All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on Pentax Raw Viewer at 25/05/2010 - 21:24
So if I understand it correctly there is no real technical reason why not to shoot with 135mm but more a preference?
Comment by Anvh posted on Best focal length for portrait at 25/05/2010 - 21:22
Greytop wrote:
Seems you have been thinking about the DA*16-50 for some while Stefan
Yes and no actually, I have always considered it as a good companion lens besides the DA*50-135 but never thought I would really find the need or have the pressure so to say.Seems you have been thinking about the DA*16-50 for some while Stefan
All of a sudden almost 80% of my photos of last 2 months are taken with the 18-55, mostly at parties indoors that's why I want f/2.8
Comment by Anvh posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 25/05/2010 - 21:16
Thank you for your comments, I needed to recheck if the Sigma was an EX
My heart also goes to the DA*16-50 but it never got stunning reviews and that's what's keeping me a bit away and the price of course but I think it's still worth it since the Sigma is also not cheap.
Sigma 17-50 OS HSM EX €599
Pentax DA*16-50 €758 (€159 for SMC and WR is worth it I believe)
Is the feel of the DA*16-50 the same as the DA*50-135?
Has somebody have seen a review about the Sigma, I can't find any?
My heart also goes to the DA*16-50 but it never got stunning reviews and that's what's keeping me a bit away and the price of course but I think it's still worth it since the Sigma is also not cheap.
Sigma 17-50 OS HSM EX €599
Pentax DA*16-50 €758 (€159 for SMC and WR is worth it I believe)
Is the feel of the DA*16-50 the same as the DA*50-135?
Has somebody have seen a review about the Sigma, I can't find any?
Comment by Anvh posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 25/05/2010 - 21:13
Nintendo is making friends link
Do you think pentax would do the same when I would ask for a 645D?
Do you think pentax would do the same when I would ask for a 645D?
Comment by Anvh posted on Another pointless thread at 25/05/2010 - 20:26
maxgorilla wrote:
So the Butterfly seems to top the recommendations. Now where can I get this for the best price?
In what country?So the Butterfly seems to top the recommendations. Now where can I get this for the best price?
I can recommend some Dutch shop but I've the feeling that won't be helpful
If you go for SRS then name you forum-name and you get free-shipping
Comment by Anvh posted on Sensor cleaning for my K-x at 25/05/2010 - 20:17
Thank you for the correction Oggy, it's a strange case and just let it keep with that. Lets hope this isn't going to be normal over 5 years
Why did they also wait so long for requesting aid?
TOZZA27 wrote:
Scary to read that the US government INSISTED that BP used the US recommended rig builders not their own tried and tested ones !
But will they accept responsibility ? I think not.
Indeed strange.Scary to read that the US government INSISTED that BP used the US recommended rig builders not their own tried and tested ones !
But will they accept responsibility ? I think not.
Why did they also wait so long for requesting aid?
Comment by Anvh posted on Another pointless thread at 25/05/2010 - 20:14
Your thoughts about the DA*16-50 and Sigma 17-50 please
I found myself shooting with the 18-55 far to often while I've some stunning lenses in the slightly longer focal length I find it really pity I don't have something slightly better.
Since I've the DA*50-135 the DA*16-50 should compliment that lens very well I believe.
I'm open to other options but I need to have quick-shift so that means Tamron 17-50 is sadly out of the question and f/2.8 is also pretty much a must.
As far as I know that would leave only the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS HSM as an option.
I found myself shooting with the 18-55 far to often while I've some stunning lenses in the slightly longer focal length I find it really pity I don't have something slightly better.
Since I've the DA*50-135 the DA*16-50 should compliment that lens very well I believe.
I'm open to other options but I need to have quick-shift so that means Tamron 17-50 is sadly out of the question and f/2.8 is also pretty much a must.
As far as I know that would leave only the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS HSM as an option.
Comment by Anvh posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 25/05/2010 - 20:09
dougf8 wrote:
Looking at your lenses you have all the portrait lengths covered in quality. Stick the 50-135 on the front and get a willing helper to experiment.
Thank you Doug for your contribution and the lovely photos.Looking at your lenses you have all the portrait lengths covered in quality. Stick the 50-135 on the front and get a willing helper to experiment.
I agree fully what you said there and the longer focal lengths is indeed handy to isolate the model more, didn't really thought about that one.
Mannesty wrote:
To answer your question simply, the DA* 55mm SDM lens has roughly the same field of view on a Pentax DSLR to the de facto standard 85mm focal length for portraits.
The softness preferred in portraits can be achieved easily in post processing.
Just buy one, you know it makes sense.
Peter you're right but I already have the DA*50-135 and I like that I can zoom and I think f/2.8 is wide enough so I'm not looking for a lens To answer your question simply, the DA* 55mm SDM lens has roughly the same field of view on a Pentax DSLR to the de facto standard 85mm focal length for portraits.
The softness preferred in portraits can be achieved easily in post processing.
Just buy one, you know it makes sense.
I just find it strange that 135mm is considered too long for portrait, that's something I can't really bend my head around.
Comment by Anvh posted on Best focal length for portrait at 25/05/2010 - 19:59
stevejcoe wrote:
Stefan, I agree with John and Al, I would also refer you to Piotr Haskiewicz's portfolio (Forum username Hasky), who has produced some magical portrait images with the FA 77Ltd.
Don't get me wrong I agree fully on that the "golden range" is around 85mm for 135format and that would be 57mm for APS-C so around that would be perfect but does that mean 135mm on APS-C (200mm EFOV) is too long? I mean is there something as too long for image quality, would the face get too flat if you use such focal lengths?Stefan, I agree with John and Al, I would also refer you to Piotr Haskiewicz's portfolio (Forum username Hasky), who has produced some magical portrait images with the FA 77Ltd.
I agree fully that for communication you can't be too far and for "personal space" you can't be too close.
Offertonhatter wrote:
I think John has got it about right. The 85mm is probably the most useful portrait lens, many Pro's swear by that length. However, I have managed to get some great images from my, 50mm, 55mm, 90mm Macro, 105mm Macro and my fave portrait lens, the mighty 50-135mm. However I feel that 135mm is still a great length especially for just face shots. Now I know it is EFOV of 202mm, it is still however a 135mm lens. I've not heard that much about the "tele-effect", but although it is a short tele it is still very useful, and probably still short enough not to have that flattening effect.
An example is here, which was at 135mm on my K20D.
It helps having light to suit, maybe to reduce the flatness.
Yes that's precisely what I mean and I don't see it either and I wonder if you would ever see it.I think John has got it about right. The 85mm is probably the most useful portrait lens, many Pro's swear by that length. However, I have managed to get some great images from my, 50mm, 55mm, 90mm Macro, 105mm Macro and my fave portrait lens, the mighty 50-135mm. However I feel that 135mm is still a great length especially for just face shots. Now I know it is EFOV of 202mm, it is still however a 135mm lens. I've not heard that much about the "tele-effect", but although it is a short tele it is still very useful, and probably still short enough not to have that flattening effect.
An example is here, which was at 135mm on my K20D.
It helps having light to suit, maybe to reduce the flatness.
The topic went about the DA*50-135 and it was said that 100-135 isn't that "usefull" of that lens for portrait because of the tele-effect.
Since he said that more strongly then it was meant the discusion became heated and so the matter was not really discuss but things have cooled down now so maybe it might be discuss a bit.
Comment by Anvh posted on Best focal length for portrait at 25/05/2010 - 19:21
There are also some free programs, i had a small list but lost it.