Alistair

Some example images from the lenses you are considering:

K55 F1.8 (with tubes)



A50 F1.7 (with tubes)



M50 F1.4 (with tubes)



A50 F1.7 naked



M50 F1.4 naked



Hope these help you to get a feel for the general quality / rendering these lenses are capable of.

Regards
David

Not so keen on this one Alistair, the yellows are very dominant and I'm not sure that the shallow DOF works very well on this subject / scene. For compositions that lead the eye into the distance (as this one does), I think they work better when the distant objects are readable and in focus.

Regards
David

Great lens - the 'A' variant is probably the most easy to use if you're going for a manual focus one, but build quality is better on the 'M' variant.

I would highly recommend the following:

M50 F1.7
M50 F1.4
K55 F1.8

For a really cheap option that is rather good, the Chinon F1.9 can be had for around a tenner.

All are great for portraiture, not so much for landscapes as the focal length is not quite right. I've also mentioned previously the M28 F3.5 - this would be top of my list, but I appreciate it is in the middle of the focal range of your 18-55. Another one I would highly recommend is the 55-300, not as cheap, but ridiculously good for the money.

Regards
David

Happy birthday Neil

I would tend to agree with this, but it's very difficult for us to tell at forum image sizes. I still think the 'moire' issue is vastly over-hyped and is not really a problem in day to day photography. Yes, it can occur, but I've seen it more on my K-01 than I have on my K-5iis!!

Regards
David

Hi Richard, there is some lens diffraction on number 2 (F14), I think this is what makes it look a bit softer. Having said that, the original is pretty sharp and I'm 100% certain there is no lack of sharpness from the camera, based on other shots I took at different apertures. You are right about the greens, but this is not something I've seen in other test shots on this site. I need to test it in better light with shorter exposures to get a real feel for the colour balance.

I do like the fact that it seems to produce 'warmer' images than the K-5, this was the only aspect of the K-5/K-5ii images that I didn't like.

Hi David, it was between 100 and 400, all on a tripod, exposures varied between 1 and 30 seconds. Both of these are ISO 100.

Regards
David

These look great Jules, very clean. Do you think the K-3 has a warmer colour balance than the K-5? I think it does and I like it.

Regards
David

I've only used the K-3 once for about an hour, but I have to say that already I am liking the handling. It is very much like using the K-5, like a familiar old friend, but improved in some subtle ways. I don't have strong views on the re-positioning of the AF button, but there are many things I like better:

- Rear screen is at least as good as the K-5ii and is bigger too (3.2 vs 3 inch); much better than the K-5 Mk1

- I love the way you can adjust the AF whilst looking through the viewfinder by simply pressing a button and using the scrollwheel

- AF / MF selector is better

- Locking Mode Dial is improved

- Viewfinder dioptre is now a wheel not a slider and is easier to use

- Grip is a bit deeper and very comfortable

- Performance wise it is fast - I now find it feasible to leave the Distortion and CA correction switched on; I always had this 'off' with the K-5 as it slowed the camera to a crawl

It is every bit as sturdy as a K-5 which is to say it is built like a tank in comparison to something like a Nikon D7100.

The AF is definitely faster and seems unerringly accurate, but I've had no time yet to test tracking. In some ways, the AF options add complexity and it will take some time to learn how to use them effectively, so for me it is a bit of a double edged sword. Accuracy is the most important AF feature for me.

Regards
David

Hi Nigel, yes detail is high on the original files; it is immediately very noticeable in comparison to even the K-5iis, but may not come across so much on the compressed sizes on the Forum. I don't think the sensors have reached the limits of lens resolution yet (these were with the DA 17-70 which is by no means my sharpest lens).

Dynamic range seems excellent and the RAW files respond very well to processing - little or no noise in shadow areas. The pics I took today were up to 20 seconds exposure and none have any appreciable noise in the shadows and most were under-exposed by a stop as I had no ND Grad filters and the sky was quite bright in comparison with the landscape.

The AA filter was 'off' and I would expect it to stay that way for 99% of the time.

Colour rendition is pleasing - warmer than the K-5 or K-5iis, but greens are a bit over saturated. I will need to play with the settings to get them to my liking, but nothing I've seen so far worries me.

Regards
David

I like it very much Alistair. Composition is great, the atmosphere is very nice and I don't think it needs any ripples in the water. It would have been perfect with someone sitting on the bench at the right (self timer?) and I do agree with the comments made on the trees in that they look a little too bright and not quite natural in colour. If this were mine I would tone the trees down a bit and increase the shadow depth in the tree areas to give them more definition.

Overall though it is a very good landscape image that I would have been proud to have taken.

Regards
David