All Forum Comments
Comment by niblue posted on MZ5 & FA* 85mm F1.4 at 13/09/2007 - 17:40
One of my favourite portraits of my son Fraser, taken a few years ago:
Pentax MZ5, FA* 85mm F1.4, Agfapan APX25 developed in Rodinal, handeld indoors using natural light from patio doors.
Pentax MZ5, FA* 85mm F1.4, Agfapan APX25 developed in Rodinal, handeld indoors using natural light from patio doors.
Comment by niblue posted on MZ5 & FA* 85mm F1.4 at 10/09/2007 - 13:35
Quote:
If you had a choice out of these 2 lenses which would you choose and why.
I know most here would say the Pentax but which would take the better quality pics through it entire range :
The reason i ask is i have the Tamron and too be honest i think its very poor over 200mm. I have a chance to pick up the Pentax for about 70quid and dont want too end up with the same problem. Thanks
You should be able to get most (if not all) of your money back for the 80-320 on Ebay so my suggestion would be to get it and find out for yourself.If you had a choice out of these 2 lenses which would you choose and why.
I know most here would say the Pentax but which would take the better quality pics through it entire range :
The reason i ask is i have the Tamron and too be honest i think its very poor over 200mm. I have a chance to pick up the Pentax for about 70quid and dont want too end up with the same problem. Thanks
I'd also be inclined to look at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro as it has a good reputation - that version (the APO one) does fetch a fair bit on Ebay though.
Comment by niblue posted on Pentax 80-320 or Tamron 28-300? at 10/09/2007 - 10:02
Quote:
Actually, my next question was going to be...
Is the 16-45mm alot better than the 18-55mm kit lens? Is it worth the upgrade? I do like wide angle a great deal and considered keeping the 18-55 and buying a 10-17mm instead. I can't afford both unfortunately.... hmm..???
I have the 16-45, 18-55 and 10-17 so should be able to provide some advise. I've found the 16-45 to be much better than the kit lens (I've owned two of these now and both have been rather underwhelming in use), especially with regard to edge and corner sharpness.Actually, my next question was going to be...
Is the 16-45mm alot better than the 18-55mm kit lens? Is it worth the upgrade? I do like wide angle a great deal and considered keeping the 18-55 and buying a 10-17mm instead. I can't afford both unfortunately.... hmm..???
The 10-17 is a great lens but, because it's a fisheye, it's not used all that frequently - I use the Sigma 10-20mm much more frequently.
Comment by niblue posted on Sigma EX 18-50/2.8 or Pentax 16-45mm at 08/09/2007 - 12:55
Personally I've got nothing against Sigma lenses and, despite owning quite a few over the last decade plus, never encountered any compatabilty issues (the only compatability issues I've encountered with my Pentax system have applied to Pentax components when Pentax have abandoned support for them in later bodies).
However IMHO 16-45mm is a far more useful range than 18-50mm and that would make me favour the Pentax lens over the Sigma, despite it being a stop slower. If the Sigma was a 16-50mm F2.8 it'd be a different story, but I've been quite impressed with the Pentax 16-45 and it's very significantly better than the 18-55 kit lens.
However IMHO 16-45mm is a far more useful range than 18-50mm and that would make me favour the Pentax lens over the Sigma, despite it being a stop slower. If the Sigma was a 16-50mm F2.8 it'd be a different story, but I've been quite impressed with the Pentax 16-45 and it's very significantly better than the 18-55 kit lens.
Comment by niblue posted on Sigma EX 18-50/2.8 or Pentax 16-45mm at 08/09/2007 - 11:31
I'm new to this macro business however here's my opinion (for what it's worth):
Nice colours and composition but either it needs more depth of field or a different point of focus - I quite like macro's of flowers where limited DOF has been used however it usually requires the in-focus bit to supply a bit of punch to the image.
Nice colours and composition but either it needs more depth of field or a different point of focus - I quite like macro's of flowers where limited DOF has been used however it usually requires the in-focus bit to supply a bit of punch to the image.
Comment by niblue posted on Tell me what you think at 05/09/2007 - 14:04
I still find the flashmeter useful for working out the output ratios for each head when using studio flash with a DSLR.
Comment by niblue posted on Minolta Flashmeter IV at 05/09/2007 - 12:50
Quote:
No problem Daniel, all Niblue's pictures are part of the area I work in, so I feel at home
Lucky chap!No problem Daniel, all Niblue's pictures are part of the area I work in, so I feel at home
Comment by niblue posted on Using the 10-17mm Fisheye at 06/09/2007 - 19:08
Quote:
You're making me SO jealous! Is that Suilven? Just checked my slides from when we were up that way a few years back, although I've only got distant views with "Suilven and Cul Mor" on the mount, but can't remember which is which.
That one is Suilven, this is Cul Mor:You're making me SO jealous! Is that Suilven? Just checked my slides from when we were up that way a few years back, although I've only got distant views with "Suilven and Cul Mor" on the mount, but can't remember which is which.
K10D, DA 16-45mm
Comment by niblue posted on Using the 10-17mm Fisheye at 06/09/2007 - 08:29
This was my favourite shot of the NW trip (no-where Edinburgh and the other end of my lens range from the 10-17!):
Pentax K10D, Tokina ATX-Pro 80-200 F2.8
Pentax K10D, Tokina ATX-Pro 80-200 F2.8
Comment by niblue posted on Using the 10-17mm Fisheye at 05/09/2007 - 21:17
Was it in fact taken at full aperture f1.4 ?