Search results for 'back focus' - page 1180
Which legacy lenses for K1?
What do people think about my idea of treating the 14mm as a sort of 14-18mm 'zoom', via a shoot-wide-crop-later approach ... ? I'm thinking that with the high optical performance from it, plus the resolution of the K1, it would hardly be necessary to buy the equivilent zoom for such focal lengths o...
Posted by Pentaxophile on 10/05/2018 - 11:21
lens for night sky/milky way....
If the 35 you have is the f2.4 (not the macro 2.8) then I believe the design is based on the FA 35mm f2.0 which IMO is superb for astro photography. One of the more common problems with some lenses is they suffer from Coma - an elongation of points of light towards the edge of the image, but the 35 ...
Posted by LennyBloke on 17/08/2016 - 13:21
lens for night sky/milky way....
Well regarded primes are the Samyang lenses. Was trying to make my mind up between the 14mm and the 24mm. While looking into those I noticed they have just announced a 20mm. So, I think I'll hang back and see how that is reviewed. Pity the Sigma 18-35 isn't a goer on full frame, because I like it on...
Posted by Blythman on 17/08/2016 - 14:52
lens for night sky/milky way....
One thing I would say about some Samyang lenses (I had the 16mm f2.0) is they don't always have a hard-stop on the focus at infinity - my copy (and certainly some others) went well past, making it very difficult to achieve precise focus - although this will depend on your technique & your eyesight t...
Posted by LennyBloke on 17/08/2016 - 15:59
lens for night sky/milky way....
Pays to focus them in daylight Lenny. And then just use something like a bit of tape as markers to line up in the dark. My Sigma 18-35 seems to focus beyond infinity too. Managed it in the dark just manually focusing on a distance point
Posted by Blythman on 17/08/2016 - 16:29
lens for night sky/milky way....
Pays to focus them in daylight Lenny. And then just use something like a bit of tape as markers to line up in the dark. My Sigma 18-35 seems to focus beyond infinity too. Managed it in the dark just manually focusing on a distance point Yep - had heard this before, but the difference in distance bet...
Posted by LennyBloke on 17/08/2016 - 21:51
16-85 vs 16-45
Thank you 'miles500' for your comments about the 16-85. I currently have the 16-45 but was wondering if the 16-85 is a worthwhile upgrade. I have other lenses which cover the 45-85 range, so it is a case of weighing up WR benefits, focus speed/accuracy and IQ. The wide to moderate telephoto conv...
Posted by pgweber on 28/08/2016 - 18:45
16-85 vs 16-45
I have both as well as the 18-135. The 16-45 I found to be very good but tended to flare badly. The flare really got me down in ultra-bright countries like Thailand. The 16-85 is a lovely lens as long as you get a good copy. My first was DOA as it could not focus at all. The replacement was fine un...
Posted by tigershoot on 28/08/2016 - 19:01
16-85 vs 16-45
Sounds more like shake really .... what were the other settings on the F16 shots? And what was the focal length? Its hard to associate diffraction with the loss of clarity as described ('really poor, massively worse') . F16 is certainly into diffraction territory, but its a fairly gradual descent I...
Posted by tigershoot on 29/08/2016 - 08:18
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
I take it all back .... :| :idea: Yes, I was one of those who saw Pentax's new 'Full Frame' zoom, the D FA 28-105mm 1:3.5-5.6, as ... well ... a 'full frame kit lens' . And now I own one! I did my research and realised that my initial impressions were wrong ... based on a few early sample sh...
Posted by McGregNi on 01/09/2016 - 16:09
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
My 55-300 also has a tendency to over-expose in comparison with my other lenses. I have to pull it back 1/3 of a stop to get the expected results. Not sure why this would be but it's the same on my K-5iis and K-3. Also, it doesn't happen with any other lens I own. Well done on the purchase Nig...
Posted by davidstorm on 01/09/2016 - 20:50
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Thanks David :) You may have to endure a fair few more from the K7 in the meantime .... But, yes, I feel rather well prepared for a leap to Full Frame now, when it does eventually come. John, I'm not sure I would reject a lens, and certainly not an entire coating technology, because of a (what sou...
Posted by McGregNi on 01/09/2016 - 21:39
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Thanks Nigel. If it is a Friday afternoon lens it would be best to get it replaced while new. Shame one can't dial in exposure compensation per lens like one can do with focus. Obviously dialling in under exposure would affect all the others so I wouldn't want to leave it set to under expose as a ...
Posted by JAK on 01/09/2016 - 22:02
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Of course, if its something that's just a small annoyance it can be enough to put you off using it, especially the niggling doubt about a fault ....I fully accept that in that situation it is probably best to send it back, think again and try again.
Posted by McGregNi on 01/09/2016 - 22:05
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Thought you might like to know that I've given the lens another go. I turned the settings from bright to natural which reduces the contrast and it seems much better. Last night I also had a play with the raw files where it had burnt the sky out and managed to recover good cloud detail in them. Re...
Posted by JAK on 02/09/2016 - 10:41
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Excuse me hijacking your thread Nigel; another couple from Friday. Raw files processed in Elements: Hydrangea Flower Gulls on Roof The definition is actually very good when one looks beyond the camera produced jpegs. One thing my files aren't picking up with the 28-105 is the lens...
Posted by JAK on 03/09/2016 - 00:47
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
At Lennyblokes suggestion I've just carried out some test shots comparing the new D FA 28-105 with the A28 F2.8. So I set up a tripod and a flash in a softbox, with radio manual control to ensure consistent exposures. I used two test items, a beer bottle (now there's one forum member I can think of ...
Posted by McGregNi on 05/09/2016 - 23:49
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Thanks John and Philip for those extra examples , they all look good and reflect my already high opinion of the lens. John, the sky there looks fine .... Are you finding you still need a negative EC generally? Philip, some good examples at different focal lengths, I think demonstrating that it's ...
Posted by McGregNi on 13/09/2016 - 14:08
HD Pentax D FA 28-105
Philip, some good examples at different focal lengths, I think demonstrating that it's a very consistent lens over its range. That close-up at 105mm is good and sharp, and I'm also very pleased with things that close, and with the excellent minimum focus distance as well. What's happened to the ...
Posted by MrB on 13/09/2016 - 17:08
Pentax SMC P DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 Lens
Fantastic lens. I originally bought the sigma; had it for 2 days and returned it back, after having tried the Pentax. It is so much sharper. You will not regret spending the money.
Posted by Mag07 on 03/09/2016 - 16:09
