I have to agree that the last one one is a beauty. Worthy of a place on anybody's wall .

Good to see some lakes landscapes that are different to the usual and to be reminded that a lot of our areas of natural beauty used to be industrial landscapes.

Steve

Fascinating! It's hard to get a sense of scale, I had to look it up - 27 feet and all made from knives that might otherwise have been used to do something nasty.

I'd like to see it against a dark sky and illuminated by a low, red sun - a red angel against the darkness. As LennyBloke says, It makes you think...

Thanks for posting.

Steve

Yes, it will. I bought the lens when I had a K20D, 3 generations before the K5ii. It even works with my *ist film camera - but I don't fancy using film for birds, too many failed shots, too many wasted ££££s!

Steve

The OP's K5 can't control the aperture of a PLM lens, it will be wide open all the time.

Yes if you're taking it on a hike, not if you're on a gentle wander round a nature reserve and definitely not if you're spending an hour or so in a hide .

Steve

Thanks for looking and for the encouraging comments.

Perhaps...
As a percentage of total shots, it was pretty low!

I met a friend a couple of days ago, an amateur artist who has recently tried producing abstracts by pouring paint onto canvas (it's a bit more sophisticated than that, but not much). Just as random as ICM but with more physical mess! I think I'll stick to photography...

Steve

Another vote for the DA*300mm f4 + 1.4 teleconverter (can't comment on the other lenses as I don't have them). The reason I chose this route when wanting a lens for birds was hearing a talk by a semi-pro bird photographer. He had spent years using huge, heavy, long tele f2.8 lenses with film. Having made the change to digital and realising that he wasn't getting any younger, he found that 300mm + a TC gave him all he needed in reach while the high ISO cabability of digital let him get the shutter speeds he needed from an f4 rather than breaking his back with an f2.8. My back has been grateful for his advice! And as Daronl says, it's also very good for butterflies and other little things as you're far enough away not to disturb them.

The DA*300mm can be a bit slow to focus at times but is otherwise very, very good. It also works wth the F 1.7x autofocus adapter which gives gives a bit more reach but AF is then handled by the adapter, which requires different focussing technique.

It's worth noting that neither the DA*300mm nor the DA150-450mm have aperture rings so you wouldn't be able to control the aperture when on the LX.

Steve

A worthwhile night, then.

Another vote for the landscapes, the one with the horses being my favourite - the light on the white horses is rather special.

Is the one with the streak of light under the arch/bridge a fisheye? Can't make my mind up .

As for the bright star/planet, if this were December and the camera had been pointing east...

Steve

No Mow May turned into Just Leave It June. As the grass grew even longer and the weeds flourished, photographic opportunities and challenges emerged (as did grass pollen, but that's another story...). So once some non-green colour appeared from the weeds I had a go at ICM. Here are some of the results - going for a variety of textures, forms and coloursw. Whether you like this sort of thing or not, trying to get interesting ICM images from a patch of long grass and weeds was definitely a stimulating challenge!

All with K3 + F135mm.

Thoughts, comments etc. welcome as usual.

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



Steve

And 3 recommendations from me, too.

1. 'First Light: A Landscape Photographer's Art' by Joe Cornish. I've recommended it on this forum before. What makes this book special (as well as being by a great photographer) is that for each of the main photos there is another of the same or similar scene which Cornish doesn't think is quite as good as the main one and he explains why. The reasons are always stimulating and apply more widely than just landscape. Cornish also interprets 'landscape' quite liberally at times - he can see a landscape in a few pebbles or among the leaves of a succulent plant.

2. 'Food Landscapes' by Carl Warner. These are not the sweeping landscapes of Joe Cornish et al but instead are miniature landscapes created from items of food. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else starts making models from food (there is enough food waste in the world already ). However, it is a remarkable exercise in how one can see common, everyday things in an entirely new way. Interesting and challenging.

3. '#TheatresInDanger' by Bill Ward. Bill is an actor (stage and screen) as well as being a superb photographer, a Pentax Ambassador and a contributor to this forum. Bill takes his camera with him when working in theatres and has taken many, many photographs of theatres from a viewpoint that the public does not see. He produced this book of his theatre photographs during Covid lockdown, all profits going to a Trust which supports theatres that are under threat of extinction (due to Covid or otherwise). It includes lots of architecture and architectural detail. You'll need to buy the book from Bill, it won't be available from your local library. Details are in this forum thread from Bill link, click on the link to #TheatresInDanger, it takes you to his website.

Steve

At minimum focus distance (1:1 mag), the working distance for the Irix 150mm is 13cm with hood attached, which is close to the 14cm you give for the Zhong Yi with hood attached - so much the same for a biting insect evaluating the threat from a manually focussing photographer! Without lens hood, the subject distance to front of lens is about 18cm for the Irix, about 10cm less than the 28cm you give for the Zong Yi without hood. But of course, the Irix lets you focus with aperture wide open at f2.8 as well as having full aperture control from the camera (so you don't have to put your hand on the lens and closer to biting insects if you want to change aperture :wink.

However, for bothering bugs and wee timorous beasties, and for any other macro subjects that require the photographer to do strange and unnatural contortions of the body, I reckon that the ergonomics of camera + lens is even more important than the technicalities of the lens. If you find it comfortable to handle and operate you might get the shot, if you don't then you probably won't. And that's impossible to cover in a review because everbody is different (which is a Good Thing or life would be so boring...).

Steve