Comments made by percy - Page 17

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

johnriley wrote:
I would look at the K-5 II or IIs as being a worthwhile upgrade, identical in operation to his K-7 and rather less expensive than a K-3.

ditto

Comment by percy posted on Upgrades from K7 at 10/10/2014 - 09:14

PM sent

Comment by percy posted on Sigma 300mm F4 APO - sensible teleconverter? at 09/10/2014 - 19:39

I have no experience of the 16-45, but the Sigma 17-50 is well worth considering as well, and only about £20 more than the Tamron.

The 55-300 is certainly a good upgrade against the 70-300.

Comment by percy posted on Used Pentax 16-45 or new Tamron 17-50 ? at 06/10/2014 - 13:31

It happens occasionally and is normally caused by a software glitch - it shouldn't be anything to be concerned about unless it happens regularly.

Comment by percy posted on Static build up at 04/10/2014 - 12:28

I've been to Slimbridge using a 60-250, and found I didn't really need anything shorter. In fact, a longer lens would have been better.

If/when I go the next time I'll most likely just take just the Sigma 100-300 plus monopod, and maybe a compact to cater for an occasional wider angle.

I think your second choice would be ideal.

Comment by percy posted on Slimbridge Wetland Centre at 03/10/2014 - 13:14

The Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 works well with the Sigma 70-200 HSM (provided you have reasonably good light) if you can find one. Doesn't give as much range as a 2x converter, but does let in more light and doesn't affect image quality to the same degree.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/a-tamron-f-1-4x-pz-af-mc4.html

Comment by percy posted on using a tele converter at 02/10/2014 - 19:00

swarf wrote:

redbusa99 wrote:
i think the general consensus is shoot in raw and convert using software, gives you so much more leeway to get what you want

+1

Phil

+ another

Comment by percy posted on Shooting in B&W at 28/09/2014 - 09:53

SteveEveritt wrote:

percy wrote:
I have the 50-135, and until recently had a Sigma 70-200. The Sigma was a great lens for sports with quick and accurate autofocus and was pretty sharp. But for portrait work I would use the 50-135. That is also a pretty sharp lens - slightly more so than the Sigma - and the extra 20 at the short end is quite useful. The autofocus is too slow for sports, but for portrait work no problem.

The AF is NOT too slow for sport!

Evidence
.

Perhaps you have been lucky with your lens but mine is certainly has the slowest autofocus of all my lenses and struggles to keep up with any fast(ish) action shots. The 50-135 has a reputation for slow autofocus which my experience supports, and although I have used it for fast action shots it does struggle to keep up.
That said it is a lovely sharp lens and one I enjoy using

Comment by percy posted on Pentax 50 - 135/2.8 vs Tamron 70 - 200/2.8 vs Sigma 70 - 200/2.8 at 16/09/2014 - 20:34

I have the 50-135, and until recently had a Sigma 70-200. The Sigma was a great lens for sports with quick and accurate autofocus and was pretty sharp. But for portrait work I would use the 50-135. That is also a pretty sharp lens - slightly more so than the Sigma - and the extra 20 at the short end is quite useful. The autofocus is too slow for sports, but for portrait work no problem.

Comment by percy posted on Pentax 50 - 135/2.8 vs Tamron 70 - 200/2.8 vs Sigma 70 - 200/2.8 at 16/09/2014 - 08:08

Maybe needs a bit of a crop!

Comment by percy posted on Finally, my very first Kingfisher photo at 13/09/2014 - 20:00

Proudly supporting Pentax User

percy

All Forum Comments

All Forum Comments

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Proudly supporting Pentax User