FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5


smudge

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 15:07
pgweber wrote:
As I said before, pictures such as the goose and 'Flying Scotsman' in particular fail to give me confidence that the K1 and/or new lens tracking autofocus performance is up to scratch (though I do note that Scotsman was visiting the Fife Circle well into the evening when light levels were declining).

Could you give me a bit more explanation please Peter? I have been looking closely at the Scotsman picture and it looks fine to me. Are you saying that the whole thing is out of focus or that it is not focused on the right part of the image?
Regards, Philip

JAK

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 15:19
The goose was taken at 105mm at f5.6, so depth of field is very limited with FF. The eyes are spot on which is what one normally aims for. I do not see a focus problem here that a bit more DOF wouldn't have helped.
The Flying Scotsman photo was taken at an ISO of 12800, which isn't ideal! It isn't a focus problem.
Also, maximum zoom isn't always ideal for best definition and both were taken at 105mm.
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 17/05/2016 - 15:20

pgweber

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 16:29
In order to try and see detail on the goose, I was looking at the darker plumage around the neck. If the eyes were the focal point then I would be looking in the wrong place.

In the 'Scotsman' shot, I thought there seemed to be some softness in the detail of the ballast and foliage and also the number-plate didn't jump out. However, I accept the point about focal length and conversely I am impressed by the noise performance. It must have been fading evening light to have necessitated ISO12800.
Peter

Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm

McBrian

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 18:33
pgweber wrote:

In the 'Scotsman' shot, I thought there seemed to be some softness in the detail of the ballast and foliage and also the number-plate didn't jump out. However, I accept the point about focal length and conversely I am impressed by the noise performance. It must have been fading evening light to have necessitated ISO12800.

In hindsight probably not the best pic I could have picked to show the lens sharpness, was maybe about 40ft to the focus point (centre of image) so on the K1 at f5.6 and 105mm the depth of field is approx. 7ft and I was panning as it was moving at around 40/60mph with a stiff breeze (8/10mph) blowing.

I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions
Cheers
Brian.
LBA is good for you, a Lens a day helps you work, rest and play.

StephenHampshire

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 18:56
McBrian wrote:
pgweber wrote:

In the 'Scotsman' shot, I thought there seemed to be some softness in the detail of the ballast and foliage and also the number-plate didn't jump out. However, I accept the point about focal length and conversely I am impressed by the noise performance. It must have been fading evening light to have necessitated ISO12800.

In hindsight probably not the best pic I could have picked to show the lens sharpness, was maybe about 40ft to the focus point (centre of image) so on the K1 at f5.6 and 105mm the depth of field is approx. 7ft and I was panning as it was moving at around 40/60mph with a stiff breeze (8/10mph) blowing.

I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions

£4,000,000 quid and the loco is still not sharp?? Could have restored and un-rebuilt Ellerman Lines for less
Everything Changes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arleimages/

johnriley

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 19:03
The goose is focused specifically on the eyes and most of the rest will be outside the DOF.
Best regards, John

joostdh

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 21:05
I see your review is up John, Iíll go read it now.

As for my observations so far: itís honestly too soon to tell as I just havenít made enough photos with it yet and/or had time to view them on my computer.

The first thing I check is if anything is obviously wrong with a new lens. I have returned Pentax lenses in the past within the legal window, most notably a horrible FA31 directly from Ricoh and a decentered DA16Ė85 (otherwise lovely). This one seems fine in those respects.

Otherwise: I havenít drawn any conclusions yet.
Pentax K-1| Pentax K-01 | D-FA 28-105mm | FA 28mm F2.8 | FA 35mm F2.0 | FA 43mm F1.9 Ltd | FA 50mm F1.4 | FA 50mm F2.8 Macro | FA* 85mm F1.4 | FA 100mm F2.8 Macro | DA* 200mm F2.8 | Pentax AF 540FGZ

theonenadeem

Link Posted 17/05/2016 - 21:08
Actually it was the old lens , but good to see photos taken with the new lens and look forward to your review John.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.