Search results for 'back focus' - page 677
Change lens or change body?
as yourself this question: Why do I need to upgrade? what is wrong with your current system as far as you are concerned? what shots are you yerning to get which the K100D + 18-55 can't give you? If you can't answer this question then I would suggest that you do not need to upgrade anyth...
Posted by Mongoose on 09/08/2007 - 18:27
Choosing the right lens for the Job
I was a firm believer in the pentax 28-200 back in the film daze and other pros said i was nutz. wide range zooms are now commonly used....the tamron 18-250 (as I've already mentioned in another thread) is the best in it's class. the multitude of reasons for having more than one body (aside from th...
Posted by Don on 11/08/2007 - 12:11
Need Teleprime or Telezoom.
The FA* 24mm, being a star lens, is considered by many to be superb on film, but not so good on digital. Around this focal length, the best prime is probably the DA 21mm Ltd. G I've taken many hundreds of shots with the FA* 24 and I love and loath it in equal measure... It's good on film (apar...
Posted by Reuben0 on 10/08/2007 - 22:09
Need Teleprime or Telezoom.
Had various other Sigma's in the past - the sort of GBP 160.00-320.00 range and never been happy with sharpness on any of them, even stopped down. I had one of their manual focus 28mm F1.8 lenses and it was an excellent performer. I sold it when I bought a 24mm F2 but wish I'd kept it really. I'v...
Posted by niblue on 12/08/2007 - 11:49
Need Teleprime or Telezoom.
The whole point of this thread was to find a cheap and temporary replacement for a 50-200. I guess I'll just save what I was going to spend for a good lens. I'd definitely suggest the Pentax (or Tamron) 28-200 then. If you buy one 2nd hand on Ebay you should be able to get your cash back on re-selli...
Posted by niblue on 12/08/2007 - 12:04
Need Teleprime or Telezoom.
If your budget is really tight, the Tamron 70-300mm is cheap and a great performer for the price. Stick on fleabay when you get your 50-200 back. I've seen these selling second had for more than I paid for mine new.
Posted by susanc on 13/08/2007 - 11:40
Looking for Macro lens
Why not just get a new Tamron 90mm 1:2.8 Macro or a Sigma 105mm EX Macro? They are £280 here in the UK, no idea about Australia. I think they are better options than the current Pentax macro lenses as they offer a focus limiter.
Posted by Tyr on 12/08/2007 - 16:47
Looking for Macro lens
I too can recommend the Tamron 90 mm macro. Apart from the focus limiter, I find the focal length very attractive on a camera with 1,5 crop factor. It doubles as a great portrait lens. The lens receives very good reviews and is considerably cheaper than the Pentax or Sigma offering. Roger.
Posted by drerka on 13/08/2007 - 10:02
Looking for Macro lens
I too can recommend the Tamron 90 mm macro. Apart from the focus limiter, I find the focal length very attractive on a camera with 1,5 crop factor. It doubles as a great portrait lens. The lens receives very good reviews and is considerably cheaper than the Pentax or Sigma offering. Roger. The ...
Posted by Daniel Bridge on 13/08/2007 - 12:18
AF Noise - use of HSM/DA*
Have you upgraded your K10D to version 1.30 of the firmware? if not it will not support the HSM facility of the DA* lens and so will be noisy as the focus will still be using the mechanical link.
Posted by amilner on 14/08/2007 - 11:57
AF Noise - use of HSM/DA*
I have no experience of the Sigma Lens but the Pentax DA* 50 -135 is almost totally silent. Very eerie the first time I used it. So quite I thought to myself "nothing happened". Had to check twice and focus further away to see that the camera was on and working.
Posted by amoringello on 14/08/2007 - 22:16
DA* worth the money?
OK, some of you lucky b*****rds have the DA* lenses already. tomorrow being the 15th, I should soon have the ability to get my hands on one. (assuming the store gets what they ordered and don't have to wait further for back orders). Anyway, for those that have them and now that you've had a whil...
Posted by amoringello on 14/08/2007 - 16:54
DA* worth the money?
Great. I decided to pick it up... About $150US less than I expected, so how could I say no? (BTW: if you don't hear from me you'll know the wife found out ;) ) Anyway, not being one to only read reviews, before I reached a dozen photos I had to take the water test. (Been waiting since January!)...
Posted by amoringello on 14/08/2007 - 22:02
DA* 50-135 comparison
But everyone got the 18-55 and 18-200 mixed. Well it's not at all surprising, given how much darker #3 is than the others. As I said, tweak the levels and it's not at all bad. I've tweaked the levels on the Sigma shot, too, and it's not at all obvious to me that either is sharper - once you ...
Posted by ChrisA on 17/08/2007 - 11:02
DA* 50-135 comparison
OK, round two... Auto focusing on a tight target is very hit or miss. My first attempt to redo the test was to focus on the head of a large nail on a plain background. High contrast, nail was perpendicular to ground (basically a single narrow plane of focus to contend with). After twenty minut...
Posted by amoringello on 18/08/2007 - 00:42
DA* 50-135 comparison
Auto focusing on a tight target is very hit or miss. ...After twenty minutes I found it was impossible to auto focus correctly... manual focus even with my bad eyesight allowed a much sharper image! That is just wrong. It does sound weird. Other than in poor light, I find the AF on the '10 prett...
Posted by ChrisA on 18/08/2007 - 01:02
DA* 50-135 comparison
What I see in the images in front of me. What I perceive as a slightly lower degree of quality that would be magnified somewhat by the time it became an A3 print, which would be my requirement for a lens. What do you see? Well looking at the crops of the bottles, say for the 18-200 and the 1...
Posted by ChrisA on 18/08/2007 - 10:17
DA* 50-135 comparison
OK, not the easisest of tasks, but I'll have a go. There's a problem with the point of focus because I'm not convinced that it's in the same place for the two shots, but have a look at the "hairs" top right against the blue background. Also look at the reproduction of the catchlight in ...
Posted by johnriley on 18/08/2007 - 11:03
DA* 50-135 comparison
Although neither lens shows any more information than the other, the right hand picture reproduces it with slightly more crispness. I am assuming that this is not because the contrast has been tweaked, but just taking it at face value that both images are unretouched. Well. The first of these is ...
Posted by ChrisA on 18/08/2007 - 11:30
DA* 50-135 comparison
One thing I have to say is I'm surprised my photography hasn't improved! I spent all this money on the lens and I haven't had one offer to buy my stuff. Argh! Fuzzy bunnies and oil&vinegar are very popular photos, are they not? :twisted: Anyway... I do find the DA* lens fantastic to wo...
Posted by amoringello on 18/08/2007 - 13:40
