Hello Boris ... I suppose it's a matter of taste and preference. If you want plastic looking photos, then by all means get lenses that give you that result. Certain post processing techniques may also help make your photos look more plastic. Personally, I think those plast-ICKY images lack a certain realistic quality and are an abomination. The world does not look like that, even if it is filled with plastic.
Yes Boris, it seems you may have outgrown Pentax gear ... but think about this: if certain images made with a given lens have a certain look, and others have a different look, might it not be the lens per se that's giving the result, but something other, such as processing techniques? It's also quite possible that some of the lenses you're using aren't up to the task, and better quality glass, or glass with different characteristics, might well be the way to go. After all, it's the characteristics of the lens that, at least with film, contribute so much to a photograph. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Boris Liberman > > Recently I met a person who uses EOS 20D and couple of L lenses - > 17-40/4 and 70-200/4 both being L lenses. > > We looked at each other's photos and I was very impressed with the way > the L lenses produce very plastic, very 3D images. He on the other > hand pointed out that few of my works were very good while actually > spoiled by rather poor optics that I have. > > Notably, of course, he was "attacking" my FA 28-70/4 and F 70-210 > zooms. Indeed, a cheap $100 zoom cannot really compete with $750 > monsters from Canon :). > > However, this made me concerned, in a sense that it could be some > other of my lenses are not on par with modern quality. > > This guy also mentioned that to him I appeared as if having outgrown > most of my gear, so that now my lenses were bottleneck in my further > deveplopment as a photog... > > Although flattered by this comment, I am very unamused. > > I went to pbase.com and looked up some considerable number of shots > made by Pentax gear. I saw rather bad shots made with Limited lenses > as well as some excellent shots too. > > I do admit that I am after plasticity of my lenses. It is what makes > the picture look really good. So here are the lenses I find > questionable: > > K 24/2.8 > M 35/2.8 > Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 > Of course two zooms: 28-70/4 and 70-210/4-5.6 > > I am unsure about that Sigma 18/3.5 that I recently bought. > > The lenses I am sure are excellent are: > > FA 50/1.7 > M 50/1.4 > F 85/2.8 soft (truly unique) > Tamron 90/2.5 SP (thanks Joe Wilensky!) > > I don't seem to have anything left unmentioned. > > I have some particular questions to add to this little rant: > > 1. Is there any of the "questionable" lenses above that are actually very good? > 2. What things I should be aware of to improve plasticity of my images? > 3. If I indeed have to replace all/some of those "questionable" > lenses, what would you recommend? > > My plan was to stop my enablement and do some extensive shooting. It > seems it is falling apart somehow... > > -- > Boris
