Hi Nigel - it's a long time since we crossed swords!

I've looked at this set a few times now and had to put a few things that are in my mind down on paper so to speak.

Firstly, the set is 'not my cup of tea'. The style / colours are not for me but I can appreciate that a lot of others really like them.

I'm conscious this is just a personal opinion, but there are a few specifics:

- Number 4 has some really odd / unnatural colour going on - not sure what is causing this?
- Most of them are too 'busy' to allow my eye to settle and explore, for me the most successful are the ones with isolated subjects like the Bluebells and the yellow flowers
- The colours overall seem to be a bit overdone, especially the green tones

The above comments are not in any way intended to be any reflection on your ability as a photographer, they are specific to this set. I hope my honesty is appreciated; I know you normally take these things as intended Nigel.

Best wishes
David

The article was interesting in some ways and it is nice to see someone highlighting the benefits of Pentax, but I think it rambled on a bit too. An interesting point is raised by richandfleur above regarding the weather sealing, sensor shift on stills and decent AF for non-moving subjects. It seems to me that Pentax may be actively trying to differentiate in these areas and not to worry too much about other areas where they know they can't offer anything better than CaNikon.

For me they have the right balance, for many others probably they don't.

Regards
David

Edit: I think the 4.5 stops in body stabilisation is a pretty killer feature

Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I strongly disagree that preserving highlights hurts the feel of an image. I can't stand to see blown highlights; to me it looks very unnatural and not how the human eye perceives the world, I think Pentax have got it spot on, particularly with the way the K-3 preserves highlights.

I'm not going to add my efforts to the processing in this thread as I don't think I need to; there are many worthy examples already posted here, but I do think that Mark's original image exposed to preserve the highlights is the best way to approach this type of subject. To blow out those rays would have completely ruined any potential for a nice image.

Regards
David

A tremendously good set of images, more so considering it was your first proper outing with these lenses.

Regards
David

Hi Wayne

I think the 18-55 would be great as a walkabout lens, but the 50mm would be far better as a macro lens with the tubes. 50mm lenses in general have a much flatter / more accurate field (i.e. more free of distortions) and also have greater resolution than a kit zoom. AF is not important for macro, so a 50mm lens on tubes is an ideal starting point. The image below was shot with a Pentax A 50mm F1.7 on tubes, this might give you an indication of the type of image that can be shot with this combination, although as I mentioned earlier it's not easy and you will probably end up with a lot of discarded images before you get some you are happy with.




Regards
David

The 50mm would make a better macro lens with tubes; the 35mm would present a challenge with depth of field and the requirement to get very close to the subject to get it large enough in the frame. It will require a lot of practice to get skilled at taking decent macro shots with tubes and a 50mm lens, but it's great fun and well worth the effort.

I don't think either lens is ideal for a general walkabout; a better bet for this would be something like a 17-70 AF zoom.

Regards
David

Background is best on No.1, but the foreground flowers are in better focus on No.2. Can you edit them together?

Overall I think the first one edges it.

Regards
David

It may be just that you have a poor copy of the lens? The copy I had was great, but I have read of other owners being constantly disappointed. Do you have opportunity to try out another copy of the same lens on your camera?

Regards
David

I don't want to appear to be a doom monger, but I had to give up on my K-5 with certain lenses as no amount of calibration would sort it out. It wasn't an issue with all lenses, but with some, notably the DA 17-70, it was so inconsistent that it was almost useless. With other lenses, such as the Sigma 150-500 and the kit lens it was fine. I haven't experienced any similar issues with my K-5iis or my K-3, so it was definitely the camera that was at fault. I also know other users who had similar issues and the conclusion I unfortunately reached was that some K-5's are simply unreliable focussers. I had another K-5 which was great and had no issues, but I stupidly sold it. I think you have no option but to have the camera fixed, or get a replacement.

Regards
David

This lens is definitely best at wider apertures, anything from F7.1 up to F10 should yield very sharp results. It will also allow you to judge better whether focus is off. I would also try to knock down the ISO; if you are shooting on a tripod then shutter speeds lower than you have mentioned should not be a big issue. Finally, the bokeh should improve with wider apertures - you will get nice diffused backgrounds.

Regards
David