I will have to look for them, I have 6 terabytes of mess in my computer, more than a million photos...multiple copies of most of the good stuff. I find stuff all the time I just copied off of a sd card and never looked at...
Most of the testing was done mid summer in my back yard, it's a jungle, quite familiar with the subject matter, I planted most of it The indoor stuff was done with controlled studio lights or flash bouncing.
My complaints of these lenses were not really about color rendition in macro modes, it was within their normal focal lengths that I noticed it.
I still do have some examples somewhere. I will look but it may take a few days to find them. Not sure if I mentioned the 50 mm macro was my second new copy, the 100wr I had for two weeks.
The lenses I compared the two lenses in question are:
The three versions of 18-55 kit lenses, 16-45 f4, da14 2.8 , da15 f4, da35 macro 2.8, Da*50-135, the fa50 1.4, 18-135wr, da 70 2.4, sigma 90 macro, all sorts of old manual lenses. These are the lenses I use, I have tried pretty much the whole lineup, there is a shop here that rents them, good way to try stuff. also most shops here will allow you to return stuff within two weeks, I have tried just about all the stuff that is pentax mount. My conclusion is pentax has the best color rendition, when you get a good copy these days...It's funny, I knew a couple of interesting Russian guys that used to retro fit pentax glass for the nikon and canon guys, you should hear these guys talk about pentax - serious fans!
I have not tried the new art series from sigma. I hear there are quite good.

Thanks,


JMD

Also to answer the question about macro, unfortunately I was not happy with either. The 35 macro limited is fantastic, but I do feel I got a good copy.

Hello,
Thanks for your reply, I do appreciate that you are trying to help. I just kind of take offence to the beginner type questions, but ok you don't know me or what I know. Let's begin again.

What I meant to say is that I have tried everything. Raw, jpeg, certainly ensuring all the sliders are set in the green in which ever "processing mode", but don't use those.
What I do is shoot - look at the picture, is the picture what I am seeing? If not change a few basic settings like shutter speed, aperture or iso, or where I am metering from in the scene. I stay there until I get a shot that looks right on the camera, it always looks right later on the screens.

I do believe that the lenses I tried were flawed. I do see your logical view of work flow, the questions are good, but please lets get past the "user error" part and get on with it

Regards,


JMD

Kind sir,
I am an experienced photographer. Right angle?
Are you sure you are viewing things from the "right angle" ?
I find your tone offensive.

Hello,
Response for - John Riley
When you say processing, do you mean firmware?
I shoot raw...and add nothing in camera usually...
In camera they looked off, have four calibrated monitors, looked off there too. I have many other quality lenses to compare them to, these two lenses behaved differently. Tests were done in studio and in best possible outside lighting. Most of my rather large collection of lenses are limited's and one Da*.
I have tried a lot of lenses. I do have some experience, just saying...

It's tough asking this question, I am a pentaxian to the core, I am on a forum of serious pentax users, the last thing any of us wants to admit is that there might be bad versions of these lenses or camera bodies coming to us from pentax...
I read all the reviews, I know what these two lenses are supposed to perform like, was expecting that when I bought them new, but in my experience they didn't live up to the hype. I have seen picture examples that look great...

I did do each and every K5 update from version one. This might be the cause I read of issues being created with certain revisions,

Also here in Canada there are copies of the same lens that do behave differently. We see the Made in Japan versions of the same lenses, it's sad to say but I have personally seen quality control issues with all the same products that are reported on all the forums. I had two k5 bodies fail, and returned several primes until I was happy with the version they gave me in exchange.

I don't know, thought maybe you guys over there might have seen bad copies of lenses behave other than expected.

Thanks for taking the time to respond,

JMD

Hello People,

I have a question for the brave, the brave few that alter their own equipment.
I would like to know if anyone has ever disconnected SDM control of their 50-135 star lens. I have read that some have after the SDM motor fails, but I want to disconnect before...
I have read of a few hacks, but the one that makes the most sense is to just cover the two SDM contacts with tape or some other thin insulating material, thus making the camera think it's a screw drive lens.
I need to know if people have tried this - with success and if the camera still knows what lens it has mounted to it. I am the type how will alter my own stuff, just looking for opinions from those that have tried it, or of any other way of disabling it.
Hacking the firmware seems a bit dramatic.
The lens isn't particularly fast at focusing, the screw drive might actually be faster...? I have had this lens for two years, bought a four year extended warranty, no signs of wanting to die, but I like the idea of using the other drive mechanism to further prolong the life expectancy of the lens. I imagine that if the SDM is still functional, the screw drive gearing wouldn't conflict mechanically with the SDM motor and it's little gear reduction bits. But what do I know, I haven't taken mine apart and I am by no means an expert. Anyone on here that is?

Thanks in advance,


JMD

Hello,

I do use the hood - always. It's worked well with the sun at my back, like really well, but for sunsets or portraiture with the sun behind the subject. Flaring. Must be the filter...

JMD

Here is a question I have wanted to ask someone for a while now.
I owned both of those lenses last year, purchased new. The question is do people notice that the color rendering of both of these lenses to be somewhat over pumped?
I spent quite a bit of time with the 50mm, every shot was over saturated. The camera was set to natural, mtf (tried all settings) and no other internal processing. Eventually I just got rid of it. The colors were just wrong. The same experience with the 100mm WR, colors way off. Is it me or have others had the same experience? I have had this experience with tamron lenses as well.

Thanks in advance,


JMD

I have a question about how people use this lens. I find this lens to be super prone to flaring. Do the users of this lens operate it without a UV filter to prevent this? Do others have the same issues with this lens?
Of all the lenses I have, I have a few, this one is the worst for looking into light. The best I have tried is the Da15. It loves the light.
Any thoughts or experiences with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

JMD

Hello Folks,

I need some opinions on this topic please. I have after many years of trying lenses and focal lengths decided that 35mm is where my head is at most of the time. I love the 35 macro limited, but have been considering the FA 31 for all the juicy reasons I read here on this forum.
My questions are these: Do any of you own both? Are there strong differences between the two lenses? Some of you have seen my work, those that have, would you think that I could benefit from this lens, or is the pixie dust rumor mostly just that...
Also looking for a reality check, am I just hoping that this lens will make me a better photographer???


Thank you,


JMD