Yes.

Each manufacturer has their own 'mount', so you need to make sure you get one with the Pentax mount.

Dan

You're quite right - just tried forcing a refresh (CTRL F5) in IE and the pic has gone again.

I'm going to post it on my server so that Dirk can see it, hopefully Mr. Ist won't mind.

EDIT: Just seen Dirk's post, so no need!

Dan

I couldn't see it on the forum but I did when I pasted the URL into my browser. Now it's visible for me in the forum post too.

Dan

Hey, guess what I was doing this morning - lying on the floor, taking pics of a dew drop on the tip of a blade of grass. But yours has much nicer lighting.

Dan

K10D, 16-45mm @ 26mm, 2s @ f/8, ISO100

Dan

Just to (hopefully) avoid confusion, that sentence should say large aperture. The smaller the number, for instance 2.8, the larger the aperture (the aperture being the hole the light passes through).

Dan

I've found there's no alternative to getting out there in the real world and selling your photos face to face. For me, as a nature photographer, I tend to have displays at nature reserve visitor centres and I sell prints there, but web sales tend to be repeat orders from customers who've bought a print at an exhibition.

I have sold a few purely through the website, but not many.

Dan

Chirpy, it took me long time to get used to this lens, and I still get plenty of dodgy ones.

It's so hard to get sharp focus, especially on a moving subject, and with a wide aperture. I tend to use f/6.7 or f/8 just because it sharpens the lens up a bit, gives that little bit more depth of field (which is next to nothing at this focal length anyway), and helps control the CA that you tend to get with out of focus backgrounds.

The first time I used the lens was to shoot some Waxwings that were not far from me. Such a wasted opportunity, as the pics just weren't good enough - focusing out, too wide an aperture... Still waiting to get a good number return so I can try to snap them again.

Good shot of the swan by the way, nice exposure and excellent detail in the wing.

Dan

Hi Chirpy,

I've had the same lens for 3 years now, but it doesn't go out much - you mentioned something about it being heavy...?

However, this weekend we went up to north norfolk, and popped into Pensthorpe Nature Reserve and Garden, which has some aviaries as well as lakes, outdoor enclosures etc. First time I've been there, but it's well worth a visit to get close to some birds that you wouldn't normally be able to, as well as trying your luck with the ducks on the lakes.

I took the 300mm, and used it mainly on my tripod, as I find manually focusing it easier that way. Still, more misses than hits I'm afraid.

But I did get quite a few that I was more than happy with, and at the risk of hijacking your thread, I'm going to post a few. Hope you don't mind.

Main reason for doing so is that this is a lens that can give superb results, but I often forget that because of the amount of duffs I get out of it, either from inaccurate focusing, too slow shutter speed (subject blur, especially birds), or because I use a teleconvertor with it and it doesn't look so good.

Anyway, here goes:












(Cropped 100% detail of the pic above)



(Sorry about the file size of that last one, lots of fur detail... )

All shot with my K10D, most at f/6.7. It made me think at the time would I be better off with something like the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, as I don't use this Tamron wide open, and I would expect the Sigma to be as good as, or better than this. With the benefit of AF. But then that's £750.

Dan

I only downloaded the ticket one, but it looked good. Was this at the 'Premium' jpeg setting?

Most importantly, will this put a stop to the "Pentax jpegs aren't sharp" 'fault'? As long as we don't get into a "Now Pentax jpegs are too sharp!" one.

Dan