Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
I've read here on the list a while ago, and I believe in the instructions for one of the focus tests, to AF twice, as the first focus tends to overshoot or undershoot the best possible focus. In designing such a system, there is a tradeoff between speed of focusing, wear and tear on the motors, internal or body caused by too much time hunting for perfect focus. So the system gives you an acceptable focus on the first try, but will improve that focus if you press the shutter button again. This is even more important in low light levels or subject matter that has low contrast. I'm just saying! It's what I've read. So studio or outdoors when shooting a static subject, focus twice. I shoot mostly action, so don't have the privilege most times as I'm handholding the camera. Given the tracking focus capabilities of the K-7 (and all those that preceded it), I have a low number of sharp images to show. I have in fact stopped shooting unless I can set ƒ 5.6 or smaller with a shutter speed of 1/90 and ISO of 800 or lower. I prefer 1/500 @ ƒ5.6 if I can get it. On Mar 20, 2011, at 06:21 , Paul Stenquist wrote: I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case. My DA* 16-50 has worked fine with the K-7 and K-5. I'm sure I used it with the K20 as well. I don't recall any significant problems. Paul On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.” — Kevan Olesen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On 3/20/2011 2:39 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. Tim, I am thinking these thoughts: * Why don't you get yourself a magnifying eye cap and a split screen focusing screen? It is going to be way less than buying a new camera. Provided you're happy with what your K20D produces when you and it hit it together. * May be you could simply bring/send the camera and the lens to local Pentax repair center for calibration? By local I mean mostly European as my understanding is that the guys in Oslo don't do gear repair like they used to several years ago. I may be off the mark here, but you and Jostein would know better, of course. * I would recommend against Tamron 28-75/2.8. Well, let me soften it a bit - I wouldn't recommend for it. I've a friend who uses it on Canon 50D and gets excellent results. But he is very masterful in post. I find that Tamron 28-75 is more prone to nervous OOF rendering than Sigma 24-60/2.8 that has become my zoom lens of choice as of recently. I cannot possibly know if it at all makes sense to suggest that you use primes instead of zooms in your studio, given that you practically control everything. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? Whatever it takes. Every time that I though I found a way in which the K20 was better than the K-5, I eventually learned that I had not properly read the K-5 manual. My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. I'm very intrigued by the 28-75 myself, it's a range that I find myself needing a lot. How sharp is it? My two zooms are the 18-250 and the 16-50, how would it compare with them? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On 3/20/2011 2:48 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I'm very intrigued by the 28-75 myself, it's a range that I find myself needing a lot. How sharp is it? My two zooms are the 18-250 and the 16-50, how would it compare with them? My copy is very sharp. Easily as sharp as Pentax primes, such as 35/2.8 or 50/1.7 or whatever non-limited primes that I (used to have) had. I think that limited lenses outdo it a bit in other aspects of the rendering, but for all practical purposes I treat(ed) my copy as set of primes in one barrel. My only issue with this lens is like I wrote just a moment ago to Tim - somewhat nervous OOF rendering. Not always, mind you, just sometimes, but I hadn't manage to learn when it decides to go nervous. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 3/20/2011 2:48 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I'm very intrigued by the 28-75 myself, it's a range that I find myself needing a lot. How sharp is it? My two zooms are the 18-250 and the 16-50, how would it compare with them? My copy is very sharp. Easily as sharp as Pentax primes, such as 35/2.8 or 50/1.7 or whatever non-limited primes that I (used to have) had. I think that limited lenses outdo it a bit in other aspects of the rendering, but for all practical purposes I treat(ed) my copy as set of primes in one barrel. My only issue with this lens is like I wrote just a moment ago to Tim - somewhat nervous OOF rendering. Not always, mind you, just sometimes, but I hadn't manage to learn when it decides to go nervous. Interesting. That is my biggest complaint with my bigma, that I don't like the bokeh. Until my finances settle a bit, or I've got a big chunk of income depending on a good zoom in that range, the situation is pretty well moot. But, it's fun to think about. Photographing aikido, I find myself often needing a bit more length than my 16-50 will provide, but often need wider than 50. On the K-x I'm pushing the sensor hard enough to get the 1/80th or faster shutter speeds, at least at night, that I lose noticeable sharpness when I crop to zoom. I find that I prefer photographing musicians framed in close on their face. My 77 is usually pretty good for that, but there are a lot of times it would be nice to go a bit wider, and occasionally, I'd like a bit longer. Either the 28-75 or the 50-135 would be a good range for me to use in band photography, though the backgrounds can be a lot harder to control at a dive bar, so good bokeh is probably a lot more critical. I could probably use a lens as slow as 3.5 or 4, but wouldn't want to go much slower than that. At this point, I might as well consider using the 16-50 on one K-5, and buying a second K-5 and 50-135 to get the range I need, or ask what zooms work well on the 645D, because it's not like I can afford those either. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. IMO OOF rendering generally isn't important in the studio. Because it isn't much to render in the background. What's most important is how it renders skin, hair and eyes. Harsh OOF rendering of hair could be a problem. I'm not sure. So I think what I'm really asking is how the 28-75 will focus in the studio light. Is that lens critical towards light temperature? I had one in the past, but I can't recall how it behaved in odd light. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com: On 3/20/2011 2:39 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. Tim, I am thinking these thoughts: * Why don't you get yourself a magnifying eye cap and a split screen focusing screen? It is going to be way less than buying a new camera. Provided you're happy with what your K20D produces when you and it hit it together. * May be you could simply bring/send the camera and the lens to local Pentax repair center for calibration? By local I mean mostly European as my understanding is that the guys in Oslo don't do gear repair like they used to several years ago. I may be off the mark here, but you and Jostein would know better, of course. * I would recommend against Tamron 28-75/2.8. Well, let me soften it a bit - I wouldn't recommend for it. I've a friend who uses it on Canon 50D and gets excellent results. But he is very masterful in post. I find that Tamron 28-75 is more prone to nervous OOF rendering than Sigma 24-60/2.8 that has become my zoom lens of choice as of recently. I cannot possibly know if it at all makes sense to suggest that you use primes instead of zooms in your studio, given that you practically control everything. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On 3/20/2011 3:06 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. Then The Fates (*) have very little work left to be done here. IMO OOF rendering generally isn't important in the studio. Because it isn't much to render in the background. What's most important is how it renders skin, hair and eyes. Harsh OOF rendering of hair could be a problem. I'm not sure. Well, it probably depends. I've seen studio photographs where OOF played viable part in the whole motif. But you know better. So I think what I'm really asking is how the 28-75 will focus in the studio light. Is that lens critical towards light temperature? I had one in the past, but I can't recall how it behaved in odd light. I cannot possibly tell. I can tell that mine was spot on even on K10D even in relatively dim tungsten room light. I still have it by the way. Up for grabs... Boris (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirae -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
May be I replied to fast. For the time being, in the work I do at the moment, the background rendering isn't critical. But that might change. So you do have a point. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com: Well, it probably depends. I've seen studio photographs where OOF played viable part in the whole motif. But you know better. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. Tim, if you are eventually going to upgrade to a K-5, and you can afford to do it now, then the money you save by waiting for the price to drop will not be worth the frustration you'll pay by using the K-20 rather than the K-5 in the meantime. I don't know how much of the K-5 was produced in the area affected by the recent events, but the Japanese economy has taken enough of a hit, that I don't see supply of DSLRs outstripping demand in the near future, and the price is very likely to take a temporary upturn. Alternatively, you could get most of the performance by buying a K-r, but then you'll likely find yourself needing to carry both bodies, one for when you need performance, the other for when you need features. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
My significant other would kill me for getting a K-5 now. But I could smuggle in a lens. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com: On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. Tim, if you are eventually going to upgrade to a K-5, and you can afford to do it now, then the money you save by waiting for the price to drop will not be worth the frustration you'll pay by using the K-20 rather than the K-5 in the meantime. I don't know how much of the K-5 was produced in the area affected by the recent events, but the Japanese economy has taken enough of a hit, that I don't see supply of DSLRs outstripping demand in the near future, and the price is very likely to take a temporary upturn. Alternatively, you could get most of the performance by buying a K-r, but then you'll likely find yourself needing to carry both bodies, one for when you need performance, the other for when you need features. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case. My DA* 16-50 has worked fine with the K-7 and K-5. I'm sure I used it with the K20 as well. I don't recall any significant problems. Paul On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor if I corrects it for indoor light. Am I right about this? FA* 85 is mostly spot on. So I'm blaming the DA* 16-50. What do you think guys? Should I use the situation as an excuse for an enablement? My eyes are not up to critical manual focus indoor. Should I look for another lens to use in the studio? Tamron 28-75/2,8 could be the lens I need. Also musing at 35mm 2,8 Ltd, but I end up regretting not buying a faster 35mm. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On 3/20/2011 3:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Interesting. That is my biggest complaint with my bigma, that I don't like the bokeh. It is my present belief (as in 'loosely proven by minimal personal experience') that zooms don't have bokeh as good as primes which has to do with the fact of life that normally high quality zooms have often almost twice as many optical elements as primes. Given most modern trend of optical stabilization in 3rd party offerings it is even more true than ever. To that end Sigma 24-60 has somewhat better bokeh than Tamron 28-75. It is even more surprising given that Sigma is wider and wide lenses have hard time dealing with OOF rendering. However Sigma has another quality that Tamron does not. Even at apertures as small as 5.6 and 8 sometimes the image glows very much like the glow of the soft lens. The effect is more pronounced at f/2.8 but it cannot possibly be said that the lens is unusable or soft wide open. So, with Tamron I had a bit of a gamble with OOF rendering being nervous. With Sigma I gamble on the glowing image. But if hits it, it hits big, bigger than Tamron - sharp, nice OOF rendering, very good overall IQ. All of the above is spoken based on just two samples and just one photographer. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
The thing is that I never noticed this before I sended it in for a locked zoom ring. And I've never noticed it in daylight. In fact, I've never noticed it at all. What kind of light would you try first? -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case. My DA* 16-50 has worked fine with the K-7 and K-5. I'm sure I used it with the K20 as well. I don't recall any significant problems. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The thing is that I never noticed this before I sended it in for a locked zoom ring. And I've never noticed it in daylight. In fact, I've never noticed it at all. What kind of light would you try first? It doesn't matter which test comes first. As long as you check autofocus calibration in both daylight and artificial light. You have to do it with an accurate scale and a tripod. It's impossible to obtain valid results handholding. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case. My DA* 16-50 has worked fine with the K-7 and K-5. I'm sure I used it with the K20 as well. I don't recall any significant problems. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
Just did a formal test using the AF-assist light. It did OK at the long end, but front focuses heavily at 16mm. Hm. I'll redo the test, and include the mid range. But it does not look good so far. Will test it in the studio later. Right now it is occupied by a college. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The thing is that I never noticed this before I sended it in for a locked zoom ring. And I've never noticed it in daylight. In fact, I've never noticed it at all. What kind of light would you try first? It doesn't matter which test comes first. As long as you check autofocus calibration in both daylight and artificial light. You have to do it with an accurate scale and a tripod. It's impossible to obtain valid results handholding. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case. My DA* 16-50 has worked fine with the K-7 and K-5. I'm sure I used it with the K20 as well. I don't recall any significant problems. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
Shit. Redid the test. On tripod, focused at a remote control (don't have a proper test chart). This time it back focused a bit at 16mm, back focus a lot at 28mm, and spot on at 50mm. Same result in tungsten light. Am I doing something wrong, or is the lens a wreck? Or is it the camera? -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com: Just did a formal test using the AF-assist light. It did OK at the long end, but front focuses heavily at 16mm. Hm. I'll redo the test, and include the mid range. But it does not look good so far. Will test it in the studio later. Right now it is occupied by a college. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
You really need a fine line scale to determine focus. Do you have a meter stick? Focus on a number midway down the stick, with it lying on the floor. Come at it from a 45 degree angle. If you're getting inconsistent results, I suspect your test method is askew. Paul On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Shit. Redid the test. On tripod, focused at a remote control (don't have a proper test chart). This time it back focused a bit at 16mm, back focus a lot at 28mm, and spot on at 50mm. Same result in tungsten light. Am I doing something wrong, or is the lens a wreck? Or is it the camera? -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com: Just did a formal test using the AF-assist light. It did OK at the long end, but front focuses heavily at 16mm. Hm. I'll redo the test, and include the mid range. But it does not look good so far. Will test it in the studio later. Right now it is occupied by a college. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
Tim, how about a K-r - costs about as much as a good lens Cheers Ecke 2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: You really need a fine line scale to determine focus. Do you have a meter stick? Focus on a number midway down the stick, with it lying on the floor. Come at it from a 45 degree angle. If you're getting inconsistent results, I suspect your test method is askew. Paul On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Shit. Redid the test. On tripod, focused at a remote control (don't have a proper test chart). This time it back focused a bit at 16mm, back focus a lot at 28mm, and spot on at 50mm. Same result in tungsten light. Am I doing something wrong, or is the lens a wreck? Or is it the camera? -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Tim Øsleby maritim...@gmail.com: Just did a formal test using the AF-assist light. It did OK at the long end, but front focuses heavily at 16mm. Hm. I'll redo the test, and include the mid range. But it does not look good so far. Will test it in the studio later. Right now it is occupied by a college. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
A counter-point to Larry's suggestion: camera bodies come and go, but good glass is forever. That truism varies in validity of course (thinking of the random SDM death-spiral here), but it's mostly true. I bought my first two decent lenses for my K100D Super rather than upgrading to a K10D or other. A year or two later I added a K20D and those lenses are workhorses on it. I expect they'll still be going strong when the K100D is landfill and the K20D is gathering dust. So, I'd recommend solving the lens problem. And for your work (lots of portrait stuff, no?) OOF rendering is more important than you might think. I think it's a hallmark of the best portrait glass in fact. BTW, the 35mm 2.8 Ltd has pretty good bokeh, but personally I find it's *too* sharp for portraiture. A little softness of the right kind is preferable. I dunno about your DA* 16-50 issues though. You might want to give the calibration a go, under your expected lighting conditions. I've had no trouble with focus in florescent and tungsten light with that lens, and I've done some studio stuff with it. It has really nice bokeh and renders pretty nice portraits. (Though I'd rather be shooting portraits with the DA* 55 1.4 and the 50-135 2.8, myself.) -bmw On 11-03-20 9:24 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: My significant other would kill me for getting a K-5 now. But I could smuggle in a lens. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Larry Colenl...@red4est.com: On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. Tim, if you are eventually going to upgrade to a K-5, and you can afford to do it now, then the money you save by waiting for the price to drop will not be worth the frustration you'll pay by using the K-20 rather than the K-5 in the meantime. I don't know how much of the K-5 was produced in the area affected by the recent events, but the Japanese economy has taken enough of a hit, that I don't see supply of DSLRs outstripping demand in the near future, and the price is very likely to take a temporary upturn. Alternatively, you could get most of the performance by buying a K-r, but then you'll likely find yourself needing to carry both bodies, one for when you need performance, the other for when you need features. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-20 and DA* 16-50 frustrations
I have callibrated it now, with the AF-assist lamp on. It was far off +10. It's much better now, but I don't know how it performs in the studio light. But for the time being I prefer thinking of it as solved. (Thanks Paul for pushing me). The results where consistent. But I did run into one oddity. It struggled locking around 28mm when using +10. So I'm still not 100% comfortable. - Yes, the studio work is mainly portrait. At least for the moment. Good bokeh is good, no doubt about that. But it is not on top of my priority list, at the moment. The FA* is the preferred lens for head shots. But I seem to prefer using 28-35ish with the 16-50 when shooting full figure. I like working close. So something narrower is out for the moment. Much easier to adjust the light, clothes etc when I'm close. That's why I'm thinking 28-75. All I need indoor, in one lens. Primes is better, but I can't afford a good range of them at the moment. The 35/2,8 is tempting, only wish it was a wee bit faster. The 31 is way to expensive. It's easy to soften down the pictures afterwords if they are to sharp. Much worse going the other way. Another reason for wanting the 35 is that I can see myself using it as a walk about. Macro is handy when walking about. BTW. I wish I wasn't left eye dominant. I'd like to have one eye visible to make better contact with the model. Now I'm hiding myself behind the camera. Another BTW. I'm starting to make a field project too. Environmental portraits of people at work doing their craft. Going to visit a female jeweller tomorrow. That's the first shoot in the series. That's a situation where bokeh is important. Wish me luck. Also gone visit the elders day centre again tomorrow. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com: A counter-point to Larry's suggestion: camera bodies come and go, but good glass is forever. That truism varies in validity of course (thinking of the random SDM death-spiral here), but it's mostly true. I bought my first two decent lenses for my K100D Super rather than upgrading to a K10D or other. A year or two later I added a K20D and those lenses are workhorses on it. I expect they'll still be going strong when the K100D is landfill and the K20D is gathering dust. So, I'd recommend solving the lens problem. And for your work (lots of portrait stuff, no?) OOF rendering is more important than you might think. I think it's a hallmark of the best portrait glass in fact. BTW, the 35mm 2.8 Ltd has pretty good bokeh, but personally I find it's *too* sharp for portraiture. A little softness of the right kind is preferable. I dunno about your DA* 16-50 issues though. You might want to give the calibration a go, under your expected lighting conditions. I've had no trouble with focus in florescent and tungsten light with that lens, and I've done some studio stuff with it. It has really nice bokeh and renders pretty nice portraits. (Though I'd rather be shooting portraits with the DA* 55 1.4 and the 50-135 2.8, myself.) -bmw On 11-03-20 9:24 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: My significant other would kill me for getting a K-5 now. But I could smuggle in a lens. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ 2011/3/20 Larry Colenl...@red4est.com: On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it seems a bit like waste. Tim, if you are eventually going to upgrade to a K-5, and you can afford to do it now, then the money you save by waiting for the price to drop will not be worth the frustration you'll pay by using the K-20 rather than the K-5 in the meantime. I don't know how much of the K-5 was produced in the area affected by the recent events, but the Japanese economy has taken enough of a hit, that I don't see supply of DSLRs outstripping demand in the near future, and the price is very likely to take a temporary upturn. Alternatively, you could get most of the performance by buying a K-r, but then you'll likely find yourself needing to carry both bodies, one for when you need performance, the other for when you need features. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
