I remember the excellent discussion a few years ago, when the K1 was still in development, about the optimisations in modern DA type lenses, and the great information you provided Daron about the angle of incidence and how light reached the digital sensor.

Of course we can't all go out and buy the new DFA lenses (although the 28-105 I think is the most realistic for the average person), so clearly there will be some reliance on film era choices. I guess most of those mentioned here above have proven their worth in practice, although probably without the most close pixel-peeping intensity.

Philip is also right .... Look at me, I gladly spent money on the D FA28-105 (although happily at the SRS discounted price) before I even consider a new camera. That lens plus my flash equipment has produced more IQ bang per buck from the K7 than a camera upgrade ever could!

What is the point of buying a K1 and then sticking an old Tamron zoom onto it? ....

Could the end results of that actually be better than just sticking with an APS-C kit anyway ...?

(deliberately provocative comment fully intended).

28-300 is easier perhaps with the other brands .... But we don't recommend "superzooms" here at PU, do we?? This is for serious, discerning photographers, right, who don't stretch their compromises that far ......?

Vic asked about 18-135mm, much more challenging on FF.

I forgot before to suggest the highly regarded FA20-35 .... Well proven on the K1, but also hard to find.

Sorry, another correction... The 18-35 I referred to before is an FAJ designation, not FA.

Hi Vic, there's no single zoom for FF to cover all of that. I think you're heading towards a 2-lens solution.

(Edit ....Barrie beat my post with his older Sigma/Tamron film era options.... There will always be debate about the quality of older zooms for the K1, so go with reviews and user feedback like Barries.... Of course they could be hard to find ...)


The obvious 1st choice is the D FA28-105. Not really any argument about that.

There's an FA18-35 , but hard to come by .....

I'm assuming the D FA15-30 is not suitable, unless you're looking for something big, heavy and expensive ?

There's a Sigma "Art" lens, I think it may also be 18-35mm .... But also expensive, and I have read concerns about it's autofocussing.

Otherwise, perhaps get a wide prime (eg Samyang 14mm, Irex 15mm) and crop in if needed. ...

.(another edit! ....I realise you wanted AF, but the best ultra wide primed are manual focus. It shouldn't matter at such wide angles, but I do admit that trying to see things in focus through the code finder with the Samyang 14mm can be frustrating. I find though I shouldn't worry, just set F8-F16, get it near enough, and the shots themselves are razor sharp. For very close work it's usually easier to see focus clearly.)

More than one people .....

A lovely framing of the waterfall .... I'd tone down the brightness of the surrounding foliage a bit, I guess similar to Gareths vignette idea.

These seem like good examples of where a careful use of HDR can work well. I like that you have resisted the temptation to raise the shadows higher, and 'reveal details' (something often cited as highly desirable, mostly by K5 owners!), but which I'm not often convinced is really necessary) ..... the light levels on the interior stonework is dim, but your exposures make it look realistic. The colours on the windows are well brought out so the highlights must be well exposed also.

There's a slightly greeny tint .....perhaps a tweak to the colour balance towards warmth, orange, and away from green, might be more attractive ....?

I kind of agree on quite a few levels, certainly with exposure accuracy and white balance I definately aim to capture things as best as possible with the camera. Things like cropping and minor straightening I see as just finishing touches, and as such I find are best handled on a computer.

HDR actually also is generally quite good when done by the cameras, not the least because it removes the temptation to use HDR programmes to take it too far, which seems to be a temptation. The camera effects are generally fairly mild and natural looking I think, so that's a good reason to choose them. Its really a case of deciding the best situations to try it, and of course to be ready with the needed camera support so that movement during the 3 exposures is prevented.

Thanks Richard for pointing out my HDR/PS mix up ....brain storm going on I think! I was struck by the similarities of the image on the PF thread to the one here and the need for a tripod ....somehow I failed to recognise that the technique was different .....however I hope it was an interesting link with some common aspects.

I've just seen this very interesting post at PentaxFourms where the photographer has found an interesting solution to the issue of very fine leaves and foliage detail with movement ..... using a combined PS plus normal image. The result seems to speak for itself. He also reports better colours from the PS one.

link

The photographer here is an unlikely convert to the HDR cause, given his general stance on image processing matters ....

However to balance that, he has espoused the "get it right in camera" ideal .... And camera HDR mode kind of applies there ...(It's done in camera )

.... But it is still a form of image processing and is built on combining elements from 3 individual exposures. As such it depends on camera stability, so a tripod plus remote control would be the way to go really

Now that's a subject type that I think even my K7's tracking Autofocus could cope with! (well, No 2 anyway :wink

Some fascinating old tractors there, and interesting colour schemes. You've done well to isolate them so well from the backgrounds with those low viewpoints, which are very effective.