THank you all for the replies.

I definitely don't intend to make money out of this, so that problem is eliminated.

One problem in this is that the canvas was in a special exhibit, and definitely on-loan to the museum (Tate Modern btw) so I guess they don't own the work, and it is still the artist's

I have tried, and not managed to.
And also, ask what? the use of my own photo?

Hello,

I remember asking this before, but not having solved the situation I would like to have your opinion on this.

Some time ago I took a photograph at a public museum, where photography was permitted in certain areas only (including where this canvas was displayed). I took a photo of the reflections on a large canvas, which represents a night panorama.

Now, for the past 2 year I've been asking myself if this photo can be published, if it can't, if its an illegal piece of art, or perhaps the fair representation of a piece of art, as seen by the spectator. Obviously I don't take the merit of the canvas, I clearly state on my picture, that its 'a Reflection on a work by...'

I am not posting the photo here, because I don't want to incurr in copyright issues, and therefore only attaching the links for the original image, and my take on it.

Please give me your views, specifically, if you think that this could be submitted to the pentax photo gallery.

THank you

Original image by A.G.
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/picture.jpg

My photograph
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/Reflections-A-Photograph-by...

441 come on, 441...

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i'm so not there that i'm gonna have to start writing a whole lot of crap, just to push the number of posts up...

oh wait, I already write a whole lot of crap.

ah well, at least I have a K-7...

Hello again!

I see that Rich's comments are absolutely correct; check your current pictures and the approximate focal lenght to see what its like to have one or the other lens. I did to this excercise with a super-zoom, just before buying the DA*. I went out for a few days, and only shot in the 50-135 range, and in the 70-200 range.

I was going for the Tamron because I really liked the feel of the lens. I thought that it was a tad sharper (according to reviews on the net) at certain apertures and focal lenghts. It turned out that they are basically the same, if not the Sigma a tad better overall! (with minimal difference).
NOnetheless, the shape of the two lenses is very different, with the sigma much more bulky and fat, (similar to the canon version) and the tamron slimmer, a bit longer, (similar to the nikon version) I simply preferred the tamron.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/page2.asp

In the end, the consideration that on APC sensor the focal lenght or the pentax is the same as a 70-200 on a full frame, actually was also a reason for choosing the DA*. In the end I want to have a comparative lens to a FF system, and I already suffer at the wide end of things loosing 5mm over the 10 of my fish-eye. If I was to buy into a FF system I would get a 24-70 and 70-200, therefore, on APC, I have 16-50 and 50-135. And if I will ever need more pulling power, I'll get the 200 and a 1.4 teleconverter.

BTW maybe you want to consider the DA* 60-250 f4. If it was out when I bought my DA* I probably would have considered this. The only thing that I did not like about it was the fact that the zoom extends, and becomes even more akward to hold, then when its fully retracted.
But its a cracker of a lens, it sits in between 50 and 70, and gives you even more reach at the long end.

regards

When I first wanted to get a Macro lens, I looked into all the different possibilities available, and realised that, because the difference between a 50mm regular and a 50mm Macro is so little (IMHO), and the FA50 can already focus a very close distances, I should have bought a longer lens. (BTW Lens, not lense )

I then looked into all the different brands, around the 100mm focal lenght, and decided that I couldn't spend too much money on a lens that I would only occasionally use. I am not a macro photographer, but there is always the need for some macro pulling power when the occasional spider gets inside the window....

I bought an old Pentax M100mm Macro f4. I spent about £40 on ebay, and it works a treat. It is incredibly sharp, very useful also for portraits, obviusly manual focus, but this is not a bad thing in a macro lens. I bought the old version because I couldn't justify spending hundreds on a lens that I would only occasionally use. It really is an amazing lens, and perhaps something you should look into.

ANd with the money saved, you can always look at a good DA* zoom, or another prime.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

He said that he'll buy the tamron 90mm macro sometimes soon though

Hello,

I was also torn between the Pentax 50-135 and the Tamron 70-200. I didn't look at the Sigma one, because I actually don't like the feel of sigma lenses in general. but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.

I ended up buying the pentax, for various reasons, one being that if I ever wanted more reach (beyond 135mm) I could get the DA*200, or the 300. I actually prefer to have Pentax glass because it seems to retain its value a bit more. I bought the 50-135 at the old price (£549 i think) and because of the price rise I can now sell it for the same or almost...

Now, there are a few issues to consider.

Pentax is completely silent and has internal AF - which does go wrong occasionally as reported by threads around this forum. It is though an absolute joy to use. Its light, compact, smooth, and IQ comparable to a good prime lens.

The Sigma (and the Tamron) now seem to focus faster with the K-7 because of the camera's faster af motor, that is not used with the pentax lens. THe 70-200 is quite a bit heavier, but I believe it has a tripod mount (the tamron does) so it can be put on a monopod in a very balanced setup. The IQ seems to be comparable to the one of the Pentax.

For me it came down to focal lenght. I can use the 50-135 for indoor portraiture in my home studio, and in the 6-7 metres of the room where I shoot, I can perfectly fit half body / headshot detail. If I had the 70-200 I would simply struggle in my home studiosetup.
Another great use for my DA* is live music. ANd there too, depending on the size of the venue, if you are under the stage in the press pit the 50-135 is absolutely perfect even for headshots of the performers. If you are much further away, the 200mm of the sigma might help, but only to a certain extent - i.e. there isn't much difference between the 2.
You can also consider that at the telephoto end of things perspective doesn't really change very much, and with the K-7 you can heavily crop details of an image.

THe Pentax is now more expensive than the Sigma (i believe) and that might come in play, if you also have to buy the K-7.

I think that you should make your choice depending on where you shoot the most. If you do outdoor sports then surely the extra reach will benefit. But consider that if you are serious about sports you will surely also need a 300+ mm, and therefore it won't make much difference.

I wrote a lot, hopefully giving you something to think about. I suggest you go to SRS and try both lenses out, and see how they feel. AH on this point. WHen I bought the 50-135 i was only shooting on a K10, and the belance was spot on with the pentax and also the sigma/tamron. Now with the K-7 being smaller, and a tad lighter, I believe that handheld (with no grip) its great with the pentax, but the other 2 (or the 60-250) would be a bit unbalanced if not used on a monopod or with the battery grip.

Kind regards,

Ahhhh that's why I ALWAYS get crappy feedback for my poor photos




p.s.or maybe i just suck at photography uh?
p.p.s. I also disagree with the OP idea. THere is an amazing site for only photo's C&C. Its called Woophy, and I strongly suggest you try it out