davex

Joined: 13th January 2009

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

davex
Nice set, a good example of how not all photographs need be super sharp and noise free.
Sometimes the setting means much more.
Well done.

davex

Comment by davex posted on Kingfisher Diving Sequence - Tamron 500mm at 18/02/2011 - 22:23

davex
A good sharp image, and the lens was?

Comment by davex posted on Squirrel: Do you mind if i stay here? at 17/02/2011 - 15:44

davex
Quote:
Aberdeen may get to see them but according to Gedds they won't come much further south.
But they may be viewable, if such a word exists.

Quote:

Note that the shaded areas refer to the locations where the aurora will be overhead. Because the auroral forms are more than 80 km (55 miles) above the earth, you may see them from as far as 400 km (250 miles) away

Comment by davex posted on Looks like I will be up early over the next few night's! at 17/02/2011 - 11:58

davex
Quote:
What model is your Sigma?
400mm f5.6 non apo.
see discussion here

And here

Comment by davex posted on Long lenses at 15/02/2011 - 21:06

davex
Quote:
400mm f5.6 anyone?
Already have one John, it`s a Sigma and it cost £220.

Davex.

Comment by davex posted on Long lenses at 15/02/2011 - 15:40

davex
Quote:
Pentax 16-45 F4
Highly regarded here, was my first walkabout, sold it after 6 months, it always seemed a bit "loose" to me + physically quite long. Great 16mm but a bit short at 45mm.

Quote:
Sigma 24-70 F2.8
A cracking lens if you can put up with the weight, used one for around a year, loved the IQ but it can get tiring after a day out.

I now have a Tamron 28-200 as a walkabout, small light and decent IQ, cost £50

Davex.

Comment by davex posted on Need a walk about Lens at 13/02/2011 - 10:59

davex
OK folks, thanks for all the input. Have a final version for you;
Different crop, rotation, tweaked exposure, and unsharp mask.
Comment Image

Comment by davex posted on 2 from Reykjavik at 12/02/2011 - 09:07

davex
Quote:
wasn't that sharp and produced terrible shots so
It does have a fairly bad reputation, but I am actually quite enjoying it, there are issues over poor contrast in certain circumstances but generally I think i`ve been lucky and got a decent copy.

Not sure about the elephant shot, when I look at the original it does look a bit sharper.


Davex.

Comment by davex posted on A few with cheap lenses at 12/02/2011 - 08:46

davex
Quote:
the alternative to a big lens is smaller lens and stealth
Wise words, perhaps you will explain this to my wife after I am mauled by a leopard while on safari this year

Davex.

Comment by davex posted on Possibly WTB Bigma at 11/02/2011 - 23:20

davex
These where taken with a 400mm Sigma f5.6, non apo.
The lens has its critics but easily available off ebay for circa £220;
Comment Image

Comment Image

Comment Image

All handheld.
With some PS work they could look quite impressive.
IMHO If you put ANY teleconvertor on your 55-300 you will lose so much light and gain so much shake at the long end it will be a waste of time, and money. Remember your SR on the converted zoom will not work properly unless you change the fl every time you move the zoom.
Teleconvertors only work in the field on large aperture primes, or expensive large (f4 or larger) aperture zooms. If you cannot afford one of the big Sigma zooms I honestly believe you should look at a cheaper long range prime. Do not waste your cash on teleconvertors for small aperture zooms, I speak from experience over the last 2 years.

Davex.

Comment by davex posted on New lens or 1.4/1.7 teleconverter? at 11/02/2011 - 23:16

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo