Search results for 'back focus' - page 732
Club Photography, Fast Wide Angle Lens
£50 cash back on new ones at the moment, so effectively £399. But I very nearly PM'ed Danny just then! :lol: Must resist the urge! :D Dan
Posted by Daniel Bridge on 04/11/2008 - 15:36
Club Photography, Fast Wide Angle Lens
In practice I find the difference between 17mm on the 17-50 Tamron and 10mm on the Sigma 10-20 to be immense and more pronounced than the sample photos above suggest. It's not really the angle of view it's more the perspective the very wide angle allows. You won't find the Sigma 10-20 fast enough...
Posted by mikew on 05/11/2008 - 20:57
16-45mm lens
The 16-45 is very highly regarded here, but not used one myself, went straight for the DA* 16-50. The £156 you quoted though, does that include import duty, VAT & courier handling fee for taking the duties? Doubt it, in which case I would buy it from SRS for with, I believe a 2 year Pentax Warr...
Posted by Unlocker on 04/11/2008 - 22:51
16-45mm lens
Don't forget the £25.00 cash back on this lens till January.
Posted by screwdriver on 05/11/2008 - 12:38
16-45mm lens
Using a UV filter as 'protection' is really not worth it for two reasons, the first is putting a filter on the front of a lens can never improve image quality, but the main reason is that they don't work as protection. A light blow that the lens probably would survive will shatter the thin glass of ...
Posted by screwdriver on 05/11/2008 - 13:28
16-45mm lens
The 16-45 is a superb lens. The new 17-70 was dubbed as its replacement (and is similar in size). Personally I'd prefer the extra reach of the 17-70 (now I mainly use the older SMC-FA 24-90 for more than half of my shots). And as has been said, £199 with a £25 cash back offer is an absolute st...
Posted by MattMatic on 05/11/2008 - 14:17
WIDE ANGLE AND FISH EYE
Fisheyes: Pentax DA 10-17 and Zenitar 16mm FE prime Pentax DA 10-17. Pros. Small size Zoom Great performance No perspective stretch Affordable, especially with the cashback currently offered in the UK. Cons: Fish-eye distortion, can be de-fished quite successfully at the longer end (i.e. ...
Posted by RichardDay on 08/11/2008 - 14:07
Digital lenses - slower than they should be?
Just to follow on from Hefty, I love my fast glass which are all older manual focus "Pentax A series" lenses. They are a joy to use but as he says deep pockets are required and at times mine are not deep enough. But where would we all be without a wish list :lol:
Posted by kerrowdown on 09/11/2008 - 18:04
Digital lenses - slower than they should be?
True farfisa, but I would still like Pentax to produce a new 85mm, as it will still be an 85mm lens and act like an 85mm, even though the effective fov would be 127.5mm. It would just be a great Portrait lens. My 50mm is just a little too wide for head an shoulders shots, even though its efov is 75m...
Posted by Offertonhatter on 10/11/2008 - 18:45
Digital lenses - slower than they should be?
I'm not that worried about SDM, but I would like an AF version of my M200/4. Nice little lens; pretty sharp wide open, acts like a 300/4 on digital, tiny size (slips in the pocket), great IQ. What's not to like? :D Love my M200/F4 as well, its always on my KM, or else its my M135mm/F3.5. So yes I...
Posted by petercf on 22/11/2008 - 23:55
Digital lenses - slower than they should be?
How about getting an m42 adapter and using Manual focus lenses? Jupiter 9 2/85 is easy to get Tair 2.8/135 or Pentacon 2.8/135 are about and fast, as is Mir 24 2/35, some are available in k mount too, the Mir47k 2.5/20 and my fave the Variozenitar k
Posted by Poolhall on 02/12/2008 - 14:30
Your choice
15mm ltd f4 (very interested!) 21mm ltd f3.2 (just got! :D ) 31mm ltd 1.8 (have) 77mm ltd 1.8 (have) 100mm Macro f2.8 (probably the longest I will want) ...and I'm leaving a hole in the 40-58 range for now until I find out how that DA*55 stacks up! I have a M 50 1.7, and I tried out a Voigtl...
Posted by farfisa on 10/11/2008 - 14:12
DA* 16-50mm Review
Well, I am glad I bought one before the reviews because I have learned its little foibles and appreciate its finer qualities. Corners and edges are not so good wide open its true, though I dont see the same CA issues stopped down as Klaus does. But what sets this lens apart is the way the co...
Posted by Critical-i on 10/11/2008 - 15:43
DA* 16-50mm Review
It was the statement "The AF accuracy of the tested sample was mediocre with a quite significant back-focus problem at 50mm" which rang true with me. While mine performs very well for portraits and close objects for landscapes the AF is often disappointing particularly at infinity. It is also t...
Posted by GlynM on 10/11/2008 - 16:11
DA* 16-50mm Review
It was the statement "The AF accuracy of the tested sample was mediocre with a quite significant back-focus problem at 50mm" which rang true with me. While mine performs very well for portraits and close objects for landscapes the AF is often disappointing particularly at infinity. It is also t...
Posted by Critical-i on 10/11/2008 - 16:19
DA* 16-50mm Review
That's alot of duff lenses! I know :shock: I am seriously reconsidering my decision to upgrade my glass, at least I know what I currently have works. I also wonder if this problem with the 16-50 is why Pentax are not offering cashback on this lens, ie they dont have enough good stock to cope wit...
Posted by fatspider on 11/11/2008 - 16:38
DA* 16-50mm Review
Complaining about a lens that you DON'T own, is simply idiotic. I can appreciate your comments Nathan, especially as you are happy with yours, but you cant deny that a £400+ lens shouldn't need to be sent back, it just shouldn't be faulty in the first place:!: at least not to the degree that it is b...
Posted by fatspider on 12/11/2008 - 00:16
DA* 16-50mm Review
ImpotentSpider, I perfectly understand your point about the necessity of good quality for the price paid for the lens. But lets try and look at it from another perspective; Canon 17-55 f2.8 - £700 +/- Canon 24-70 f2.8 - £850 +/- Nikon 17-55 f2.8 - £830 +/- Nikon 24/70 f2.8 - £1050 +/- S...
Posted by nathanever82 on 12/11/2008 - 10:44
DA* 16-50mm Review
Well I suppose I should eat humble pie and go ahead and buy the dammed thing. Nathan is clearly devoted to this lens and his reply to my earlier post a few weeks back, were/are the main reason I picked it over the 17-70. Anyway, I've come up with a cunning plan just in case I get a dodgy copy......
Posted by fatspider on 12/11/2008 - 15:56
DA* 16-50mm Review
Spider (btw I would love to know your name... :D ) I am arrogant enough (sorry :oops:) to stand my grounds, I am happy that you are not willing to debate any further!!!!!!!!! My personal experience is reinforced by the fact that I bought my lens from SRS, and it was indeed not perfect. Mine ha...
Posted by nathanever82 on 12/11/2008 - 17:38
