|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-10-2008, 04:53 AM
|
| |
The last price you quoted is not that bad… All in all you should compare the Tamron prices to the old Pentax A 300/2.8, which is much more expensive on the second-hand market than the new DA 300/4. This one f-stop makes a huge difference in all respects: bulk, weight and price. But the one f-stop advantage can be a very decisive assett.
Ben
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-09-2008, 02:19 PM
|
| |
Hi John. The 60B is a fine lens. I bought one myself some time ago and can only emphasize, what you have written. But both, focusing and handholding improve with practice. Handholding was intended by Tamron via the the included handrest (which screws into the tripod mount). Unfortunately I have never had this rest, because it wasn't there, when I bought my lens. But I have a substantial quick release plate (Manfrotto hexagons) on the the mount and use that for handholding. It gives a much better grip, than the usual "claw around the lens barrel." And as the QR plate is right below the center of gravity, it really helps, holding the lens-camera-combo steady.
When I started using that lens handheld, I managed to get blurred images (despite SR) with 1/4000s! Now I am down to 1/250s and get sharp images more often than not. The Tamron works very well with the Pentax 1.4x-L tele converter by the way.
regards
Ben
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-09-2008, 03:08 AM
|
| |
Well, my A* 300/4 was not a Cent less expensive than a DA 300 is. And the Zeiss lenses are in no way cheaper than AF modells.
Nobody in this thread completely dismissed MF lenses - quite to the contrary - there are applications for both, MF and AF and a good AF lens can be used easily manually. By the way: I rarely use my 500/4.5 near infinity, more in the realm of 10-50 meters for bird photography. And that involves heavy MF work. An IF lens would be much better, but the 500 is too old for that concept.
The problem is, that really good manual lenses are basically quite as expensive as AF lenses. The Zeiss lenses, you mention are an example, but that is also true for some Petax glass. My Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar was less expensive than the Pentax FA200/4 Macro (but that is an enigmatic lens, I actually have never seen) - but it was in no way cheap. With lenses it is the same as with most other things in life: quality does not come cheap.
I have lost many bird shots, because manual focusing at not infinite distances is simply slow. I don't say, that it is impossible to make stunning nature shots manually - because decades of impressive MF photography prove otherwise.
I know you are a victim of the high VAT and other import duties in Sweden - but that basically applies to all lenses, MF or AF. As I wrote above, my A*300/4 manual focus lens was not a single Cent cheaper, than a DA 300 would be. I don't know about your SMC-M, but I guess, it is the old SMC K, because the only SMC-M 300 is the *-variety, which is a rare collectors item. If you got that for 90 USD, you are a very lucky guy.
Anyway: There is a place for AF lenses and for MF. Generally I don't care, as long, as the lens delivers top image quality. And especially in the tele area, modern lenses, AF or MF, beat old glass, because the lens designers of 30-40 years ago mostly did not have means to realize top image quality at long focal lengthes - it was simply way too expensive.
Every lens is a compromise, but modern glass technology is often a key ingredients to achieve better quality optics at an affordable price. The price advantage you refer too is the one, every second-hand item has versus a new item, be it lenses or cars. A really good Apo lens in the 1970 was more expensive, than a comparable lens today.
regards
Ben
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-08-2008, 12:54 PM
|
| |
Sorry, I think you got carried away with your statement. First of all, there are a couple of lenses, namely Pentax FA lenses, which have far superior optical performance, than any of the old manual lenses (80-200/2.8 or 28-75/2.8 spring to my mind, but also the 300/4.5, 400/2.8, 600/4 etc. pp) This would be one reason to go for AF lenses. In the MF lens aera, especially long tele photo lenses were severely limited in their performance, because photographic lenses rarely sported ED/SD lens elements. There was the Ultra-Apo Takumar - but that was that. Only late MF lenses (the A* modells) benefitted from low dispersion glass.
Also, there are other good reasons for AF. For once it can be faster, as - again especially with long lenses – the simple mechanical act of focusing takes a lot of time. Old glass usually has helicoids for simply changing the lens-to-film- distance. These require a long travel, usually around 360 degs, a full turn (400/5.6, 500/4.5 etc.). Modern IF (internal focusing) lenses were already much faster to focus, even manually and AF topped that. I think, the discussion, wheter manual or auto focusing was faster, has been decided ten years ago with the modern Canon EOS modells (even pre-digital).
So, in my opinion, AF has its place or quite a few places in photography. It is not about an excuse to spend money. Your rant could be read quite to the contrary, somebody hiding his lack of funds or unwillingnes to invest in modern, at least partly superior equipment, behind this rant against modern AF lenses. I don't think, that this is your motivation, but really, your lines were too pointed. MF lenses might be your preferred choice, but this is an individual choice and not one on general account.
(By the way, I think, you targetted the wrong person, as Hrishi just posted a few nice owl images, taken with the old K 300/4.)
I personally use, whatever is adequate for the images I want to make. If I have time and don't need to deliver within a deadline I even go out with one of my 4x5 cameras. This is slow! At other times, to meet a tight deadline, I fire away with AF lenses and full-speed (as far as possible with Pentax...) And I even use some of my AF lenses manually if it is of advantage...
regards
Ben
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-08-2008, 12:40 PM
|
| |
This seller has ridiculous prices for many items he sells (I scrutinize his inventory from time to time). I would never buy the M* for that amount, given, that you can have the A* for 30 % less. The M* might be rarer, being the only M lens with the "*" designation, but optically it is the same as the A* and it lacks the useful A-contacts.
Ben
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-08-2008, 08:18 AM
|
| |
Hallo Rainer, noch ein Deutscher…
O.K. The SMC K 300/4 is a good, not superb, but really good lens. It is slow to focus and it delivers some colour abberations, but under most circumstances it is sharp and gives good image quality. There is another lens thread especially about the K 300/4, here, where you may find some examples. You will find, that actually the images are quite as good, as any other 300mm lens will give under real live conditions. – By the way, I would sell mine...
The A* 300/4 certainly is better in terms of image quality. And it is much smaller and lighter. Indeed I would call it diminutive for a 300mm lens! But it will cost you much, much more.
The Tamron 300/2.8 is a wonderful lens, but big and heavy and absolutely more expensive than the K 300/4. On the other hand it may be cheaper than an A* 300/4, but you have to carry three times the weight and bulk.
I can't comment on the Russion 300/4.5 lenses, but you will loose half an f-stop compared to the 4.0 lenses and the Russion focusing helicoids tend to require some work for focusing.
You may find a good condition Meyer Optik/Pentacon 300/4 chaeply. These lenses are really good, but big, heavy and slow to focus, too. Anyway, they won't be cheaper than the K 300/4.
Considering all options (except the AF lenses by pentax, which tend to be very expensive), the SMC K 300/4 gives the most bang for the buck. That is at least my opinion, having all of the above lenses except the Russian modells.
besten Gruß,
Ben
|
