All Forum Comments
Ok, so it's only a bit o' quick knockabout fun... so no C&C, right?
Comment by BigJacko posted on Specsavers at 18/08/2010 - 20:10
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
For more examples of the adaptability and quality of this lens see this thread: link
Having said that, it's not the most obvious landscape lens. But I certainly wouldn't dismiss it entirely.
Fair points, Mhuni - certainly your photos are all very classy, and conceal the fisheye-ness extremely well, despite being very much at or near the 'short' end in all three cases. However, you've concealed the effect principally because there's little or no foreground detail anywhere near the edges (side, top or bottom) of the frame, hence the 'crazy verticals' problem doesn't show up. In the middle-to-far distance, I agree, the problem goes away to a much greater extent, but I can still see just a hint of 'fishyness' about them - though it's hard to pin it down as to what gives it away.Quote:
But it was very obvious, very quickly, that this lens was a one-trick pony. It makes 'fisheye' photos - nothing more, nothing less. I would very quickly tire of that effect - even though it's very creative, and lots of fun - because it's so unnatural, and so obviously, er, fisheye!
To be fair, the 10-17 is more than just a one trick pony - it also doesn't have to bend everything and can be used for interesting landscapes, though you do have to be careful. Here's a few examples of mine - link link link. None of these have been defished - if you keep the horizon near the centre that won't be distorted at all and the distortion at the edges won't necessarily be obvious.But it was very obvious, very quickly, that this lens was a one-trick pony. It makes 'fisheye' photos - nothing more, nothing less. I would very quickly tire of that effect - even though it's very creative, and lots of fun - because it's so unnatural, and so obviously, er, fisheye!
For more examples of the adaptability and quality of this lens see this thread: link
Having said that, it's not the most obvious landscape lens. But I certainly wouldn't dismiss it entirely.
Conversely, the beer-bottle shot in the thread you mentioned, is a classic example of a time when I'd prefer a straight-vertical rather than a fisheye. Ok, so the shooter has aimed for a particular effect and got it, creating an interesting and funky photo in the process - but I hate to say it... to me, that effect is rather cliché and hackneyed now, and this is what I meant about it being a bit of a one-trick pony. Other than by the methods you used above, it can't really escape from the fact that it's a bit of a bendy-lens, if there's frame-edge stuff closer than a few tens of yards!
Certainly, if money was no object, I would have one of these 10-17 fisheyes in my collection though, without a doubt. Who wouldn't? But alas, money is an object, and I'd personally elect for the 10-20 Sigma first, if I was going down that route. Yes, I'd love to have both; but I'd also love to do a bare-nekkid photo-shoot with Angeline Jolie, but I can't see that happening soon, either! I live in perpetual hope, though, like most of us...
Comment by BigJacko posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 18:29
What flavour lenses are they?
From what I've read, most (if not all) of the Chinon lenses don't have Ricoh P-pins. However, check the mount side (or the rear-cap, if it's original). If it says 'PK' you're probably ok - if it says 'RK', look for a pin!
In my experience, removing a Richoh P-pin is childs-play - I've done it on both the Ricoh & Vivitar lenses that I have which had them. Four screws, take off the back mount bezel, find the pin, slide it out with tweezers, put the bezel back on, screw it down. Most difficult thing was finding somewhere to keep the pins in case I ever needed to sell or give the lenses to a Ricoh owner - though I could've thrown them away, for all that!
Only thing I've read which is potentially worrying about a Chinon (200m) was that it wouldn't focus to infinity on a Pentax body - and the answer given was that it was set to project differently to a Chinon focal plane that was different to a Pentax's. Not sure I wholly believe that (but it's possible - I don't know enough about individual Chinon cameras). In any case, the fault is apparently correctable, but involves adjusting the focus barrel alignment. Not for the fainthearted, I'd say. (more info here).
I would definitely (a) check for pins, just in case and then (b) give each lens a spin on your camera just to be sure you can focus them to infinity. And don't pay too much, either. IMHO Chinon lenses weren't 'all that' - though they weren't rubbish, they're not top-grade, so price accordingly... Of course, if they're free, just stick 'em in your bag, and worry about it later!
From what I've read, most (if not all) of the Chinon lenses don't have Ricoh P-pins. However, check the mount side (or the rear-cap, if it's original). If it says 'PK' you're probably ok - if it says 'RK', look for a pin!
In my experience, removing a Richoh P-pin is childs-play - I've done it on both the Ricoh & Vivitar lenses that I have which had them. Four screws, take off the back mount bezel, find the pin, slide it out with tweezers, put the bezel back on, screw it down. Most difficult thing was finding somewhere to keep the pins in case I ever needed to sell or give the lenses to a Ricoh owner - though I could've thrown them away, for all that!
Only thing I've read which is potentially worrying about a Chinon (200m) was that it wouldn't focus to infinity on a Pentax body - and the answer given was that it was set to project differently to a Chinon focal plane that was different to a Pentax's. Not sure I wholly believe that (but it's possible - I don't know enough about individual Chinon cameras). In any case, the fault is apparently correctable, but involves adjusting the focus barrel alignment. Not for the fainthearted, I'd say. (more info here).
I would definitely (a) check for pins, just in case and then (b) give each lens a spin on your camera just to be sure you can focus them to infinity. And don't pay too much, either. IMHO Chinon lenses weren't 'all that' - though they weren't rubbish, they're not top-grade, so price accordingly... Of course, if they're free, just stick 'em in your bag, and worry about it later!
Comment by BigJacko posted on chinon lens compatability at 18/08/2010 - 14:28
Some crackingly good comments on this thread, imho. Especially the words of warning.
I too have recently purchased a K-x and have fallen in love with photgraphy all over again, because of it.
I've got a bunch of old lenses hanging around from film days, including a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 (with Ricoh P-pin removed!) which probably isn't as pin-sharp as the Pentax equivalent that Dangermouse is referring to, but which is pretty good, all the same. Price on Ebay? Probably less than a tenner.
I've also got an old Ricoh/Rikonen 50mm f1.7 (also with the P-pin removed) which does a fine job, although again, it's probably not quite as excellent as a Pentax-M f1.7 - but it is a bit cheaper, and probably is worth about a tenner also.
But the thing is, despite specifically buying a Pentax so that I could re-use these old lenses, because they are both manual focus, manual aperture lenses, they're a bit of a pain to operate. Sure, you can use stop-down metering to get the K-x to set the right shutter speed for the aperture you've dialled in, and this process is little more than the press of the Green Button. And, sure, manual-focus isn't that tough either - the green hexagon and the bleep still works...
... but for me, the extra complication, on top of getting to grips with the K-x itself, was really something I didn't enjoy much - because the results were so unpredictable and variable (at first).
This is something you might want to think about if you're new to the K-x (and indeed, new to SLR photography as well). Fully manual lenses take some practice, and are unforgiving at first... and your 18-55mm fully-autofocus/autoaperture zoom is, by comparison, MUCH more user-friendly and MUCH more likely to get you some initial results that'll boost confidence and make you happy.
When you're so slick with the 18-55 that it's virtually boring, perhaps then's the time to go playing with manual lenses? There'll still be plenty on eBay.
Alternatively, I managed to pick up a Pentax-A 50mm f2.0 from this very forum (thanks again, Simon!) for next to nothing - and at least that means all I have to worry about is the manual focus (the aperture is controlled by the K-x). On eBay, these are going from anywhere between 20 and 40 quid. The benefit (and imho, sole purpose) of fast 50mm primes, whether fully-manual (Pentax-M) or auto-aperture (Pentax-A) is that the wide apertures are great for throwing the background into massive defocus when taking head-and-shoulders portraits. Call me a luddite, but for anything else, I'd personally not bother to take my 18-55 kit lens off. My Ricoh (f1.7) is 'technically' better at that job than the Pentax-A (f2.0), by a third-of-stop - but the added hassle of working the manual aperture/stop-down-metering means I rarely use it. If I'm doing a portrait, and the kit lens doesn't give me enough background bokeh, then it's on with the Pentax-A.
As for my 28mm lens, I virtually don't use it at all. I can do pretty much everything it does, with my kit lens - and more so. I can come out wider - to 18mm (effective 27mm in 35mm terms) - whereas the Vivitar 28mm will only get me down to an effective 42mm in 35mm terms - and frankly, that's not far off what used to be a portrait lens on my old film SLR camera! The difference in aperture wideness on the Vivitar 28mm (f2.8 at its max) compared to the kit lens (f3.5 at 18mm) is only 2/3rds of a stop - which isn't *that* crucial, really. Ok, so it is 60% more light available on the Vivitar at max aperature - but what I'm getting it is that the situations where this is going to be a 'deal-breaker' are few and far between. You're unlikely to require the extra aperture width for background blur if you're taking a landscape, and you're unlikely to find that the extra light is required - if the light's that bad, either lens is not going to give the best result on a landscape/wide-angle shot. It would only really make a difference if the Vivitar was being used for portraiture, imho - in which case, the whole 'wide-angle' argument is moot.
Ok - so down to the bottom end (but the top end pricewise) - Fisheyes vs UWAs... I was lucky enough to be lent a Pentax 10-17 fisheye last weekend by Steve Chasey (thanks Steve) at a meetup. Sure, it's a fun little lens, and I was able to take some really cool 180-degree wide-angle shots in the cafe, and experience the 'fisheye' effect in full. But it was very obvious, very quickly, that this lens was a one-trick pony. It makes 'fisheye' photos - nothing more, nothing less. I would very quickly tire of that effect - even though it's very creative, and lots of fun - because it's so unnatural, and so obviously, er, fisheye!
Then and there, I decided once and for all, that if I was going to go for a lens 'below' my 18-55mm K-x kit lens, it would be the Sigma 10-20mm UWA, which has perspective correction built into it. I've ruled out the Pentax 12-24 for the same reasons you have - it doesn't go down far enough, and it overlaps the kit lens too much, whereas the Sigma 10-20 is 2mm 'better off!'. And most importantly, as seen in the posts above, it renders straight verticals - which means the shots it makes are (broadly speaking) conventional. The 'gimmick' is gone, and the creativity is more about what you do with it, than the effect. And of course, if you really want a fisheye effect, you can knock that up in Photoshop in seconds anyway!
So... in my opinion - stick with what you have for now. Learn it. Play with it. Push it to its limits. You'll be able to do most things that you want with it. When you've found the boundaries, think again about what lenses you want. If you want a 'reasonable' portrait lens for cheap prices, there are hundreds of decent f2s & f1.7 50mms to be had (but a Pentax-A f1.4 50mm will of course set you back hundreds of pounds, even now!). Same goes for 28mm lenses - they can be had for peanuts.
If you really run into problems stitching together panoramas taken with your kit-lens, and really, really decide you need a wide-angle, I'd go for one that will get used a lot, rather than played with a few times and then put back in the case... the straight-vertical, rather than the fisheye.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and I fully expect to be jumped on for it - but I really would say, either way - save your money for now, and look at it later when you've squeezed all the juice out of your current kit... I don't think anyone would argue with that bit!
I too have recently purchased a K-x and have fallen in love with photgraphy all over again, because of it.
I've got a bunch of old lenses hanging around from film days, including a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 (with Ricoh P-pin removed!) which probably isn't as pin-sharp as the Pentax equivalent that Dangermouse is referring to, but which is pretty good, all the same. Price on Ebay? Probably less than a tenner.
I've also got an old Ricoh/Rikonen 50mm f1.7 (also with the P-pin removed) which does a fine job, although again, it's probably not quite as excellent as a Pentax-M f1.7 - but it is a bit cheaper, and probably is worth about a tenner also.
But the thing is, despite specifically buying a Pentax so that I could re-use these old lenses, because they are both manual focus, manual aperture lenses, they're a bit of a pain to operate. Sure, you can use stop-down metering to get the K-x to set the right shutter speed for the aperture you've dialled in, and this process is little more than the press of the Green Button. And, sure, manual-focus isn't that tough either - the green hexagon and the bleep still works...
... but for me, the extra complication, on top of getting to grips with the K-x itself, was really something I didn't enjoy much - because the results were so unpredictable and variable (at first).
This is something you might want to think about if you're new to the K-x (and indeed, new to SLR photography as well). Fully manual lenses take some practice, and are unforgiving at first... and your 18-55mm fully-autofocus/autoaperture zoom is, by comparison, MUCH more user-friendly and MUCH more likely to get you some initial results that'll boost confidence and make you happy.
When you're so slick with the 18-55 that it's virtually boring, perhaps then's the time to go playing with manual lenses? There'll still be plenty on eBay.
Alternatively, I managed to pick up a Pentax-A 50mm f2.0 from this very forum (thanks again, Simon!) for next to nothing - and at least that means all I have to worry about is the manual focus (the aperture is controlled by the K-x). On eBay, these are going from anywhere between 20 and 40 quid. The benefit (and imho, sole purpose) of fast 50mm primes, whether fully-manual (Pentax-M) or auto-aperture (Pentax-A) is that the wide apertures are great for throwing the background into massive defocus when taking head-and-shoulders portraits. Call me a luddite, but for anything else, I'd personally not bother to take my 18-55 kit lens off. My Ricoh (f1.7) is 'technically' better at that job than the Pentax-A (f2.0), by a third-of-stop - but the added hassle of working the manual aperture/stop-down-metering means I rarely use it. If I'm doing a portrait, and the kit lens doesn't give me enough background bokeh, then it's on with the Pentax-A.
As for my 28mm lens, I virtually don't use it at all. I can do pretty much everything it does, with my kit lens - and more so. I can come out wider - to 18mm (effective 27mm in 35mm terms) - whereas the Vivitar 28mm will only get me down to an effective 42mm in 35mm terms - and frankly, that's not far off what used to be a portrait lens on my old film SLR camera! The difference in aperture wideness on the Vivitar 28mm (f2.8 at its max) compared to the kit lens (f3.5 at 18mm) is only 2/3rds of a stop - which isn't *that* crucial, really. Ok, so it is 60% more light available on the Vivitar at max aperature - but what I'm getting it is that the situations where this is going to be a 'deal-breaker' are few and far between. You're unlikely to require the extra aperture width for background blur if you're taking a landscape, and you're unlikely to find that the extra light is required - if the light's that bad, either lens is not going to give the best result on a landscape/wide-angle shot. It would only really make a difference if the Vivitar was being used for portraiture, imho - in which case, the whole 'wide-angle' argument is moot.
Ok - so down to the bottom end (but the top end pricewise) - Fisheyes vs UWAs... I was lucky enough to be lent a Pentax 10-17 fisheye last weekend by Steve Chasey (thanks Steve) at a meetup. Sure, it's a fun little lens, and I was able to take some really cool 180-degree wide-angle shots in the cafe, and experience the 'fisheye' effect in full. But it was very obvious, very quickly, that this lens was a one-trick pony. It makes 'fisheye' photos - nothing more, nothing less. I would very quickly tire of that effect - even though it's very creative, and lots of fun - because it's so unnatural, and so obviously, er, fisheye!
Then and there, I decided once and for all, that if I was going to go for a lens 'below' my 18-55mm K-x kit lens, it would be the Sigma 10-20mm UWA, which has perspective correction built into it. I've ruled out the Pentax 12-24 for the same reasons you have - it doesn't go down far enough, and it overlaps the kit lens too much, whereas the Sigma 10-20 is 2mm 'better off!'. And most importantly, as seen in the posts above, it renders straight verticals - which means the shots it makes are (broadly speaking) conventional. The 'gimmick' is gone, and the creativity is more about what you do with it, than the effect. And of course, if you really want a fisheye effect, you can knock that up in Photoshop in seconds anyway!
So... in my opinion - stick with what you have for now. Learn it. Play with it. Push it to its limits. You'll be able to do most things that you want with it. When you've found the boundaries, think again about what lenses you want. If you want a 'reasonable' portrait lens for cheap prices, there are hundreds of decent f2s & f1.7 50mms to be had (but a Pentax-A f1.4 50mm will of course set you back hundreds of pounds, even now!). Same goes for 28mm lenses - they can be had for peanuts.
If you really run into problems stitching together panoramas taken with your kit-lens, and really, really decide you need a wide-angle, I'd go for one that will get used a lot, rather than played with a few times and then put back in the case... the straight-vertical, rather than the fisheye.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and I fully expect to be jumped on for it - but I really would say, either way - save your money for now, and look at it later when you've squeezed all the juice out of your current kit... I don't think anyone would argue with that bit!
Comment by BigJacko posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 13:31
Gwyn wrote:
I could have bought a K-x and with 18-55 an 50-200 for about the same price .
Yeah, but think how silly you would've looked, with all that kit strapped to your face as you walk around town. I could have bought a K-x and with 18-55 an 50-200 for about the same price .
Comment by BigJacko posted on Specsavers at 18/08/2010 - 12:19
Wire We Not Getting Through? by BigJacko, on Flickr
[ Camera ]
Camera: PENTAX K-x
Exposure time: 1/250"
F number: F5.6
Exposure program: Aperture priority
ISO speed rating: 400/27°
Date and time of original data generation: 2010-08-07 17:09:34
Exposure bias: ±0 EV, +1 EV, -1 EV
Metering mode: Center-weighted average
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Lens focal length: 170 mm (DA L 55-300mm kit lens)
Exposure mode: Auto bracket
White balance: Auto
Three bracketed shots combined together as HDR in CS4, with a levels adjustment and a deliberate Vibrancy over-boost to bring out the colours and contrast.
(EDIT to add Camera model K-x)
Comment by BigJacko posted on Entries for Fortnightly Competition # 48 - Wire, string, rope at 18/08/2010 - 01:01
[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley]Don't forget the sensor is covered anyway, so you can't apply a bit of pressure to it in the way you envisage.[/quote]You're assuming I envisage it the way you envisage that I envisage it! I'm not thinking LCD screen squeezability here; no moiré fringe pressure/stress patterns, or stuff like that. I was thinking more literally, in terms of 'engineer's adjuster'.... like the TV knock, or a tap with 'ye olde Mark 1 fist' - but on a smaller scale.
All that presumes the unit is paid-for 'scrap', though, of course.
Having said that, they aren't actually totally different things in truth. There are a surprising number of parallels, but, er, their modus operandi is backwards. Row/grid matrices do suffer from similar 'complaints' sometimes, regardless of their final function... but I digress (and wriggle, defensively ). You are right that they're different enough, certainly, to make it unlikely to be able to 'squeeze' the stuck pixel out like a zit (which is sometimes possible with an LCD screen, if you're brave).
And I'd still be curious to find out what the effects might be of leaving the shutter open on a long exposure with the lens cap on for a few minutes. Sometimes the equivalent of a 'good kick up the a**e' can render all kinds of magic to a pixel - sensor or display - tbh.
All that presumes the unit is paid-for 'scrap', though, of course.
Quote:
Also, it's not made in the same way anyway. It's a chip, whereas an LCD screen is a liquid crystal display. Totally different things.
Yes, I know. Please. Stop embarrassing me! I used to be a test engineer (back in the dark ages before video-games, computer-journalism and IT consultancy). Sadly, I just leapt on the 'Stuck Pixel' tips thinking they were likely relevant to sensors - because that was where my mind was at the time... I had forgotten completely about LCDs and their own subtle variation on the theme. Dammit!Also, it's not made in the same way anyway. It's a chip, whereas an LCD screen is a liquid crystal display. Totally different things.
Having said that, they aren't actually totally different things in truth. There are a surprising number of parallels, but, er, their modus operandi is backwards. Row/grid matrices do suffer from similar 'complaints' sometimes, regardless of their final function... but I digress (and wriggle, defensively ). You are right that they're different enough, certainly, to make it unlikely to be able to 'squeeze' the stuck pixel out like a zit (which is sometimes possible with an LCD screen, if you're brave).
And I'd still be curious to find out what the effects might be of leaving the shutter open on a long exposure with the lens cap on for a few minutes. Sometimes the equivalent of a 'good kick up the a**e' can render all kinds of magic to a pixel - sensor or display - tbh.
Comment by BigJacko posted on Light spot at 14/08/2010 - 21:01
Thanks, Stephan - that's exactly the link I was thinking of, and looking for myself (but couldn't find it in my browser history - not surprising now - I don't think 'toothwalker' would've immediately made me think of lens hoods! ).
But yes, that site was my 'expert' when I was looking into whether to bother with a hood at all, and very good it is too.
Ta for retrieving it for me... this time, it's staying in my 'Favorites'
But yes, that site was my 'expert' when I was looking into whether to bother with a hood at all, and very good it is too.
Ta for retrieving it for me... this time, it's staying in my 'Favorites'
Comment by BigJacko posted on Lens Hood for Pentax 55-300 DAL at 14/08/2010 - 20:47
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Note, that Wiki page relates to LCD screens (as in computer monitors and the like), not camera sensors. Totally different kettle of fish. At least, the bit about stuck pixels does.
Well spotted, Daniel - you are quite right. Dunno whether the techique of colour cycling might still be worth a go. And if the thing was scrap, I might be tempted to see whether any 'adjustment' of the sensor (i.e. a bit light pressure) made any difference at all... but of course, it comes with risks, obviously.Note, that Wiki page relates to LCD screens (as in computer monitors and the like), not camera sensors. Totally different kettle of fish. At least, the bit about stuck pixels does.
If the 'tricks' are completely irrelevant/useless, I refer the honourable member to the enclosed 'pre-apology' I gave some moments ago!
Comment by BigJacko posted on Light spot at 14/08/2010 - 20:42
jeffstclair wrote:
Hi Neil, Do you know if this lense hood will perform on the pentax fa4.5-5.6 80-320mm without getting in the way and vignetting? With this lens the barrel rotates as you focus so I guess a petal type hood is no good !
It seems they make them in a screw on 58mm . So maybe worth a punt, Jeff
Hi Jeff,Hi Neil, Do you know if this lense hood will perform on the pentax fa4.5-5.6 80-320mm without getting in the way and vignetting? With this lens the barrel rotates as you focus so I guess a petal type hood is no good !
It seems they make them in a screw on 58mm . So maybe worth a punt, Jeff
My guess is 'no', sorry. I don't know anything about the FA 80-320mm lens, but if it's the one here then, from what the write-up says, there is no hard lens cover available to fit that lens - even from Pentax themselves. Certainly, not one that fits on to it in reversible bayonet style (and if you look at the photo on that link, it's clear there is no bayonet 'slot' around the front of the lens barrel like there is on the DAL 55-300mm).
So - I think in that case, you'd be limited to a screw-in hood - the type that screws in like a filter. Not as convenient as a reversible bayonet hood, but if needs must...
And yes, if the lens rotates, a petal hood is fairly useless, I'm told - but I believe it is more to do with light trajectory down a long-focal-length lens that means all tele-lens hoods are 'tubes' rather than petals. I'd have to defer to the experts on that point, though, and there are many here!
Hope this helps
Comment by BigJacko posted on Lens Hood for Pentax 55-300 DAL at 14/08/2010 - 20:00
