|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-19-2020, 12:17 AM
|
| |
ephotozine ... I guess you mean the online magazine, where no lens is rated with less than four, most with four and a half of five stars? ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-18-2020, 05:07 AM
|
| |
For event photography I recommend a zoom. More universal and most wide angle AF primes are not better than the better zooms.
The Sigma 17-50/2.8 DC EX or 17-50/2.8 DC OS EX would be my first choice. Very versatile and good sharpness, few CAs. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is okay too, but there are many poor samples.
If you're looking for more angle of view the DA 12-24/4 would be a really good idea. The Tamron 10-24 is not as good.
The DA 15/4 Ltd. has a very sharp center and best contrast, but shows poor corners. I like the DA 21/3.2 Ltd.'s bokeh, but the sharpness is average and the distortion is heavy. Both are very small and light.
And don't try the historic wide angle lenses, most of them are quite poor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-05-2020, 01:50 PM
|
| |
How much angle of view is needed?
The best ultra wide zoom for the buck may be the Sigma 8-16 DC, no filters possible, extreme angle of view.
The Sigma 10-20/4.5-5.6 and 10-20/3.5 are okay, but not the sharpest.
The new Pentax DA* 11-18 is the best you can get, but expensive.
The Pentax DA 15 Ltd. is very contrasty, sharp in the center, but shows brutal CAs who ruin the border sharpness.
The Pentax DA 12-24 show some moderate CAs, but is a great lens.
The Pentax DA 10-17 Fisheye is something special, not for everyday use.
Maybe you find a Pentax DA 16-45 in good condition, also not so bad if mechanically okay.
A Sigma 17-50/2.8 EX (with or without OS) may also be a suitable offer, a fine lens.
The sharpest lens of all but the new DA* is the Sigma 18-35/1.8 [Art], but with nervous bokeh.
And forget the older lenses. They are not so recommended.
Take your choice!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-30-2020, 10:29 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-30-2020, 12:45 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-29-2020, 01:38 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-07-2020, 03:46 PM
|
| |
I'm using some K-1 bodies for my business and one for my own -- I like the serious performance and the very appropriate price. Three cameras in the studios for advertising photography (with USB tethering) and on location with Profoto B1 and D1 lighting. Used with this lenses as a result of more than 15 years hanging around with Pentax:
Most loved, heavily used and best lenses:
Sigma 35/1.4 [Art]
D-FA* 50/1.4 (two copies)
D-FA* 70-200/2.8
DA* 300/4
Not so far behind -- sometimes a bit compromising wide open, but still premium glass:
FA 31/1.8 Ltd. (cream machine)
Sigma 50/1.4 DG EX HSM (some focus shift from f/1.4 to f/2.8, AF a bit nervous)
DA* 60-250/4
FA 77/1.8 Ltd. (cream machine)
Sigma 85/1.4 DG EX HSM (AF a bit nervous)
DA* 200/2.8
Winner of the hearts:
D-FA 28-105/3.5-5.6 (two copies)
HD DA 40/2.8 Ltd. -- so tiny and so good!
Workhorses without real flaws:
D-FA 24-70/2.8
D-FA 15-30/2.8
D-FA 150-450/4.5-5.6
Surprising good for the few bucks:
Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 DG OS HSM
For special effects with very nice performance:
Laowa 105/2.5 STF
Samyang 135/2.0
It's playtime:
A bunch of Lens Babies!
Seldom used, but good glass:
HD DA 35/2.8 Macro Ltd.
D-FA 50/2.8 Macro
HD DA 70/2.4 Ltd.
Sigma 70/2.8 DG EX Macro
D-FA 100/2.8 WR Macro
Sigma 180/3.5 DG EX
DA 1,4x Tele Converter
F 1,7x AF Tele Converter
Useable at medium apertures, but nothing special:
FA 28/2.8 AL (a bit soft)
FA 35/2 AL (best of all)
FA 43/1.9 Ltd. (hmmm)
Useless at FF but still good lenses:
Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 DC
HD DA 16-85/3.5-5.6
DA* 50-135/2.8
The worst:
HD DA 15/4 Ltd. (very poor sharpness, heavy CAs)
HD DA 21/3.2 Ltd. (nice rendering, but poor sharpness)
Sold:
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 DC HSM (nice lens)
Sigma 17-50/2.8 DC OS HSM (nice lens, but some focussing problems against bright backgrounds)
DA 18-135/3.5-5.6 (very poor corner sharpness, really heavy CAs)
FA 50/1.7 (good from medium apertures upwards, soft at wide open apertures)
FA 50/1.4 (good from medium apertures upwards, very soft at wide open apertures, heavy longitudinal CAs)
FA 135/2.8 (stunning fast AF, nice sharpness, but nearly unusable against bright light)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-08-2020, 01:16 AM
|
| |
I ordered one of the first K-1 from my longstanding dealer in Germany and never had to regret it. The camera itself is -- as most of the new lenses -- heavy and bulky, but the results are absolutely satisfying.
In the past I owned many of the Pentax DSLRs starting with the *ist DS, K20D, K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs and two K-3 -- none of them offered the uncomplicated usability of the K-1. They were smaller, lighter, in case of the K-3 a bit faster and in a few aspects more modern.
But the K-1 is a true work horse. AF.S is not the fastest, but works very precise and reliable in any lighting situations where my APS-C systems struggled, typically at high contrast backlit scenes, people against windows etc. The high resolution is for sure no disadvantage, the high ISO performance (really good usable to 3.200, getting poor at 6.400) is welcome and the tilting display sometimes very helpful. Last but not least the SR system is working very well and the diopter adjustment of the view finder matches perfectly to my myopia (-3 dpt).
I don't like to remember to the heavy picture noise of the K20D at base ISO (nearly unusable at ISO 800), the chronic defocus problems in incandescent tungsten light on the whole series and the pearl strings at the early models of the K-5 and many, many failed pictures under demanding lighting situations still with the K-3. With the K-1 all these critical weaknesses are practically gone.
And the best at the end: most lenses perform uncomplicated because of the moderate pixel density of the sensor. The new D-FA lenses matches perfectly to the K-1, showing high contrast and mostly stunning performance. One has ever used the D-FA* 50/1.4 will never ask "why K-1?" Same with the D-FA* 70-200/2.8. In general, all modern D-FA lenses are very successful. Even the cheap D-FA 28-105 shows good build quality and takes decent pictures, bread-and-butter lenses like the D-FA 24-70/2.8 have no major flawness.
All this sounds very technical and yes, it is.
From the "artistic aspect" FF enables another look of your pictures. A shallow depth of field is quite more simple to create and even with older middle class lenses like the old FA 50/1.4 you are able to make nearly perfect pictures at f/2.8 with lots of bokeh. At APS-C you would have to use the FA 35/2 AL at f/2 to create a similar blur, but the lens isn't performing impressive at this aperture.
With the new D-FA* 50/1.4 the whole aperture range performs surprisingly good, so one can create incredible effects on near distances and visible object isolation on far (a 2-stop ND filter is very helpful in bright sun).
And there is a monetary aspect, too.
As a professional photographer with some employees we use four camera bodies at the studios as on location. The nice price of the K-1 was very welcome. A Nikon D850 costs twice as much as a K-1 and most of the pictures looks exactly identical. No question: the D850 is more powerful in many aspects, but these are mostly no important criterions for me. Side effect: If you own more than one camera body no one needs expensive express repairs nor an insurance for the relatively cheap body.
The K-1 has some weaknesses too.
The internal buffer is too small and SD card interface is very, very slow and uses the memory cards one after the other. The USB 2.0 interface is just speedy enough for camera tethering in the advertising photography but hopeless slow at people shootings. The tilting mechanism of the display is something different and robust, but lacks some mobility in other than few directions. The Android tethering sofware is for the scrap, very poor. A proximity sensor at the vew finder for deactivating the rear LCD would be comfortable in dark lighting situations.
For sure, the system is quite heavy und big. This is the dark side of FF -- and Pentax' approach is one of the heaviest und biggest. So the FF way isn't the best for everyone and maybe sometime I will buy the successor of the K-3 II too, if it is significantly smaller, lighter and well made.
If you are working intensively with a camera system the compatibility of the controls is essential. So only a system with more or the less the same user interface is welcome.
Otherway I will stick at my last remaining APS-C camera K-5 IIs for hiking, which is very handy and robust.
And we are eagerly awaiting the new D-FA 85/1.4, hoping it's as good as the new D-FA 50/1.4!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-25-2020, 02:09 PM
|
| |
Sometimes I use this lens at the K-1 and I am satisfied. Would never sell this cheap and handy lens, mostly used on trips.
Pro: The optical performance is the best in comparison with all of the other FF fit zoom lenses of this range with K-mount (Sigma 70-300 APO, Tamron 70-300). It's comparable to the Pentax DA 55-300 (WR) and seems to be less good than the new DA 55-300 PLW -- but they are only for APS-C. In my eyes the optical stabilization (OS) is more useful than the SR as the viewfinder is stabilized too (but a bit floating too). The important center sharpness is good, still at 300 mm, the bokeh is mostly quite nice.
Neutral: Stopping down a bit is a good idea for better edges and contrast but not absolutely necessary. The build is rather simple, the size and weight is average.
Cons: The sun hood rotates with the front lens, the zoom ring of my lens runs very choppy. The micro contrast could be a bit higher. And some people hear the OS humming in silent conditions, a high frequency noise.
Here you can see some pictures made with this lens:
https://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=95421
https://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=111815
2012 I've ordered this lens as new at LIMAL for 137 EUR and now your offer is 95 EUR ... I think this is a great deal -- try it!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-06-2020, 10:22 AM
|
| |
The real problem are scratches, dust and bulge of the film.
For professional film scanners ("drum scanners") the slide film was mounted between a clear polyester film and an heavy acryl cylinder, the space between was filled with "drum scanner fluid" from KAMI. The fluid reduced the refraction at the scratches, the cylindric mount defined the exact distance to the optics. Before mounting the slides they were mechanical cleaned with a special cleaning fluid and a very soft cloth.
Today there is no more offer like this. Maybe some companies are using old machinery till today. And every modern FF-camera performs better than these dinosaurs with their RGB-filters and photomultipliers (Screen, Hell, Crosfield, Heidelberg, Scitex, Howtek, ScanView e.g.) ...
I worked about ten years with a few drum scanners from Dainippon Screen (DTS 1015 AI and a really big one, I've forgotten the name) and ScanView (ScanMate 11000) as on a Nikon LS-4000 ED and some flatbed scanners too.
The ScanView ScanMate 11000 has theoretical 11,000 dpi, but you only see more film grain when using this extreme ... the limit for scaling 24 x 36 mm slides is about 40 x 60 cm with best material and perfect exposure by premium lenses (1.700% @ 300 dpi = 5.100 dpi). Realistic sizes with ISO 100 films with good exposures are less than 30 x 45 cm (1.200% @ 300 dpi = 3.600 dpi). For tack sharp reproductions about 20 x 30 cm is more realistic (850%). -- MF oder large format slides are much better for large results!
The LS-4000ED is not bad and has a very good dirt masking option, which works fine on non kodachrome slides. It's real optical resolution is about 3.000 dpi and Dmax is 3.5. I cannot recommend used equipment, because the optics get foggy.
I used (and use) all the cheap desktop scanners with SilverFast Ai, which I can really recommend, but it needs some time to get in touch with it.
Don't try using any flatbed scanner for larger output. The measured optical resolution is very much less than the promises ... the dynamic range is less too (Dmax about 2.7).
For my own I use the K-1 with the D-FA 100/2.8 WR Macro lens mounted on an old enlarger stand, the light source is an old small daylight slide table masked by black paper with an opening 5 x 5 cm for the slide frames. Using the lens at f/8 and the camery with ISO 200 with highlight correction "on" results in an exposure time of about 1/15 s.
I sort the slides by brightness and color shift and take some test shots of each bunch to use the dynamic range of the camera best.
I prefer manual focussing, so I can place the focal plane between the corners and the centre of the bulged slide. Sometimes it is useful to use glassed frames.
And every slide has to be cleaned properly or you'll get crazy at retouching! Slides in old glassed frames have to be removed, the glass is surely foggy.
Most of the effort is adjusting the development parameters, restoring natural colors and retouching the scratches and dirt. This is really anoying.
You can check for perfekt sharpness by looking at the reproduction of the film grain, it should be visible at the corners as in the middle of the slide. The exposure itself is never as sharp as the grain!
The optical resolution of the K-1 with the D-FA 100/2.8 WR Macro lens is clearly better as the Nikon LS-4000 ED, the color reproduction is worse, the speed of digitizing is ten times faster.
Good luck!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-27-2016, 09:29 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-20-2016, 11:07 AM
|
| |
Diffraction is only visible, when the effect is larger than the sensor pixels. The pixels of the 36 MP sensor are larger as the pixels of the K-3, so diffraction is a smaller problem, you can use a smaller aperture.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-20-2016, 12:28 AM
|
| |
The most important questions: Which type of software will you use? Do you use a RAW workflow? Do you make extensive use of local adjustments before converting the RAW?
For my own I use exactly the same hardware (Mac OS X 10.9.x) with PhotoShop CS6 and Lightroom 6.x for developing K-3 DNGs and it feels okay. The Mac mini i7 "late 2012" is a very felicitous made computer, works well up to the 27" display class (2.540 x 1.440 pixels).
I tested DxO 8.x and Capture1 9.x for a few hours, but I'm not "compatible" to the DxO working scheme and it seems to work not really fast. Capture1 felt good to me and delivered good to superb picture results, but wasn't faster than Lightroom at all. The performance of the Pentax software is a shame.
Surely there will be some deceleration with the taller RAW-files of the K-1, but nothing I would worry about. Working on Nikon D800 NEFs showed me that the hardware is quite okay. The more local adjustments are done in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom the more you will feel the lack of processing power; PhotoShop works quite fine even with large files. In Lightroom you can adjust the amount of cache to increase speed too.
Lightroom stores the catalogue only at local mass storage and uses a disk cache heavily. This is done to ensure the integrity of the database and best responsiveness. Be sure to use the SSD for both. So you may install a larger SSD like the Samsung 850 Evo (or Pro, but for workstations not really necessary) with 1 or 2 TB space which I recommend. Most SSDs exceeding 256 GB are faster at writing because more chips are used. The 850 PRO is faster at writing very large amounts of data and last longer too -- both facts are more or the less not critical at most personal computer settings. Most SSDs last longer with more unused space on them. Use a tool like "Trim Enabler" to reduce wear on non Apple SSDs.
RAW data can be stored everywhere, internal or external disk or over the LAN. Usage of a NAS system will slightly slow down working speed, depending to NAS disk and CPU performance, RAID level and LAN limitations.
At my bureau (photography, graphic and prepress services) we use two Mac mini i5 each with a software RAID 1 of built-in SSDs with Samsung 840 EVO 1 TB as servers for 10 workstations like Mac mini i7. This setting works completely problem-free for over one year, with total abscence of any noticeable latency.
But the wear of the 840 EVO desktop SSDs is critical, after one year of usage the wear level is 85% at one server, 60% at the other, so I replace them to the far more resilient Samsung 850 PRO with 2 TB at the moment. I recommend using the "old" AFP network protocol for trouble free networking, avoiding SMB with this OS generation.
|
