So what you are actually saying is that the metering is pretty bad. It won't work except in one range of apertures and even then you have to know how to compensate?

I guess they just have better engineers. I am more confused by why the Pentax is so bad.

There's no point trying to pacify the Pentax zealots. There is no substantial difference in the frames that would throw off the metering. It's not like we had a giant spotlight glaring just outside the MFT frame!

The problems with the crippled K-mount and green button metering have been well documented for years. There are graphs and technical numbers somewhere on Pentax Forums. Those who haven't come across it are either pretty darned lucky or less exacting than we had to be in this setup.

Anyway, it was not our intention to bash Pentax but rather to highlight some of their good lenses.

Er, yes, what I write does represent what I believe (not "feel"). Did you expect something different?

You can change the emphasis as much as you like, in a sad attempt to twist my words, but I still won't mean what you think I mean.

Fair enough that you might misunderstand me. But when I go to great lengths to explain further, you then question why I did this. In another thread you even mocked my disability, a truly low point in your playground antics.

I kindly ask you to stop derailing this thread to suit your own whims. Please write your own three-part article on your own blog if you wish to dominate everyone else with your ego.

Until you grow up I am done with you. A shame there is no Ignore function.

It's true, yes, I agree. There is no point to any photography not done with a Pentax camera.

All the K-mount lenses we compared were designed for full-frame. So you'd be just as well complaining that we did the tests on the small APS-C sensor.

Which we did do, by the way, as the articles clearly state (more than once). Unfortunately the metering was too inconsistent to trust the results. I suppose we should have made a bigger deal about how the crap Pentax metering caused us to waste half our time. But I didn't want the article to be that negative.

Besides all this, I think you are misunderstanding bokeh. While depth of field will be different on different sensors, as it is for the different focal lengths we used, bokeh will not be significantly different. Because bokeh is the quality of the OOF areas and transitions thereof. It can easily be judged and compared on any sensor, as it is largely a quality of the lens optics.

Well, the evidence to hand does not support that it is "a completely different flavour". The lenses have more in common than they have differences. The most different lens would be the Cosina.

I am quite happy if other people pick their own winners. Robbie and I can only pick our own. Independently, we happened to agree. Going in we had different favourites, so this result surprised us.

Saying that we are not allowed to pick a winner is rather odd, to say the least, and stunningly egotistical, to say a bit more.

You continue to misunderstand me on this, even though by now it's obvious I own not one but two f/1.2 lenses. Yet I am not confused by my own personal ownership of said tools into thinking they are the best choices for all. Is f/1.2 a general-purpose requirement of a lens? No.

Is the use of f/1.2 "an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal"? Yes. I'd say that fits exactly.

By the way, my next video project is all about shallow depth of field. I plan on using the gimmick of f/1.2 for all it's worth.

If, despite all this, the entire article is spoiled by one comment then you should really stop reading other people's opinions entirely. You're never going to be happy.

Also: If you have enough light for faster shutter speeds, and don't want extreme magnification, you can move to follow insects. A monopod is perfect for this. Use it to pivot around while providing as much stability as possible. If you are in a dense area of insects this can allow you to swoop in on a likely candidate.

If you are after greater magnification then things become a lot harder and I'd recommend a ring light as a minimal start on enhancing gear.

No. AF cannot provide the degree of focus accuracy you need for macros.

What you do instead is take your time and study the insects. See where they land. If they are pollen carriers then see what pattern of flowers they visit... chances are they will repeat this pattern.

Then set up in a likely place and wait.



Bee Home 2 by robinparmar, on Flickr. Not really a macro, I admit, but a close focus shot anyway.

All I can tell is that it's a nice location for pictures.

Thanks for being patient. It took us a while to process all the images, discuss the results, and write them up. They are now available on as Part Three of the article. There are links to full-sized images at f/2 from all lenses. Plus a 1:1 crop grid across apertures.

We were surprised by the results. And it's going to motivate some lens sales in the near future.

And who's behind the lens.

Yes, these facts are no doubt most true. But if you hold those variables constant, then it is also the lens that matters, and that is the focus of this particular little exercise.

Indeed!

Of the two cameras, the K-5 should be better, since it has 921K pixels on the 3" LCD. But in practice the Olympus E-PL2, several generations old and with only 460K pixels, was easier to work with.

The K-5 screen looks nicer when reviewing images but is harder to work with for focusing. I can't explain it. Obviously down to implementation.