All Forum Comments
I believe there are quite a lot of new photographers because of the K-X maybe that's the reason?
Comment by Anvh posted on Image quality at 16/10/2010 - 16:03
pentaxian450 wrote:
If it's too sharp it's quite easy to soften the photo in post processing so it's better to have a lens that's too sharp then too soft imho.snappychappy wrote:
Many macro lenses at around the 100mm length make good portrait lenses.
I personally find macro lenses to sharp for most women portrait. But to emphasize the effect of time on some senior citizen, they are perfect.Many macro lenses at around the 100mm length make good portrait lenses.
There really is not such a thing as the perfect focal length for portrait, it's quite a personal choice which is the best.
If you like personal portraits then a wider lens is more suited for example.
A 28-70 range lens should be able to cover most aspects.
I went for a dual lens solution the DA*16-50 for the full portrait and personal work and the DA*50-135 which perfect for the classic head shoulders and more close-up work like has being said.
If you want to go for sigma I would have a look at the Sigma 17-50 and the 50-150, both are EX lenses and f/2.8, and hopefully the contrast and colour are comparable. They also have a very nice 24-70 f/2.8 lens.
Comment by Anvh posted on Best Focal Length for Portraits? at 16/10/2010 - 16:00
hmmm maybe Pentax should just make a 0.66x converter only for 135format lenses, problem solved
Comment by Anvh posted on No more Pentax for me!... at 16/10/2010 - 15:42
pentaxian450 wrote:
99% of the time, the error is going to be so small, it won't be noticeable.
That depends on so many things i don't want to say a percentage.99% of the time, the error is going to be so small, it won't be noticeable.
I do agree with you that the error is small most of the time but if you've only millimetres of playing room that small error will be noticeable.
Just try to recompose with macro photography or portrait with a very fast lens that gives a very small dof.
Comment by Anvh posted on How to avoid back-focus problem when focus-recompose? at 14/10/2010 - 19:48
brightstone wrote:
so is it a non-SMC lens? confused by the worry about flare...
Like said it does come with SMC, it even has the newest coating from Pentax, the SP to make it more rebelling against dust, water and grease to make it easier to clean and let the water pearl of the front element.so is it a non-SMC lens? confused by the worry about flare...
Comment by Anvh posted on DAL 35mm available at 13/10/2010 - 21:41
matwhittington wrote:
I voted no because as a rule I don't use the UV filters, for reasons already stated here. However, I do own a couple of them to use additional protection if/when I end up in an environment which might be damaging... for example if I am likely to get splashed with sea water or something like that. UV filters often seem to be sold as 'protect' filters for this reason I guess. That said, the use they actually get is minimal, especially as I tend to use DA* lenses when I can, which are weather sealed and pretty robust already.
The DA* lenses and some of the newer DA lenses have the SP (Super Protection) coating it's fluoride based and should protect against water-based and/or oily substances.I voted no because as a rule I don't use the UV filters, for reasons already stated here. However, I do own a couple of them to use additional protection if/when I end up in an environment which might be damaging... for example if I am likely to get splashed with sea water or something like that. UV filters often seem to be sold as 'protect' filters for this reason I guess. That said, the use they actually get is minimal, especially as I tend to use DA* lenses when I can, which are weather sealed and pretty robust already.
I wonder if that includes sea-water?
Comment by Anvh posted on UV filter or No UV filter? at 13/10/2010 - 21:33
Hypocorism wrote:
All default lenses I've seen sold with K-x come with a hood (my Sigma did, and Pentax 18-55 do), or did you buy body only?
.R.
The Pentax DA-L lenses that are bundled with the K-M, K-X and the K-r don't have the hood included.roscopecotrain wrote:
I think i will stay away from the UV filter and spend the money on a lens hood instead.
I don't think you'll end up regretting that decision, however re: the lens hood, can I ask why you didn't get one with your new K-x purchase?I think i will stay away from the UV filter and spend the money on a lens hood instead.
All default lenses I've seen sold with K-x come with a hood (my Sigma did, and Pentax 18-55 do), or did you buy body only?
.R.
Comment by Anvh posted on UV filter or No UV filter? at 13/10/2010 - 21:30
Hypocorism wrote:
Rest assured that a top quality filter, whatever type you choose, will NOT affect your IQ (that's Image Quality Btw), but they are not cheap.
Flaring is always a problem, some do have coatings for that but they only reduce the flare or chance to that.Rest assured that a top quality filter, whatever type you choose, will NOT affect your IQ (that's Image Quality Btw), but they are not cheap.
Comment by Anvh posted on UV filter or No UV filter? at 13/10/2010 - 21:26
pentaxian450 wrote:
If your AF is accurate, you shouldn't have a back focus problem when you focus and recompose.
That's not true i'm afraid, unless the DOF of your lens isn't flat... telephoto fisheye maybe?If your AF is accurate, you shouldn't have a back focus problem when you focus and recompose.
Here is an image of the problem to make it clearer.
If you've an AF with multiple focus points you can also of course use the correct focus point or can't you do that?
Comment by Anvh posted on How to avoid back-focus problem when focus-recompose? at 13/10/2010 - 20:56
UV is already cut out by the lens coating and the filter that's in front of the sensor.
As for protection, that's only needed with very old lenses just look at this link
The front element is very hard to scratch and even if you did you will hardly notice it on your photo, just put a corner of a post it paper on your lens and be surprised by not seeing it
The only reason I can think off to use a filter as protection is against corrosive elements that can hurt the coating, like the salt water and the sand if you're on the beach a lot of the time as an example.
here is a view on the matter by someone else. link
As for protection, that's only needed with very old lenses just look at this link
The front element is very hard to scratch and even if you did you will hardly notice it on your photo, just put a corner of a post it paper on your lens and be surprised by not seeing it
The only reason I can think off to use a filter as protection is against corrosive elements that can hurt the coating, like the salt water and the sand if you're on the beach a lot of the time as an example.
here is a view on the matter by someone else. link
Comment by Anvh posted on UV filter or No UV filter? at 13/10/2010 - 20:50
