|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-08-2024, 12:35 AM
|
| |
Because I'm still using my Ds (SDM doesn't work there) I preferred the 1.8/50.
That's totally underrated!
Working on the K-1 too.
Even though I love my old manual 1.7/50 I have to say that the 1.8 is optically the better lens.
And fast focussing too!
As for underrated lenses:
I took the 18-55 (WR) out in the last time and found the results far better than they should be - according to the sayings in internet forums....
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-08-2024, 12:27 AM
|
| |
As for night photos:
I'm always wondering, why it shouldn't bei possible to do them with our 'old' 6/10 MP-CCD dslr.
In the film slr aera we were able to do them - so why not with (in this case) my old Ds?
Tripod, monopod, stabilizing by laying on/against a wall - so many possibilities to do nights with ISO 400 as well (I'm using my Ds up to 800 which I find is still good usable!).
Handheld point&shoot needs a better high ISO performance - that's right (in this case I have my K-1....)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-04-2023, 12:49 AM
|
| |
Good to see how superb the K-1 performs with the 21mm !
I always thought that it is a crop-lens....
Best lens(es) on Pentax dslr?
I cannot decide....
- A* 1.4/85
- A* 1.8/135 (superb macro-ability)
- K 1.2/50
- Zeiss ZK Planar 1.4/50
(sadly I sold all of these superb manual focus lenses in a difficult situation)
Right now I couldn't decide....
Best tele in my line-up is the Tamron SP 2.8/70-200
No 'best' wide angle....
Just bought a Sigma 2.8/24 which won a 24mm-lens-test in the late 80's in german 'colorfoto'. Have to make a quality comparison.
Sidestep:
The Zenitar 2.8/16 - a fisheye lens - performed great on a crop dslr with 6 - 10 MP (as a 24mm equivalent)
I was not very impressed on a film/full-frame camera though...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-04-2023, 12:13 AM
|
| |
I started with Pentax in mf film-slr-days and always had more lenses than necessary....
;-)
I always had my problems with the AF from Pentax (d)slr and therefore tried and used some different brands:
- Nikon (in the 6 - 10 MP-times: I struggled with their ergonomics, menues....)
- Canon (since analog-film days because the Cameras had fast motordrive when the motodrive for the MX was more expensive than a complete Canon EOS 600 which I used with my M42-lenses, now having a 7D with a bunch of AF-lenses)
- Olympus (I loved the OM-3, later I had the E-20 and then FT-dslr: perfect single AF, pricy pro lenses though.... but then they decided to change to mFT so I left their ship)
Now having a K-1 II .... I don't see any reason for a different brand (hey: anybody interested in Canon dslr gear?)
The K-5 is now seldom used (only for some outdoor shooting beecause of the crop/zoom-factor).
The Ds only for sentimental reasons and CCD-looking pics with manual lenses.
So since the K-1 II no reasons anymore for me to change to other brands.
My experiences:
- weddings:
A pro photographer with full-frame dslr and me with the Sony R-1 (remember this bridge camera?). The couple choose my shots - even though the Canon-shots had lots more megapixel.....
- action:
A pro with Sony gear and me shooting motorbikes in action:
He surely had more pics with perfect sharpness but in the end.... the biker choose mostly my pics with Pentax (but Tamron 2.8/70-200)
So: what is the need? What is the purpose?
Yes: always looking for dslm but mostly for Panasonic. But when comparing I don't see the need (!) for changing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-17-2023, 01:50 AM
|
| |
Thanx for the link to the lens comparison.... I disagree with concerning the Tamrons performance at 200 mm.
Probably differences between the individual copies of the lns but mine performs VERY good at 200 mm (on my K-5 though).
Best sharpness at this focal length.
Better than Sigma 2.8/0-200, Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200 ....
I used it regularly for theatre shootings (from the back row and therefore nearly always at 200 mm and stopped down max. to f 4.0, mostly 2.8 or 3.5.
Perhaps/probably the Pentax is better though....
;-)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-14-2023, 05:20 AM
|
| |
You are right: the new generation of the Tamron isn't available for Pentax but even the first generation is optically a superb lens.
The AF is quite loud compared with a HSM lens though.
Because I didn't need AF for my use case (theatre, concerts: I myself decide on the point of sharpness) the Tamron stays in my bag and both Sigmas had to go.
There hasn't been the Pentax 2.8/70-200 then.... which costs (even used) 3 times the pricee I paid for my Tamron.
Would I go the the Tamron today when comparing it with the Pentax?
I never saw a comparing test.
As for the Canon L 70-200:
Even the (pretty old - 90's ?) Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200 outperfomed the 4.0/70-200 in my tests (sharpness and contrast: AF is loud and not really fast BUT you can switch this lens into a manual one)
Stopped down by 2 f-stops the results were on par.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-11-2023, 12:35 AM
|
| |
I second that and many other comments on the 50-200 too.
I've been caught by test magazins and lens tests and been searching for sharper - but still affordable - lenses.
In addition to the best superzoom for vacation-walk-arounds (wife didn't want to wait for me, changing my lens and then taking pics)
The 18-55 is in the same situation:
Everyone told it to be a mediocre lens but my results were fine.
In the meantime I changed my superzooms but now I'm no longer interested in.
A double zoom equipment is lighter, more handy and has 'different' results.
Esp. the double zoom lenses produce colours and contrast that are different to those of the - measurably - better lenses.
Same with the 55-300:
In my personal testings (indoor, constant artificial light, tripod, 1.5 - 3 m distance) it was the sharpest zoom lens at 300 mm.
Better than every Sigma, better than Sigma and Tokina 2.8-Zoom + 1.4-TC.
Perhaps not measurably better but the results appear to me the best of this bunch.
Outperformed only by the manual Tamron SP 5.6/300 which is also told (by some internet comments) not to be a good lens.
It produced even wide open better results than every -300mm-zoom even stopped down by 1.5 f-stops.
The Pentax 55-300-results were reached (but not outperformed) by the (3 different versions of the) Sigma 70-300 when thy were stopped down by at least(!) 1 f-stop.
...and the 55-30 has wider zoom range, light weight - yes: focussing is louder, perhaps not as fast.
I therefore don't use it indoor for theatre or concert photos any more.
As for the 50-200:
the WR seems to be focussing pretty silently (compared to the non-WR) and quite fast.
Never had any complaints with that.
As for AF-noise:
did anyone mentioned that this is dependant on the body you're using?
As for handling:
Perfect for using the 50-200 with the Ds!
...and as a result:
My brother switched from a Sigma 70-300 to the 50-200 when he saw my results and experienced the perfect handling with this tiny Pentax lens
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2023, 04:41 AM
|
| |
I tried both Sigma versions against my Tamron 2.8/70-200.
The Sigmas are faster focussing - although the measurable difference is small: it's more the noisy focussing of the Tamron that's annoying.
The OS version (the copy I tested) was sharper than it's older brother.
The Tamron was way sharper!
All of these are big and heavy and I'd prefer not to carry them with me but instead have a camera where I can use higher ISO with similar results.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2023, 04:30 AM
|
| |
I cannot help you but I think that you will get the Tamron 2.5/28 for very small money again - in perfect condition.
(I have this lens myself and it serves me well since the 1980's.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2023, 04:26 AM
|
| |
as for the old 55-300:
I have/had both versions - WR is a bit quieter when focussing. Perhaps due to the sealings.
I also have the 50-200 (WR): and even this little tele is noticeably faster focussing.
As for your Sigma DL:
it's a simple and low grade tele zoom.
Sigma made it much better with the OS macro-version:
faster and quieter focussing
optically much better
BUT: as for sharpness at 300 mm (and I understood that you wanted more focal length than 50-200) the Pentax 55-30 (at least my copies, DA and WR) are clearly producing sharper images than all the Sigma 70-300 (and the Tamron 70-300 and Sigma + Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200 with TC: that was all I could collect for my testing).
The Sigmas had to be stopped down 1-2 stops more to achieve similar sharpness.
Testing was indoor for 1.5 to 4 m distance, tripod, not natural light (which could have changed during my testing)
I don't have the PLM to compare.... just wanted to argue against those saying that the 55-300 is not really sharp.
Best sharpness in my testing produced (my copy of the) Tamron SP 5.6/300.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-09-2023, 09:57 PM
|
| |
T. did the same when they stopped the famous manual adaptall-series.
Built for a lifetime but they stopped servicing them....
:-(
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-19-2023, 06:32 AM
|
| |
Yes, the speedlite PX is a brilliant idea!
No additional batteries. Not too close to the lens....
The XR-X (XR-M) has been followed by the XR-X 3PF which has a different design and ergonomics (that are told to be better) but the shutter not as fast, no interval timing, slower motor drive (winder).
I'd still prefer the XR-X.
Although I loved the Pentax MZ-5 and MX I stayed with the XR-X throughout the time of AF-SLR and still using it (quite seldom though) nowadays in the time of dslr.
Film became a bit too pricy.
The only other K-mount SLR that stayed was a Chinon CP-5 spot twin program - but that is another story.
BTW: does anyone here still use this underrated SLR?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2023, 11:45 PM
|
| |
The 18-135 is known for AF-problems at longer side of the range.
I have/bought 2 with the same problem (together with other gear....):
above from 55 mm the AF doesn't work - or/but: it does only work in live-view!
Yes: the 18-135 is focussing very quick compared to 18-55/55-300.
And: the 18-135 is a WR lens (one reason for me to get one since I only had the first generation of the 18-55 and 55-300).
(in the meantime I have 18-55 and 50-200 in WR-version though: could get them as a pair cheaper than a 18-135)
The 18-135 is still in use für bad weather conditions in live view....
As for repair costs:
in a german Pentax-related forum they said it would cost about 120-150 Euro to get it repaired.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2023, 11:31 PM
|
| |
As been mentioned before:
the K ist heavier thus resulting in a better feeling when focussing.
Others have mentioned to start with a 1.7 or 1.4 instead:
I had the K 1.2 and compareed it with all of the 50s I could get.
Beside sharpness/contrast at different apertures (the 1.2 was the best, the other Pentax 50s needed to be stopped down 1.5 -2 f-stops to get similiar (not equal) results):
They have different "character"!
The K 1.2-results have more "crisp", more 3D-effect than the (M or A) 1.4 or 1.7.
The Pentax 1.2 is a superb lens - but the Zeiss Planar ZK (!) 1.4/50 comes close - but will be even harder to get.
I'm still sad that I sold both years ago (just to get me an AF-lens that I could buy nearly everywhere right now)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-15-2023, 06:58 AM
|
| |
Since Pentax belongs to the Ricoh company:
are discussions about Ricoh SLR allowed?
(since I'm having XR-X beside.... perhaps a "has everthing except AF"-film slr)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-15-2023, 06:43 AM
|
| |
I'm still using my Ds.... and some years ago, when I was doing theatre photos (Persons and therefore I do not post them here) I had a K20 (and then K-7) side by side.
Surprisingly (or not!?) most of the actors and their families preferred the photos made by the Ds.
As someone has written here before:
the CCD is better for tricky light conditions.
... and theatre, for example with the red curtain behind the actors (whooo: the AF doesn't like that!) or with the totally black background but highlightend actors the CCD of the DS simply did it better.
But: truth is that the K-1 outperforms everything I had before - yes: even the 6 MP CCD of the Ds
;-)
Oh yes: I had a Canon 7D and a Olympus E-3 in the meantime and they had to go....
- still having some lenses for the Canon: anyone interested? ;-)
So: I still love the look of the CCD from my Ds but the K-1 does it better in every aspect.
|
|
Forum: Homepage & Official Pentax News
06-15-2023, 05:51 AM
|
| |
what are the advantges of the firmware updates?
(just bought a 2nd hand K-1 II )
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-09-2020, 11:57 PM
|
| |
As for
- Zeiss ZK:
I Had the Planar 1.4/50 and it's a very good lens. I found it to be better than the Pentax K 1.2/50.
From f 4.0 the is hardly to find any difference though.
But Zeiss seems to have decided not to build ZK-line any longer....
- Vivitar S 1 28-105
I had 3 copies of this lens, one (my first one) for quite a Long time.
I disliked the vario-focus-system: very Little bit of changig the focal length changes the focussing too!... and that happens quite often with a one-ring zoom.
Wide opened it's not really optical great/good but 1/2 stop is enough to improve noticeably!
The lens seems to be built very solid but the internal zoom-ring-mechanism isn't.
On a 6 MP dslr it's a quite useful lens but with the more demanding dslr with much more Megapixel I found it not to be good enough.
Quite differently to some of the 28mm-primes.On film-slr there wasn't a difference to the Vivitar S1 but on any dslr.....
I'm still using my 2.8/28 and Tamron 2.5/28.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-14-2019, 01:49 AM
|
| |
The best and most desireable manual lenses have gone:
the A*-triumphirat
1.4/85
1.8/135
2.8/200
I had them all but sold them due to financial reasons.....
One of the best was the K 1.2/50:
Superb build Quality and sharpness.
But when it comes to the question, which manual lenses go with me most of the time:
- A 1,7/50 (compact, well built, very good sharpness)
- M 3.5/135 (build quality, handling, special character!)
- Tamron SP 2.5/90 macro (the first edition: full Metall, superb build quality, very good sharpness when stopped down - it's an old 'typical' macro lens)
- Tamron SP 5.6/300 (I know that there are different versions of this lens....) (very lieghtweight for the focal length - but very good build Quality and better sharpness than every xx-300-zoom lens I ever compared it with)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-28-2019, 11:29 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-23-2019, 04:30 AM
|
| |
I had both lenses - and the Tamron stayed.
The Tamron is visibly sharper at 2.8 and longer focal lengths.
That's why I have and use this lens!
If I wanted to get really sharp pics with the Sigma it should be stopped down. The Tamron is always sharp.
As for AF_
The Sigma focusses less noisy and CAF is faster.
SAF - I never found a noticeable difference. There 'seems' to be a difference - but I think that depends on the acoustic of focussing. I found no difference in sport or concert shootings.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-23-2019, 04:22 AM
|
| |
I have both lenses (and had the 60-300 too).
I compared them and liked the handling of the Sigma DG OS (quiet focussing) but the optical performance at 300 mm of the Pentax.
Additionally the 300 mm of the Pentax seem to be 'longer' than the 300 mm of the Sigma!
- and the focal range of the Pentax makes it more a walk-around lens.
If I want the best optical results at 300 mm I use my manual/adaptall Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-20-2018, 12:59 AM
|
| |
yes - handling of the M 3.5/135 is a joy!
The A* requires a bigger handgrip for handling.
When using my Q I would never think about the A* but with the M 3.5 (which gives 742 mm equiv. !!!) it's really quite good!
Even with my trusty Ds I prefer only smaller lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-12-2018, 04:34 AM
|
| |
No, but I have an old lens test from german 'photomagazin' and I have made my own testings.
If you can find one:
take in Hands, handle it - I'm quite shure, you'll buy it!
(if not too pricy)
The AF-Version is not built the same way and - perhaps because of less tight fixing of the lenses due to AF - optically not exactly the same class even though the constuction should be identical.
The 50-200 was (one of) the first APO-lens(es) by Sigma and for the Prices in those days (80's) very pricy for a brand like Sigma.
(Their reputation wasn't that high as it's nowadays.)
Therefore these manual focus APO-lenses from Sigma are not to be found that often....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-06-2018, 02:09 AM
|
| |
I compared the 55-300 with Sigma 70-300 APO and the Pentax was obviously sharper at 300 mm!
The Sigma DL is worse than both.
The Tamron 70-300 Di is very sharp but loud and slow focussing.
A bit different is the Sigma 70-300 OS:
Better build Quality.
The AF faster than the lenses mentioned above - quieter focussing too.
The OS in the lens is quite good too and stabilzing the viewfinder.
But all these lenses are not fast lenses.
Therefore I'd recommend the Tamron 2.8/70-200 (if you cannot afford the Pentax 2.8)
It is much sharper so you may crop the additional difference to the 300 mm.
At 2.8 it is sharper than the Sigma 2.8/70-200 (whatever version).
Focussing fast (but not as quietly).
It is bigger and heavier.
It has a very good tripod/monopod-clutch-ring.
I'd recommend to use one....
In my comparisons the best 300 mm results came out of the old manual focus Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
The 'modern' AF telezooms reached it's sharpness wide opened only when stopping down 2 f-stops.
For sports photos I'd prefer AF though...
|
