All Forum Comments
Comment by MrCynical posted on Venturing into the World of primes at 08/09/2010 - 13:04
This isn't troubleshooting as such, but it certainly doesn't belong in "your photos". I just bought a Tamron 17-50, and wanted to post some of the test shots to make sure that it's OK focuswise. The traditional chart test was 'inconclusive': it seemed to FF pretty badly (ie the +80mm mark on the chart was in focus) at 17mm, but the setup wasn't ideal so I'm not going to send the lens back on the basis of that test. I'll post some test shots of real subjects (well, mainly brick walls actually) for now, and post some more reliable charts if I get a chance to redo them. Only PP on these (aside from whatever Lightroom does by default) is for underexposure - oh and they've been resized because I was losing the will to live waiting for the full size ones to upload!
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/Carzor_Stelatis/Photography/tamron17-50...
Comment by MrCynical posted on Tamron 17-50 test shots at 08/09/2010 - 12:57
Assuming we're sticking to the K-mount APS-C SLRs (ie no 645Ds in the 'money no object' contest), then I would have the following:
Pentax K5 (assuming that the Other Forum's 'leaked' specs are correct)
Sigma 10-20 (realise you said 'all Pentax' but I simply wouldn't be without this)
DA*16-50 (hey if money is no object I can buy a new one when the SDM breaks )
FA77 Limited
DFA100 Macro WR
Of course I already have two of these (the Macro in its Samsung non-WR guise), so now the FA77 and fast standard zoom* to go!
*Which will likely not be a 16-50, since I don't have a bottomless lens-replacement money pit!
Pentax K5 (assuming that the Other Forum's 'leaked' specs are correct)
Sigma 10-20 (realise you said 'all Pentax' but I simply wouldn't be without this)
DA*16-50 (hey if money is no object I can buy a new one when the SDM breaks )
FA77 Limited
DFA100 Macro WR
Of course I already have two of these (the Macro in its Samsung non-WR guise), so now the FA77 and fast standard zoom* to go!
*Which will likely not be a 16-50, since I don't have a bottomless lens-replacement money pit!
Comment by MrCynical posted on Dream collection at 06/09/2010 - 02:36
Offertonhatter wrote:
Lenses? well Nikon DON'T do WR on the kit lens, and indeed it you wanted the Nikon eqv will again up to 50% more to buy (Pentax DA*16-50 F2.8 vs Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8 )
Hope this helps..
And a brief search reveals that even those D300S owners with weathersealed lenses still generally put raincovers on the body.Lenses? well Nikon DON'T do WR on the kit lens, and indeed it you wanted the Nikon eqv will again up to 50% more to buy (Pentax DA*16-50 F2.8 vs Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8 )
Hope this helps..
Comment by MrCynical posted on Upgrade advice at 05/09/2010 - 02:06
PM sent re FA 43
Comment by MrCynical posted on FS Da* 16-50 - Fa Limited 43 and 77 at 04/09/2010 - 18:15
aliengrove wrote:
With the flash used straight on, will there be any problem of the shadow of the lens appearing in the frame, as it does with the onboard flash at 10mm?
No, I have its predecessor (the Metz 48 ) and it does not cast a shadow in the situations where the onboard flash does. The widest lens I have is the Sigma 10-20 though, so YMMV if there is a 10-17 fisheye or Sigma 8-16 in your bag.With the flash used straight on, will there be any problem of the shadow of the lens appearing in the frame, as it does with the onboard flash at 10mm?
Comment by MrCynical posted on Wide angle flash at 03/09/2010 - 20:41
Anvh wrote:
I know some people used the shapes of hearts or stars cut out from paper in front of the lens and that seemed to work very well.
I've no idea how it will effect mirror lenses though.
That's what the Lensbaby does - you get a set of aperture discs for stopping down, and also some with special shapes (a star and heart IIRC), plus some blank discs to cut your own shapes in.I know some people used the shapes of hearts or stars cut out from paper in front of the lens and that seemed to work very well.
I've no idea how it will effect mirror lenses though.
Comment by MrCynical posted on SMC PENTAX-F 1:1.7 50mm vs fixed aperture zoom lens? at 02/09/2010 - 20:04
Anvh wrote:
Aren't there ways to make the opening smaller like an aperture does, maybe in form off a filter or will that give vignetting?.
Well the Lensbaby series comes with aperture discs to do this - and I think certain old lenses (video ones?) used to as well.Aren't there ways to make the opening smaller like an aperture does, maybe in form off a filter or will that give vignetting?.
Comment by MrCynical posted on SMC PENTAX-F 1:1.7 50mm vs fixed aperture zoom lens? at 02/09/2010 - 18:36
rparmar wrote:
The FA77 is significantly smaller (270g / 64mm) than the DFA100 (345g / 81mm) and is built much nicer. If you were to grab the older FA100 you'd get better metal build but it is huge in comparison (600g / 104mm)
It also focuses much quicker, since it doesn't have the enormous focus throw of a macro lens.The FA77 is significantly smaller (270g / 64mm) than the DFA100 (345g / 81mm) and is built much nicer. If you were to grab the older FA100 you'd get better metal build but it is huge in comparison (600g / 104mm)
Comment by MrCynical posted on Venturing into the World of primes at 01/09/2010 - 19:28
Sdeve wrote:
What does count is what they can or cannot do if you ignore their demands to quit the car park. Their response has to be proportional to the harm being done, as with the landowner. They will no doubt think they can use force to eject you, but that is not necessarily the case, as it would not be proportional to inflict harm just to remove you. Neither can they, or a police officer, arrest you for trespass. Trespass is only actionable if harm is done.
Not necessarily true, since as I say the public law restrictions (use of force by police, pretend police [PCSOs] etc.) don't apply. Similarly, the fact that trespass isn't actionable by police in such situations (in fact in Scotland trespass isn't even a crime) doesn't mean that PCSOs can't forcibly remove you. A property owner or his representatives are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to eject trespassers.What does count is what they can or cannot do if you ignore their demands to quit the car park. Their response has to be proportional to the harm being done, as with the landowner. They will no doubt think they can use force to eject you, but that is not necessarily the case, as it would not be proportional to inflict harm just to remove you. Neither can they, or a police officer, arrest you for trespass. Trespass is only actionable if harm is done.
Comment by MrCynical posted on Stupid Local Council at 01/09/2010 - 12:58
Actually when you look at tests you will see the current DA limited are sharper