Is the OP using the lenses for 35mm film or APS-C ?

50mm is a bit wide for taking portraits on full frame but I'd have thought 75mm (full frame) would be OK. That's the equivalent of the 50mm on APS-C.
If it's not quite telephoto enough surely just a moderate crop would gain the extra 8mm or so?

Surely the nearest best budget option for a 58mm would be the standard 18-55 which go for peanuts on eBay if you haven't got one already! But would an extra 8mm make that much of a difference.

I used to have a Zenith 58mm standard lens. Wow, that was a long time ago!

John

If you have both JPG and RAW images you can always ditch any files that are not needed. Of course try and get it right in the JPG, but if it has ended up with burnt out highlights or excessive shadows you might want to rescue it. The K-5 RAW file has a much greater contrast range, 14 bits compared to 8 bits in the jpg so this allows saving images with a much higher contrast range than the jpgs out of the camera can manage. These files can be saved as 16 bit TIFS for higher quality screen images and printing. Agreed these can take up masses more disk space which can be an issue, but for the very best it can be worth it.
The K-5 can reprocess RAW images in camera if your mac struggles with the files. My PC just manages RAW in PSE6 but when I tried Lightroom it just crashes out as it only has 1Gb memory. So I can see where you're coming from but having a go at photographers who use RAW is a bit like criticizing photographers who use negative film rather than shoot slides. Surely both need to know how to get the most out of the camera?

John

They seem to be back now.

John

A long time ago I had a K20mm f4 stolen (along with other items including an ME) whilst I was staying at Bath Youth Hostel.
This lens was one of those sold as tested by RG Lewis (I think I still haver their test report on it.) It was truly pin sharp, great contrast and so on.
I replaced it with the M version which I still have to today but have always found that disappointing by comparison.
It would be nice to get it back!

John

Following Mark's suggestion I've made a fresh version of #1 from the raw file which is darker still. Somehow Mark's version from the first incarnation looks a little warmer which I like (and while mentioning temperature, while it wasn't particularly cold on Christmas Day there was quite a wind blowing!)




I think this version brings out the decorations on the boats better but Mark's is probably closer to what I was aiming for.

I've processed it in PSE 6 with Camera Raw 5.6 and reduced it in Irfanview to 800 pixels wide. I can't see how to reduce it in Elements which would keep the EXIF intact!

I have just noticed another thread regarding night photography where use of a tripod was suggested. For the record, these shots were all hand held with the camera in TAv mode. I've only just found out how useful that is. I think if I'd used a tripod it would have been upset somewhat by the strong wind that night. The exposure used was 1/80 sec. @ f1.8. with the camera setting ISO 2000.

John

Thanks. I considered that but I quite like the way the glare from the light cuts into it. To me the three similar lights balance themselves out. It's amazingly straight upright too which was an unexpected achievement!


[quote="MarkTaylor"]Hope you don't mind me posting it, if you do I will take it down - it's your photo.[/quote]No, that's fine thanks Mark!
I agree with you as far as seeing it on screen is concerned. I brightened it a little so that it looked better printed. Then there's the temptation to see what's hiding in the darker recesses of the RAW file! I don't think earlier digital cameras of any breed would have found so much detail in the darker areas as the K-5 manages and not burn out the highlights.

John

Thank you. That's my preference too.

As the sun set on Christmas Day I was at a bit of a loose end so went down to the harbour with my trusty K-5 to see what it would do.
Many of the boats were decorated for the season.

All are from DNG's converted to jpg and taken when it was all but dark with an 50mm FA 1.4. (It was darker than they look!)

1.



2.



3.



4.



These are my first PU photo postings and I put them here to show potential K-5 purchasers the low light capabilities of the camera.

The contrast range captured in number 4 is (to me) miraculous!

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

John

I was going to say that most zoom lenses only do macro as a compromise and you'd be better off with a dedicated macro lens but all three of Charlotte's shots are stunning. While admittedly they are not true macro (1:1) for that type of subject the results are first rate.
It would be interesting to see the exif data as the depth of field achieved is impressive. Well done.

The current Pentax 100mm macro is a fine lens for macro and there are earlier AF varieties that come up second hand. In the budget department are the old manual focus macro lenses from Tamron and Vivitar which are also good. Given that autofocus doesn't always work well with macro subjects a dedicated MF lens is worth considering.

John

With the improved sensor on the K5, one could argue that all lenses work better on it!

John