[quote:3496ace15f="ChrisA"]


Absolutely When compared with the K10 or K20, exposure in A-mode with the K5 and K or M lenses is considerably more accurate and predictable, allowing one to dispense with stop-down metering for the vast majority of shots. This has been my experience using lenses ranging in focal length from 50 - 400mm (Pentax and third-party).

Why the K5 should be so delightfully different in this respect I cannot say, but would be interested to hear from anyone who knows or thinks they might know.

Jon

Seconded!

One of the least expected but most welcomed improvements of the K5 when compared with the K20D or the K10's 'blood brother' the Samsung GX-10. Makes the K5 a worthy investment for this reason alone if one has, or is intending to acquire, a collection K or M lenses.

Jon

Had the opportunity to buy a copy of this lens from a seller on e-bay who happened to live within a few minutes drive and hence I was able view before bidding.

Given that affordable AF primes of this focal length in PKA mount are somewhat of a rarity, and that examples of this particular lens are offered for sale on e-bay fairly frequently, I thought it potentially worthwhile sharing some examples to illustrate the kind of results that can be obtained when used in combination with a K20D or K5.

Test images (hand-held and tripod-mounted at various apertures with and without a Sigma 1.4X or Tamron 2X TC) as well as 'real world' examples can be found here link.

With 1 or 2 clearly labelled exceptions, all the images were captured in JPEG format (in-camera default settings) and subjected to minimal post-capture editing in PSE 9.0 (correction of colour cast when necessary, levels adjustment, cropping and resizing).

Constructive feedback as to the utilty, or otherwise, of these images for those hankering after an affordable prime with greater reach would be much appreciated.

Jon

Ooops! link

Jon

The best reassurance I can offer is this link: it helped banish my lens cleanliness OCD and allowed me see them for what they are - tools to be used, but not abused, and not treasures to be cleaned and polished endlessly

Jon

Almost 48h past its sell by date but still well worth a read if you fancy a late night chuckle

link

Thanks to Mike Johnstone at The Online Photographer for posting the original link

Jon

Intelligent and insightful article posted on the Lens Rentals Blog that illustrates the main symptoms and consequences of a failure to control perspective.

The author of the piece writes under a pseudonym, but is clearly a graduate of the late, great Dr Schadenfreude's School of Photography

link


Jon

There is an important Health and Safety issue here, Bassman!

Captures this sharp are likely to puncture the viewer's eyeballs and cause lasting damage to their retinas.

Unless you have the financial resources to weather a spate of personal injury claims, I advise you to include an hazard warning sign of the type shown:

[img]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6107/6868657664_02a022a18e_o.jpg" class="comment_image" />

Hazard Warning by Dr 'B ', on Flickr[/img]

Yours in emerald green envy,

Jon

Tough choice, Shaun, especially when uploaded at such a small size. Having said that, I had no difficulty in eliminating 2 and 4 from the mix but find it hard to chose between 1 and 3.

I think Dr 'O' has highlighted the main 'weakness' of 1, but that area of highlight seems, IMO, to be 'blown' beyond the point of recovery. Wold it be possible to crop differently so as to remove it from the final image whilst retaining the same aspect ratio?

On balance, and by not much more than a 'gnat's whisker', I tend to favour 3. It may not be quite so arresting as 1, but it rewards the viewers eye handsomely on closer and more leisurely inspection.

Jon

Warning: the author of this critique has been officially diagnosed as suffering from a 'talent deficit'

You are absolutely right, David, and this is something I should have made clear in my original comment.

I don't recall how the goldfinch image was edited post-capture, but you have highlighted correctly some of its shortcomings. It was never my intention to present said image as being 'exceptional' in any way really. Indeed, it is not even representative of the best that can be achieved with the Paragon pre-set lens. What it does show, however, is that for those of more modest means or whose interest in bird photography is not all consuming, it is possible to obtain perfectly acceptable images for a relatively modest outlay; always providing that one is prepared to forgo the niceties of auto-focus and auto-exposure.

In addition to the Paragon, which was originally purchased for my daughter to capture images of the Moon, I have a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 AF (much underrated, IMHO) and a Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4 EX DG which, in a side-by-side comparison, makes the benefits of advances in modern lens design and materials readily apparent. Despite this, I still make regular use of the Sigma 400mm and and, from time-to-time, the Paragon simply because I enjoy the additional challenge that their use entails.

Yours masochistically ,

Jon