One of my my photographic aims has always been to get to know my lenses intimately (no comments please) to the extent that I know instantly which lens to use for which shots. For example, I have 3 lenses that cover the 300mm focal length and will usually opt for either the Pentax 55-300 or the Sigma 50-500 as they both have good IQ. However, where a shot screams out for specatacular bokeh I will use my Tamron Adapt-a-matic 300mm F5.6. Why? It is not as sharp or contrasty as the other lenses (not surprising as it's 40 years old), but it has 10 aperture blades and produces the most fantastic out of focus effects given the right conditions.

I'm not sure if there's any validity gained by comparing identical shots in identical conditions with different lenses. The point is that different lenses will shine in different conditions and the trick is to know what to use and when.

I hope this makes sense!

Regards
David

I understand your sentiments, but I think perhaps your words are a little strong. I'm sure you appreciate that certain members have had bad experiences with people who post simply to sell, then let down the purchaser. Mike and Stephen have no way of judging you other than their perceptions of what you have posted on the forum. They may or may not have been hasty to make the comments they did, but I don't think you should refer to them the way you have.

It is very difficult to accurately interpret feelings merely from words written on a page (or a screen) and therefore sometimes more moderate language is appropriate. I know this from experience on this forum and maybe I'm not best placed to give 'advice', but I am one of the regular contributors (I hope you don't think I have 'too much to say') and I just wanted to give my thoughts on the thread so far.

Best wishes
David

Hi Justa, I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 16-45. At the time I only had the K-x and K-m, and used the 16-45 on the K-x. I can give you the following feedback:

- I used the 18-55 a lot for all types of photography, including landscapes and was always happy with the shots it gave me. If you have a decent copy it's a very capable lens and much underrated
- The 16-45 is definitely better, most of my more recent landscapes are taken with it and I always prefer it to the 18-55
- The quick shift feature is of no consequence to me as I mainly use the 16-45 for landscape shots
- I now have a K-5 and find the 16-45 to be a very good partner for this camera, but it works well too on my K-x
- I would not sell my 18-55, I still use it and now have a WR version to use with the K-5 in damp weather
- the 16-45 is sharper (and also is sharp right from F4 upwards), it also makes a useful close-up lens, although not macro

All in all, if I were you I would not hesitate if you can get a 16-45 for around the £100 mark, especially if it's the Pentax version. I find it very good and I doubt you could come close to the performance for the price with any other Pentax alternative.

Regards
David

Thanks for this Shaun, very good once again and pitched at just the right level for those of us just trying to learn the PS basics.

Regards
David

The K-x is a great camera Kirsty, rather underrated, as is the kit lens. Both are capable of stunning results, as shown by your image of the Small Tortoishshells. The Amsterdam image is a great result for a compact.

I hope you do well in the competition and look forward to seeing some more of your images.

Regards
David

Hello S.M.

First of all, the 'edges' you mention are what is known as a 'chromatic aberration' (purple fringing in plain English) and are a common lens characteristic when shooting high contrast subjects (e.g. branches against a sky or bright objects against a dark background). Some lenses and digital sensors are more prone to this than others. You can get rid of most of this in a decent processing program, the one that comes with Pentax cameras will do this.

Secondly, your 'off-whites' are mainly the result of the White Balance setings you have used. 'Cloudy' will add warmth to images, making whites slightly off. Again this is easily corrected if you have shot the files in RAW format (which your post indicates you have). The Pentax software supplied with your camera is quite capable of doing this, simply select the 'White Balance' option and try different settings until you find the most natural for the lighting conditions your images were shot in.

Hope this is of assistance.

Regards
David

Hi Paul, thanks for the nice comments on the pictures. I forgot to mention too that the 300mm (model 670au) Adapt-a-matic has 10 aperture blades that can produce some sensational bokeh given the right conditions (see below).




Although I have a Pentax 55-300 and a Sigma 50-500, I won't be getting rid of the Adapt-a-matic as it offers a completely different experience and result to the other long lenses I own and I do like to dust it off and use it in anger every now and then.

Hi Kirsty

Regarding number two, I just don't think it has the impact or originality to score high marks in a competition. It also looks quite soft to me, I'm not sure if this is a focussing issue, or something else?

I hope I'm not being too harsh here, but I think it's better to give honest feedback.

The image you have posted above is head and shoulders above number two, it's sharper, better composed etc. and would look great in black and white too. It would be even better if the water was still (clearer reflections), but that's not under your control!

It would be good for some of the more experienced photographers on here to offer comments and advice too, as that is how we all learn.

Best wishes
David

I love this shot Stephen, such an imaginative twist on Macro and so well executed. Great lens the Sigma 105 Macro.

Regards
David

One and two are really good Stan, much better than anything I've ever done and ones to be proud of!

Not so sure about the last two but they can't all be winners!

Regards
David