F2.8 lens recomendations

I am at work at the moment, will try to put a shot or two on here later.

The shoot was just a purely spure of the moment thing, but the same type of show could be on again next year, so would like to get it better next time. (used this years one as a trial)

Will Lightroom V3.2 clean up noise etc, as well as SilkyPix? I have PSE8 and shoot in Raw+.

Matt,
You could email me a link to see them.

Edit; Will more than likely get the Tamron 17-50mm, then sell my 16-45mm.

+1 Tamron 17-50mm. But Tamron has no Pentax mount for their new VC versions.

This is the lens Tamron SP AF17-50 F2.8 XR DiIILD Asp IF

Looking at two will buy later this week.

Tammy 17-50 +1

Hi Colin,
The jury is still out with LR3. I'm using LR3 at the moment, but need to have a hack at some of the show stuff I did

EDIT: LR3 seems to have very good noise reduction. It's a bit of "swings-and-roundabouts" with SPDS3Pro vs LR3, but reprocessing some ISO2000 and ISO1600 shots looks very promising indeed. So, to answer your question - the answer is yes! If you expose the image correctly (i.e. manually) you should be able to get an excellent image out of the K7 and LR3.

Will see if I can dig out a couple of images that I'd be allowed to link to
Matt

Thanks Matt

As I said on the 7th the shots are below sorry for the delay

F4 ISO200 1/20sec
[IMG]http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad254/weldingblues/Image2.jpg[/IMG]

F2.8 ISO400 1/30sec
[IMG]http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad254/weldingblues/Image1.jpg[/IMG]

These shots just show the difficult lighting conditions etc. and apart from re-size are as is.

Colin,
Looking at that lighting you should be starting at ISO800 and working even up towards ISO1600 or 2500 (not ISO200 - that's really, really optimistic!!). You can then work at f/4 or f/5.6 with out any problems and get a reasonable shutter speed for the movement.

You should also be using fully M, without the -1Ev exposure bias.

It takes practise, but you should be able to pretty much guess the lighting change by eye.

Shoot RAW as well - that will give you an extra couple of stops latitude to play with afterwards But remember to err on the side of underexposure - you don't want to blow out the faces.

Given the uneven lighting you'll need plenty of "Fill" recovery in the RAW development process.

I'd suggest practising at home until it becomes second nature

Matt

Matt,
That's the advice that I was looking for, I will still consider the Tamron 16-50mm as a replacement for the 16-45mm.

Regards

One more vote for Tamron 17-50 (non VC). Excellent value for money.

I'll pitch in with my tuppence worth. I have been using the Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DC Macro. I have found it to be an excellent lens with good value for money.

I'll second this, highly recommended.

Adrian

I have a Tokina 28-70 AT-X f2.8, and I reckon it's a pretty good lens. Built like a tank, sharp, and makes me look better than I really am.
Here's some hastily taken shots.


link

link

If you can find one for a decent price, I'd recommend it. (Though I can't compare to the Sigma/Tamron versions).
Regards

Pretty much what I was going to say

I would start at ISO 1000 to 1250 in that lighting. I can highly recommend LR3 for noise reduction