I've never tried a moon shot before - but you guys have spurred me on to have a go.

This was taken a few moments ago with a Pentax K200D and a 45 year old Tamron 400mm f7.5 (circa 1963) hand held. Well, sort of hand held - I did use a bean bag and leaned against the garden shed. It was taken at f8 1/400sec ISO 400 with SR switched on.

I'm quite pleased really.





Andrew

Lovely shots!! I've been intending to have a go at photographing the moon for ages but it doesn't seem to have stopped raining here for ages - or at least if it has, I haven't noticed.


Andrew

Bokeh wonders? I must admit that I don't really understand how to categorise out of focus areas as having good or bad bokeh.

Are these good or bad or just so-so .....









Both were test shots taken with a 1963 (yes, 1963!!!) Tamron 400mm f7.5 prime soon after I acquired it. I bought it for a song on Fleabay but haven't used it much as yet.


Andrew

I've just spent a while looking at earlier pages in Александр's Journal. If this is all his own work then he's one seriously talented dude (imo), no matter how the images were created. If he is producing it at the rate he seems to be, then he's a phenomenon!!


Andrew

FWIW, I scored about 30. I then profiled and calibrated my monitor using ArgyllCMS and a Huey and tried again ....... and scored about 30.

I also seem to have Deuteranopia, ho hum ..........


Andrew

My only reason for jumping into this thread is that, from time to time, I ponder about whether I should spend a few shekels improving the glass I own or just invest more time and effort to improve my limited skills. Whilst the two are not mutually exclusive, if the difference in the quality of the glass is actually not that great then maybe I'd be better spending more time on the latter and less time on worrying about the former.

One thing that might make me shell out for better glass would be weather proofing (is the 16-45mm weatherproofed?). I well remember a day touring North Yorks with a friend, a few months back. It lashed down all day and I spent more time in the car drying the camera and kit lens than I did outside it taking photos.

I'd definitely be interested to see the results of your testing - especially if the photos were of real subjects rather than of test charts or newsprint.

Cheers
Andrew

Can I ask a dumb question here, folks?

How sure are you that the 16-45mm actually takes significantly "better" photos than the 18-55mm kit lens? It isn't obvious to this novice that the results of the Dpreview MTF tests support that notion. See: http://tiny.cc/hObJ2

I know MTF tests aren't everything but - has anyone actually done a comparison between photos taken by the two or seen any web pages that show comparisons?

Andrew

How odd ....

http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/digital/photo3_win.html


Andrew

I took a few more photos this morning, with the Rikenon on a tripod - with and without a Hoya Skylight filter - and also with/without a XR Rikenon 2X converter. I also took some with a 1960's Tamron 400mm f7.5 T2 lens that I acquired for about £20 a while back.

The shots were focussed on the transmitter mast (about a mile away) at the top left of the full frame photo above.

A few conclusions .....

1) Both lenses are sharp enough, though the Tamron is not as contrasty as the Rikenon - which can be corrected in PP.

2) The Rikenon XR 2X converter might be useful as a paperweight - but not for much else. Whilst it is probably as good as most teleconverters, the shot taken without it had no less detail - so could be cropped instead.

3) There wasn't any noticeable fringing on the transmitter mast itself in any of the shots taken. The lamp post to the right of the mast was also in the frame and, as the post was about 120m away was not fully in-focus. It did have blue fringing that was noticeable at 100% in both shots taken with the Rikenon and very obvious at 200%. The fringing is a phenomenon that seems to affect high contrast edges that are out of focus much more than those that are in-focus.

4) The shot taken with the filter on the Rikenon was marginally better than the shot with the bare lens. I've read that using a UV filter can help and it seems to stack up - so maybe I'll get one.

5) The 1960s Tamron had no noticeable fringing on the lamp post at all. On the other hand, whilst the Tamron is VERY light (about 560gm), it doesn't have a tripod collar and AFAIK I cannot get one.

There still isn't any such thing as a free lunch, though maybe the Tamron is a bit closer than the Rikenon. If I was a keen birder, I think I'd have to consider something better. Ho hum....


Andrew

I don't know why I didn't notice that. I'm not sure about the wheels, but it's very obvious on the saddle and on the handlebar pin especially. I'm blaming exhaustion caused by gardening and lack of nourishment.

The fringing on the bike is in the middle of the photo, not at the edges/corners where CA is usually worst. There is a small amount of CA blue fringing on the lamp post and transmitter mast (easily corrected in Rawtherapee) but next to none on the mesh fencing - especially in the middle near the bike (which is weird and makes one wonder whether the fringing is caused by a lens distortion/aberration at all).

I must ponder on this and maybe do a little testing tomorrow. I should have removed the Hoya filter (probably old and not HMC)- dunno whether that would have an effect, but we'll see.

Cheers
Andrew