|
Forum: Photographic Technique
04-01-2011, 07:46 PM
|
| |
Pretty neat. I sorta feel like a wuss now. I will never complain about camera bulkiness again.:o
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-28-2011, 07:42 PM
|
| |
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and all that. I have never been ridiculed for using Pentax, except jokingly in good humor by experienced photographer friends who shoot Canon and don't REALLY care that much what equipment other people use, because they're happy with what they have and know that you are too. Perhaps I am in the fortunate minority.
When I bought into this brand it was because it met very specific needs I had at the time (namely small prime lenses, and small, ruggedized, weather-resistant bodies). Your gear doesn't really matter as long as it works for you, you enjoy your photography, and you get some pretty results to show people (or your clients, if you're working semi- or fully- professionally). Most real photographers are going to look at your photos, not your camera. Anyone who does otherwise, IMO, is either just a jerk or not much of a photographer -- in other words, it's water off the back.
You haven't seen Canikons jumping in to defend fledgling Pentax shooters probably because we're not on anyone's radar. I bet if you went into a Canon forum though and said you were having trouble figuring out what that fancy looking 'ƒ' stands for you'd be treated like any other dslr newbie. i.e. 2 parts ridicule, 1 part platform-agnostic assistance from Canon people.
On a final note, I do think you're right that you don't need to apologize again, as some people are just taking this too far. Be careful not to become one of them though -- some thread on the internet about something or other is hardly worth reflection that results in bitterness and feeling slighted.
Water off the back.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-27-2011, 04:16 PM
|
| |
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
True..... this.
I think that when you spend so much time trying to figure out what the other guy is doing wrong, you're not spending enough time working on your own skills.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-25-2011, 06:34 PM
|
| |
I mulled mightily over the choice. Kicker was the US$100 discount coupon. So now I have the Tammy. Sorry, coupon expired in January. You're too late. Should have asked in December.
Yes, its hood is large, even reversed. Fortunately, my Ameribag is larger. So the Tammy rides along with the DA10-17. VERY different lenses. And the Zenitar 16/2.8 stays home more.
I'm still deciding how much I like this Tammy. I think one corner is slightly soft at 10/3.5. I need more testing, and test conditions have been lousy lately. Fortunately, there's no rush.
Yes, the Sigmas are more popular. So are McBurgers and crack. (EAT SH!T! 10 TRILLION FLIES CAN'T BE WRONG!) I decide on price/performance, not popularity. And I like the extra 4mm.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-25-2011, 09:40 PM
|
| |
I have bought & love the following Tamron lenses:
Tamron SP 17-50 2.8
Tamron SP 28-75 2.8
Tamron SP 24-135 3.5-5.6
Tamron 23a 60-300 3.8-5.4
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro Di
HOWEVER, for my UWA lens I chose the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6. Read the Photozone reviews for the 2 lenses: you will see it is no contest. Final verdict for the Sigma is 5 Stars--for the Tamron 10-24, 3 1/2 stars. Sigma is superior optically & mechanically.
BTW, this is Tamron's 2nd less-than-successful attempt @ UWA--their 1st one was the not-so-well-received 11-18mm. One issue with the Tamron is barrell distortion is throughout the range, whereas the Sigma has it in the borders, @ 10mm, but gets excellent with distortion as you zoom out. But you can read all this for yourself.
I looked @ the DPReview, but did not see it giving any edge to the Tamron lens. To what edge are you referring? Can you cite it? I would like to read this--thanks. :)
Well, it was late getting to the game with something that could compete, even remotely. The 11-18mm flopped, but I'm not so sure the 10-24 is much better, even though it is attractively priced. The Tamron is not a bad lens, and surely worth shooting with, but I do not think it is the best option. Here is a little discussion from Photozone's "Verdict" on the Tamron:
"However, on the other hand the center resolution is very high and stopped down the border and even corner resolution reaches levels, which are probably sufficient for most use cases.
Given its rather low price (compared to similar lenses) it may well be the first choice, especially for those who shoot in this focal range occasionally only. You get what you pay for here: not outstanding, but maybe good enough." |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-26-2011, 03:46 AM
|
| |
Studio Tests
"The 10-24mm gives generally good, if not outstanding results; distortion is well controlled and central sharpness is high once stopped down F5.6, especially at 10mm. However sharpness wide open is distinctly low"
In the Tammy review.
And now the edge part, that they give with a grain of salt, it is in the Sigma's review:
"Compared to the Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II, the Sigma is perhaps starting to show its age; the Tamron is significantly sharper across most of the frame at wideangle, although it has serious problems wide open, and the extreme corners tend to be rather soft. Towards the long end, though, the Sigma edges ahead; but it's probably fair to say that wideangle zooms aren't particularly bought to be used in this range, which is shared with the typical kit zoom. The Sigma also shows notable control of lateral chromatic aberration, but against that the Tamron has significantly lower distortion and falloff. This makes the choice between the two less than entirely clear-cut, however the Tamron probably edges it overall, unless you intend to shoot a lot wide open, or really need the Sigma's HSM focusing."
Then they complicate even more the things saying:
" it simply can't match the biting central sharpness of the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II in the 10-18mm range (for which, we suspect, users will mainly be buying this type of lens), and has more problematic distortion characteristics. However in a typical case of swings and roundabouts, the Sigma shows superior sharpness when shot wide open, and is better in the corners of the frame at all settings; it also has lower chromatic aberration, is better built and uses a superior focusing system"
The thing with the UWA's is that none is a clear victor..all of them have trade-ins (the only one who stands out completely is the Sigma 8-16 and that's just because there is no other option with 8mm!:D reviews are fine but acknowledge a fair lot of problems, common to this kind of angle of view).
And they are both recomended by dpreview (the sigma and the tammy...).
And it's hell and back to chose between the two.
|
