more of a long-zoom guy.
I've been looking for either a used Sigma 50-150 or a Pentax 50-135. I don't think the 135 vs 150 long end of each lens is an issue, but I am concerned about SDM issues with the Pentax 50-135. I tried to so some searching on this, and it does seem like SDM issues have existed with the 50-135, but I could not confirm if it was ever corrected, i.e., if I should look for particular serial numbers of production years.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-07-2016, 02:47 PM
|
| |
Ya know, I'm not sure.... I did some test shots eight months ago, when I first got the 70-200, but I have not taken the 1.4x "out into the field." My son has a football game coming up on Friday; I will bring the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs along and try them out....
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-03-2016, 03:23 PM
|
| |
Well, just to reiterate what I said in the first post, I often don't have the option of stepping back, at least in the scenario I was describing in this post.
But, no prob, and the lens I was considering has already sold.
This was the item I was considering:
PENTAX Pentax DA 60-250mm f/4 SDM DA Lens 27075141247 | eBay
It already sold, which was good, because I was too much on the fence, and really leaning toward the "I don't really need it" side
I already have the following:- Tamron 70-200
- Sigma 50-500
- Pentax 55-300
- Tamron 1.4x (which makes the Tamron a 98-280 f/4)
The 60-250 is obviously faster than the either the 50-500 or the 55-300, but really, I couldn't justify the cost, based on what I already have.
Thanks for all the input!
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-03-2016, 06:11 AM
|
| |
Thanks so much for the advice. You know the more I think about it, the less excited I get about buying the 60-250. Honestly, at this point, I think I wanted to move on it because I have an opportunity to get a good deal on one.
But, I think you're right: I don't really NEED it.
Plus, and this is a good point you make: I already own both the Tamron 1.4x and the Tamron 2x teleconverters, although I admit, I use them very little. (Honestly, until I bought the 70-200 f/2.8, I didn't have a lens fats enough to work well with either TC. They just don't work that well with f/5.6 consumer lenses.... LOL!)
Thanks! I really appreciate the input!
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2016, 09:33 PM
|
| |
Sorry if this is a dumb question, and apologies that is has been asked before. But I searched the archives, read what was there, and I still feel the desire to ask the question....
The question, up front: Does anybody own both a 70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma or Tamron) and the Prntax 60-250? And if so, do you find yourself using one more than the other?
Background info, if it helps put things in context:
- I own the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and I really like it, especially for night-time high school football.
- But, for some reason, I've been thinking about the Pentax 60-250. Sometimes 70mm is not quite as wide as I would like, and I often don't have the option of stepping back further. Plus, sometimes a little more reach would be nice.
- But then I think: Surely dropping from 70mm to 60mm on the wide end would not do that much for me. Likewise, increasing from 200mm to 250mm would not do that much. Especially since I will lose a stop going from f/2.8 to f/4.
- Of course, I'm also thinking of using the 60-250 for outdoor daytime sports, specifically Ultimate Frisbee. In those cases, I usually don't need f/2.8, and having even a little more on both the wide and long ends would be useful. Frisbee is like soccer; those kids are all over the field!)
- I'm shooting with a K3, which I like very much. (Just so you know the camera I'd be using it on.)
- I have also considered both the Pentax 50-135 and the Tamron 150-150, on the idea that, if I want 60mm over 70mm, then haing 50mm would be even better. Unfortunately, for both of those cases, I'm cutting off the long end, as well, which is not really what I want to do.
Thanks for any insights, comments, or advice.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-02-2015, 01:04 PM
|
| |
Thanks for all the replies, everyone!
Background on how my question came up: I was editing pictures in FastStone, which has become my free-but-simple-and-still-powerful image editor of choice. I used to use IrfanView, but FastStone had some very nice features that either are not in IrfanView, or handle it better than IrfanView:- FS has VERY NICE shadow and highlight faders.
- FS has a nice feather-like value for it's Clone tool; IV's is pretty hard-edged.
I've tried GIMP and PSPX, but honestly, they are simply too complicated for me. I used to think layers were a must-have feature, but I've since realized that I just don't do that heavy a level of editing. Mostly I just do:- shadow/highlight tweaking
- sometimes some slight color correction (from too much/little saturation)
- slight rotation to fix slightly crooked pictures
- cropping (usually to get better composition)
- resizing (for Picasa/Facebook sharing)
These are mostly pics of family gatherings, or high school band pics of my kids.
One of the things that I like to do is to combine pics in "action sequence," e.g., something like this:
If I have no other edits other than cropping/resizing, I do it all in IrfanView, because the workflow is a little faster for me. As I go along, though, I like to save my work after adding each new image to the composite, and I normally save them as a TIFF (instead of doing multiple saves on a JPEG). My final save of the composite is always a JPEG.
But sometimes, the edits require more work (e.g., if every picture in the sequence is slightly crooked); in those cases, I do the initial edits in FastStone, save each file as a TIFF, and them combine them using IrfanView.
When saving the TIFF files, I noticed the compression options:
As you mouse over each compression type, the screen updates to show you what the picture would look like, and what the new file size would be.
I was intrigued by how small the resulting file was with the JPEG compression option:
I could not see any artifacts, and the file size was actually smaller than the original OOC JPEG. I started to wonder if I could batch process whole directories of JPEGs, saving them as TIFFs using JPEG compression.
But, from the subsequent posts, I'm pretty sure now that TIFFs with JPEG compression are no better than JPEGs, and are not worth the time and effort to batch convert. Plus, although photos will open in FastStone, I tested saving a TIFF with JPEG compression, and i could not open it in IrfanView; so, the format is not easily transferable to other applications.
So, I'm scrapping the idea; it was an interesting experiment, but not worth pursuing further, I think.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-01-2015, 02:57 PM
|
| |
So, I understand that JPEG is a lossy format.
And I understand that TIFF is a lossless format.
Further, I also understand that, when TIFF files are saved with LZW or ZIP compression, the compression is lossless.
What I *DON'T* know is: When a TIFF file is saved using JPEG compression, is the resulting file lossy?
Maybe another way of asking it is: Why is JPEG offered as a compression option with the TIFF format? If TIFF with JPEG compression is lossy, why not just save the file as a JPEG?
Update/addendum: I did a bit more reading, and I found a reference to "uncompressed JPEG" I know that there are levels of compression, but I always assumed that, even at the highest quality levels, there was still some loss.
Thanks for any light you all can shed on this.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
11-09-2015, 11:00 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
11-09-2015, 10:15 AM
|
| |
Well, that was a bit of an impulse buy, but I went for it. For $14.95 and free shipping,
I figured it was worth a shot.
Seems like a BIG bag; hope it's not too big!
It looks pretty deep, too; I might even be able to fit a K3 with a Tokina 80-200 attached, facing downward. This might be pretty cool.
Now I'm excited to get it!
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
11-06-2015, 05:49 PM
|
| |
Sorry for the strange title, but: Has anyone held BOTH a Nikon D7100 + grip as well as K-3 + D-BG5?
I ask because, now that I have purchased a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, I'm thinking about getting a battery grip for my K-3.
However, I have a friend who has a Nikon D7100 with a battery grip attached; he was the one, in fact that told me I simply HAD to get a battery grip, that it made a world of difference.
But, I tried his Nikon D7100 + grip, and ... meh. It didn't do much for me. Now, he had a Nikon 18-300 attached, which is MUCH lighter than the Tokina.
I should have compared the depth of the two grips, but unfortunately, i did not. I've looked online, and it seems like the K-3 has a deeper grip; so maybe adding battery grip would make more of a difference.
I guess what I'm really wondering is: For those of you that have grip for your K-3, do find the grip indispensable? After tryig the Nikon, I decided that maybe a grip just wasn't for me.
But now that I have this Tokina coming, I'm wondering if I should re-evaluate....
Thanks in advance for any thoughts or opinions.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
11-06-2015, 04:02 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Sold Items
11-04-2015, 11:11 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-03-2015, 03:46 PM
|
| |
I've found it's MUCH more useful than what I expected.
[/QUOTE]
That's my thought, as well. I'm generally not much of a WA shooter, and prefer to "get in tight" with longer FLs. My 18-55 is rarely used at 18mm, and my 24-135 was rarely used at 24mm. I even bought an old pentax 45-125, because I was curious if 45mm would generally be the widest I would need for indoor, family-picture usage.
But I have noticed that 70mm is just a bit long for me for normal snapshots of friends and family. So I've wondered if the 60-250 would make a perfect Christmas-party-dinner-birthday-family-gathering lens for me...
In focal length, true. In angle of view, not quite as drastic.
[/QUOTE]
That would work, with two caveats : you loose the convenience of the wide end (except if you remove the TC) and you increase all the aberrations, which are the only true flaw of the Tamron.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder how much more difference it makes in AOV to go up to 280mm (i.e., the Tamron + 1.4x TC); I tried to look up some AOV calculators, but I think I need a more "real world" picture example.
It seems to pretty much escape those issues. I think I've personally read one such report.
[/QUOTE]
Pretty close from my limited in-store experience with the Tamron. Before using the new DC motor in the 16-85, I thought the 60-250 was blazing fast. Now I think it's fast.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder if anyone in the Austin, Tx area own one or both of these lenses? I sure would like to try them out side-by-side.
I guess it's not worth $256.97 to rent all three lenses to compaare at the same time:
Rent the Pentax 60-250mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM AF smcP-DA
Rent the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX APO Macro HSM
Rent the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF (PENTAX)
Both would work. I'm sure you'll be happy with either. The price of the Tamron + TC would probably go over the price of a used 60-250, so that's one thing to consider. Also, the Tamron+TC route will probably call for the use of a monopod if you shoot for any extended period of time.
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, I already own the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs, so no additional expense there. And I normally shoot my Adaptall 80-200 f/2.8 with a hip-monopod (a monopod resting in a pouch attached to my belt), so that won't be much of a change, if any.
That was very useful; thank you!
Sigh...I wish I had the budget for BOTH lenses....
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2015, 01:08 PM
|
| |
Not really; I dono't think it will be in my budget range any time soon.
I'm using a K-3, but I already push it to 3200 on a regular basis. I'm sure that, if I went with any sort of f/4 setup, I would have to halve the shutter speed.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not quite decided, but based on the replies thus far, I'm leaning back toward the 70-200. But I do find the 4.17x range of the 60-240 tempting, compared to the 2.86x range of the 70-200....
Greg
---------- Post added 11-02-2015 at 02:14 PM ----------
Hmmm.... good point. It's 160 feet from sideline to sideline. So, in "permissible" situations, when I can stand right at the sideline, I'm about 30 to 40 yards from the my subjects, but when I get pushed back like I did last week, I was easily 50-60 yards away... I guess in those cases, a 70-200mm + 1.4x would be the better choice.
Thanks; I'm leaning back that way....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2015, 12:11 PM
|
| |
Hi, everyone! Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. Thanks for reading all the way through....
I shoot a lot of pictures of my high-school sons, in one of three main settings:
- Outdoors, high-school stadium lighting, in marching band. (I also shoot the football game, itself, but that's really just for fun and practice; my kids don't play football, they march in the band.)
- Outdoors, daytime, playing tennis
- Outdoors, daytime, playing Ultimate Frisbee.
I have been getting by with a Sigma 18-250 for the Frisbee stuff, and using a Tamron Adaptall 80-200 f/2.8 manual-focus lens for the marching band and tennis stuff.
I've been looking for a good deal on a used 70-200 f/2.8 to replace the Adaptall lens. (Catch-in-focus helps me some, but I still feel like I need an AF lens for a higher percentage of keepers.)
I've gone back & forth on the Sigma 70-200 vs the Tamron 70-200, and ultimately decided the Tamron would be the better buy for me, for these reasons:
- While the Sigma seems to have slightly faster AF, from what I can tell it's not so much faster as to make a difference in what I'm shooting.
- The Tamron is easier to find used, and is lower in price.
- The Tamron can be used with my existing Tamron 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters; I've been told that the Sigma will not work with my Tamron TCs.
The monkey wrench: I was shooting a marching band competition last weekend, and they judges were pretty strict about how far away photographers had to stay from the field - about 30 to 40 feet further than I normally shoot. This resulted in a LOT more cropping than I usually have to do, and made me wonder if something like a 250mm or 300mm f/4 might be a better choice. I'd lose a stop of light, and that would affect the football game, itself, but probably not the marching band. (I can half the shutter speed for the marching band, which move CONSIDERABLY slower than the action of a football game...)
I thought about the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but it is rare and expensive when it comes up for sale.
I had not considered the Pentax 60-250 f/4 until just this morning, when it occurred to me that going wide to 60mm would help get some shots that currently are too tight on my Adaptall 80-200 9and would be pretty much lost on a Sigma 100-300).
I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm, and a 300mm would be only 20% more. So maybe 250mm would be a happy medium.
But, having said that, for those times like last weened when I had to move back 30 more feet, I wonder is using a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC would not be a better choice, giving me essentially 280mm f/4.
And, I've read enough SDM horror stories that I have always shied away from it.
Please note: I cannot afford the new Pentax lenses coming out. The 60-250 appears to sell used for about $700-750 USD, and the Tamron 70-200 sells used for about $550-600 USD. That's more my budget range.
Thanks for reading thus far. My specific questions to you all:
- Has anyone read about SDM problems with the 60-250, or did that particular model seem to escape the issues that other SDM lenses had?
- Has anyone compared the AF speed of the 60-250 to the Tamron 70-200?
- Based on what I shoot mentioned above, would you go with the my new idea of the 60-250, or would you recommend I stay with my original idea of the 70-200, and use the 1.4x when more reach is needed?
One extra note: I do have a Tamron 2.0x TC as well; of course, that would bring the Tamron down to f/5.6, which I don;t think would work well under night-time high-school stadium lighting...
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Greg Kreth
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
10-09-2015, 12:32 PM
|
| |
About the "Pentax 70-200 F2.8 lens recently overhauled by Tamron": Can we assume that it is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 in the Pentax mount?
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
10-05-2015, 02:30 PM
|
| |
Silly question, perhaps, but: Is this auto-focus of manual-focus only?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-01-2015, 01:37 PM
|
| |
Sorry if this re-covers some existing ground. I asked a related question about this last month.
The original thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/287225-sigm...ml#post3134656
So, as I said, I was asking about the AF speed on the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM lens, which I would use primarily for my kids' outdoor sports - tennis and Ultimate Frisbee.
At the time I was shooting a K30, and for tennis and Frisbee, I mostly used a Sigma 18-250, because it's my only HSM lens. I had given up on the Pentax 55-300 and Sigma 50-500 for sports, because the screw drive AF was simply too slow.
I posted about the Sigma 70-200 HSM, because I read that it would be faster on my K30 than, say, the older non-HSM Sigma or the Tamron 70-200.
One of the posted replies suggested that I consider upgrading the camera body to a K3, for better AF performance with ALL of my lenses. (See this post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/287225-sigm...ml#post3136747)
What ended up happening: I found a great deal on a K3, so I bought it. And because of that, I figured it would b another 6 to 12 months before I thought about getting a 70-200 F2.8. But, I'm always on the look-out, in case a can't-pass-it-up deal comes along.
And so the question is: Now that I have a K3, is the AF performance difference between the Sigma HSM and say, a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 enough to rule out buying a Tamron instead of a the Sigma?
Generally speaking, the Tamron sells for about $50 less than the Sigma HSM. But, I may have a chance to purchase an Tamron for a REALLY good price, more than $100 less that what the Sigma would likely cost.
But, if the Tamron is significantly slower than the Sigma, I think I would rather wait, save more money, and keep looking for a Sigma HSM.
My understanding is that the HSM lens will be the same speed on the K3 as it will be on the K30; there may be some minute difference, but the biggest factor seems to be the physical motor speed, and since it's built into the lens, it will perform almost exactly the same on the K3 as on the K30.
The Tamron, however, will obviously perform MUCH better on the K3 than the K30, because of AF improvements on the K3.
So, my question is: On a *K3*, how much DIFFERENCE do you all think there is between a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 and a Sigma HSM 70-200 F2.8?
I know the Tamron will be slower, but how MUCH slower? Too slow to handle tennis or Ultimate Frisbee?
With tennis, at the high school level, there is some front-to-back movement (where the AF will struggle more), but most of the movement is more side-to-side (where the AF fares better).
With Ultimate Frisbee, there's not any AF- follow/tracking needed, because players don't run. BUT, there is a lot of movement from point A (where the player throws the Frisbee) to to Point B, to try and capture the player receiving the Frisbee (or the interception from the other team). So you have to pivot quickly (I use a monopod), zoom to the new position, and try to lock focus in time to get the shot.
If I could lock the AF in about a second, I'd probably be happy with the results.
I've been told that the Tamron has a longer focus throw than the Sigma, and that longer throw makes the Tamron less desirable for sports.
Does anyone shoot sports with a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 with a K3? If so, what are you experiences with it?
Has anyone ever done a side-by-side comparison of the Tamron vs the Sigma HSM on a K3?
Thanks in advance for any info, advice, or opinions.
Greg
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-31-2015, 08:54 AM
|
| |
Thanks for all the replies. from what I could gather, if I stay with the K-30, the HSM is the faster choice.
But maybe I should just wait awhile, upgrade to a K-3, and then decide at that point.
A little off topic, but since clackers mentioned his Sigma 150-500 with HSM: I have the older Sigma 50-500, and I've never been very happy with the AF speed; it seems to hunt a lot. Moving up to the K-3 would probably help the performance on my 50-500 as well, correct?
Greg
|
