All Forum Comments
Comment by axl posted on K50 1.2 and snowy trees at 26/01/2010 - 21:43
Wouldn't mind one of those either
Comment by axl posted on "K" series lenses at 26/01/2010 - 09:22
I would atribute those reflections to the UV filter. And I can't see any vignetting???
Still, even with UV filter, FF designed lens was vignetting on APS-C sensor?!?
Still, even with UV filter, FF designed lens was vignetting on APS-C sensor?!?
Comment by axl posted on K18/3.5 experience anyone? at 26/01/2010 - 09:21
Something like this:
This is like 3min job in PS3
This is like 3min job in PS3
Comment by axl posted on 56 Spark plugs. at 26/01/2010 - 08:10
womble wrote:
Third one for me too.
My main problem with numbers 1 and 2 is that nothing is square to the frame, nor are they obviously deliberately not square (if you get my meaning!). I know I am a bit of a fusspot about these things but it is often worth getting things lined up.
K.
Thanks Kris,Third one for me too.
My main problem with numbers 1 and 2 is that nothing is square to the frame, nor are they obviously deliberately not square (if you get my meaning!). I know I am a bit of a fusspot about these things but it is often worth getting things lined up.
K.
I see what are you saying, but I didn't want to be changing the perspective. And without doing so I couldn't get things square (on the first one).
Comment by axl posted on St. Mary's Putney at 26/01/2010 - 08:04
womble wrote:
The St Albans shop is called Clarks Camera Centre Ltd but they don't seem to have a website. I tend to stand and stare through their window when doing my shopping on a Saturday afternoon.
K.
Shame they don't The St Albans shop is called Clarks Camera Centre Ltd but they don't seem to have a website. I tend to stand and stare through their window when doing my shopping on a Saturday afternoon.
K.
Didn't you see any Pentax wide angle prime there last time?
I mean something like 15/18/20mm??
Comment by axl posted on "K" series lenses at 26/01/2010 - 08:01
Dangermouse wrote:
It is odd though. Exposure is spot on if I set the camera to Av and ignore the aperture control on the lens, this goes for all pre-A series.
My K 55mm f1.8 must have been the bargain of the year then - £8.50 on ebay, nothing whatsoever wrong with it apart from a small amount of dust!
I'll give you £20 for that crappy lens It is odd though. Exposure is spot on if I set the camera to Av and ignore the aperture control on the lens, this goes for all pre-A series.
My K 55mm f1.8 must have been the bargain of the year then - £8.50 on ebay, nothing whatsoever wrong with it apart from a small amount of dust!
seriously man, for that price it's a daylight robbery! Enjoy it, it's very sweet lens
Comment by axl posted on "K" series lenses at 26/01/2010 - 08:00
nathanever82 wrote:
Peter, I'm sorry, but I've had this lens for 3 months now, and have not had one instance where PF was noticeable.
I haven't seen the comments on other forum, and you might not want to believe test charts (not sure which is more reliable..). My personal experience is a very positive one, and I think you should gain some experience with the lens in order to give such a judgment on it.
Not only, but to get back to the OP, the combination of 200 + TC is incredibly more flexible than a 300 mm prime, which will only be used for wildlife or similar. Not to mention the fact that the 200+TC is still an f4 combination, and therefore there should be very minimal loss when compared to the 300.
Hard to argue with personal experience.Peter, I'm sorry, but I've had this lens for 3 months now, and have not had one instance where PF was noticeable.
I haven't seen the comments on other forum, and you might not want to believe test charts (not sure which is more reliable..). My personal experience is a very positive one, and I think you should gain some experience with the lens in order to give such a judgment on it.
Not only, but to get back to the OP, the combination of 200 + TC is incredibly more flexible than a 300 mm prime, which will only be used for wildlife or similar. Not to mention the fact that the 200+TC is still an f4 combination, and therefore there should be very minimal loss when compared to the 300.
I have only tried DA*200 and wasn't too impressed (even less by it's price tag, considering it was second hand copy) and let it be.
...
Comment by axl posted on 300mm f4 vs 200mm2.8+TC at 26/01/2010 - 07:58
Thanks Clarky,
what camera was that taken with?
And the vignetting, was it even on APS-C cameras or on film?
I just want to use it as normal wide angle. I'm trying to finish my prime line up.
I have Sigma 10-20 but because of it's jerky focusing I've been using it as 10mm f4 prime. And 10mm is really too wide for many applications. But since my K10D has trouble to focus this thing, I was thinking of replacing it...
what camera was that taken with?
And the vignetting, was it even on APS-C cameras or on film?
I just want to use it as normal wide angle. I'm trying to finish my prime line up.
I have Sigma 10-20 but because of it's jerky focusing I've been using it as 10mm f4 prime. And 10mm is really too wide for many applications. But since my K10D has trouble to focus this thing, I was thinking of replacing it...
Comment by axl posted on K18/3.5 experience anyone? at 26/01/2010 - 07:55
Exactly what I'm saying, on the other side, while trying DA*200 in shop, I didn't even have to really try hard and the PF was all over the place
Comment by axl posted on 300mm f4 vs 200mm2.8+TC at 25/01/2010 - 23:08
really nice, frankly, I like it more than the barbed wire