Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
That is why I could see bad bokeh since many probably third factors affected the final result which was not bad. Maybe in other circumstances I would see it. I just must try again. Alek Uytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Dan Scott wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right combination of elements in the scene being photographed for bad bokeh to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or transparency, it's good bokeh if you don't, it's bad. Quite clearly, that's abundantly true! grin Thanks for the clarification! keith Dan Scott --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Fred, What about bokeh if one step down a bit aperture? Does it improve? Alek Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs.100mm 2.8)
Hi Keith, So after reading many opinions about bokeh it can be truth what I wrote that in some conditions I could see bad bokeh using K105/2.8. MAybe I chose them in such a way that it was quiete nice.Maybe in other ones bokeh could be harsh. But in general this lens is very sharp and contrasty. Alek Uytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Well espoused, Mike. I'll look forward to the write-up with enthusiasm! keith Mike Johnston wrote: This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Tim, In my researches (don't ask), a number of things affect the bokeh: lens design, aperture shape, aperture setting, focusing distance, distance of the background objects from the plane of focus, and the contrast, illumination, and edge texture of the out-of-focus objects. IN GENERAL, the worst-case bokeh is found for most lenses a) at wider apertures, b) closer focusing distances, c) with distant out-of-focus objects d) when those objects are well illuminated and have high contrast. So you can deduce that most lenses to do relatively better when stopped down, focused farther away, with low-contrast and/or darker objects not so far in the background. Also, objects with indeterminate or ragged edges will often appear smoother as long as they're sufficiently o-o-f. You can actually see this effect in pictures where you may have one hard-edged object at the same distance as much softer subject matter, like a bright metal pipe against a muted brick wall or a light-colored streetlight pole against a mass of foliage. In those cases, where the brick or the foliage might be perfectly unobtrusive, the harder shape can show more obvious _ni-sen_ or double-line effect. I'm going to do a column on Luminous-Landscape about testing lenses for bokeh, including illustrations that will greatly help clarify the issues, but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the meantime. --Mike --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Maybe I was shooting at the place where bohek looked quite good. Maybe in different one it would show its bad face as you wrote. I do not argue with you just exchange opinions. What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. keith whaley Maybe in my conditions I bokeh was nice. It also should depends on background. Of course I do not portraits at infnity. I just wrote that I mostly shot at infinity and I took some pictures/portraits not at infinity of course. Alek
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right combination of elements in the scene being photographed for bad bokeh to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or transparency, it's good bokeh if you don't, it's bad. Dan Scott
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Dan Scott wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right combination of elements in the scene being photographed for bad bokeh to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or transparency, it's good bokeh if you don't, it's bad. Quite clearly, that's abundantly true! grin Thanks for the clarification! keith Dan Scott
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs.100mm 2.8)
This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Tim, In my researches (don't ask), a number of things affect the bokeh: lens design, aperture shape, aperture setting, focusing distance, distance of the background objects from the plane of focus, and the contrast, illumination, and edge texture of the out-of-focus objects. IN GENERAL, the worst-case bokeh is found for most lenses a) at wider apertures, b) closer focusing distances, c) with distant out-of-focus objects d) when those objects are well illuminated and have high contrast. So you can deduce that most lenses to do relatively better when stopped down, focused farther away, with low-contrast and/or darker objects not so far in the background. Also, objects with indeterminate or ragged edges will often appear smoother as long as they're sufficiently o-o-f. You can actually see this effect in pictures where you may have one hard-edged object at the same distance as much softer subject matter, like a bright metal pipe against a muted brick wall or a light-colored streetlight pole against a mass of foliage. In those cases, where the brick or the foliage might be perfectly unobtrusive, the harder shape can show more obvious _ni-sen_ or double-line effect. I'm going to do a column on Luminous-Landscape about testing lenses for bokeh, including illustrations that will greatly help clarify the issues, but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the meantime. --Mike Mike Johnston See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two locations: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black White Photography_ magazine!
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs.100mm 2.8)
Well espoused, Mike. I'll look forward to the write-up with enthusiasm! keith Mike Johnston wrote: This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Tim, In my researches (don't ask), a number of things affect the bokeh: lens design, aperture shape, aperture setting, focusing distance, distance of the background objects from the plane of focus, and the contrast, illumination, and edge texture of the out-of-focus objects. IN GENERAL, the worst-case bokeh is found for most lenses a) at wider apertures, b) closer focusing distances, c) with distant out-of-focus objects d) when those objects are well illuminated and have high contrast. So you can deduce that most lenses to do relatively better when stopped down, focused farther away, with low-contrast and/or darker objects not so far in the background. Also, objects with indeterminate or ragged edges will often appear smoother as long as they're sufficiently o-o-f. You can actually see this effect in pictures where you may have one hard-edged object at the same distance as much softer subject matter, like a bright metal pipe against a muted brick wall or a light-colored streetlight pole against a mass of foliage. In those cases, where the brick or the foliage might be perfectly unobtrusive, the harder shape can show more obvious _ni-sen_ or double-line effect. I'm going to do a column on Luminous-Landscape about testing lenses for bokeh, including illustrations that will greatly help clarify the issues, but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the meantime. --Mike
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
The M 100 4 Macro is a fairly small puppy. This fact alone is worth keeping it, IMHO. Got it, love it. -Lon Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi akozak, on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Interesting. According too many users K105 is much better.Maybe you had bad lens, difficult to say. Even on Stan Halpin's site most people prefer old K lens. Alek Yes, I had read that before buying the lenses and I was very surprised, also. It seems, that everybody has to make his own experiences... Regards, Heiko
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, What does exactly harsh bokeh mean? I see my K105/2.8 is very sharp (Velvia) and wonder what you mean saying about harsh bokeh..How does it perform if compared with Nikkor 105/2.5? Alek Uytkownik Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 08:41 PM, Fred wrote: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] woah...flashback city. Nasty. Dan Scott --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek First, you have to learn what bokeh is. A very good article on bokeh is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek Uytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek First, you have to learn what bokeh is. A very good article on bokeh is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek Uytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek First, you have to learn what bokeh is. A very good article on bokeh is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek No, I don't. I was only talking about bokeh, not about how good or not good the lens is. If you only use this lens at infinity setting, you'll probably never even know about how this lens treats out of focus areas, so it's bokeh is less unimportant - probably not worth talking about. You said: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. So where is the problem? If that makes you happy, then there IS no problem, Alek! smile Keith Whaley U¿ytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek First, you have to learn what bokeh is. A very good article on bokeh is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley = snipped =
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? Alek Me? No. I don't own nor use Nikons, so I don't use Nikkor lenses. Perhaps someone else on the list does. keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek U¿ytkownik Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek First, you have to learn what bokeh is. A very good article on bokeh is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do¶æ p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za3ó¿ konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do¶æ p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za3ó¿ konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Alek, Bokeh is how the areas of the picture that are not in focus are rendered. Whether a lens has good bokeh or not is generally a personal preference. Most people prefer a less distracting background than the pictures that are shown in Fred's link below. I have this same lens and have taken some very nice portraits with it also, but I have also taken some that look just like Fred's examples also. In my experience, with this lens, is that I have to be very careful to choose a non-competing background (no out of focus specular highlights, for sure) for this lens to be usuable. Much more so than any other lens I own. It does make a good landscape/hiking lens when I am more likely using it focused close to infinity. Hope this helps, William in Utah. 12/10/2002 3:27:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Did you shoot the portraits at infinity? Do you have this lens? Well, I used to have one, but I sold it, and specifically for its bokeh characteristics. Fred
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
I see my K105/2.8 is very sharp (Velvia) and wonder what you mean saying about harsh bokeh. How to describe bokeh in other words? The K 105/2.8 is indeed very sharp, for in-focus subjects. However, it also seems to produce rather sharp outlines around out-of-focus objects, too (i.e., harsh bokeh). Fred
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 06:11 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: You said: But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. So where is the problem? If that makes you happy, then there IS no problem, Alek! smile Keith Whaley Very true. Dan Scott
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( I own it-very nice) Alek Uytkownik Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: I just bought a M 100/2.8 on your advice. I don't need a macro, but I did need a 100/105 lens for field portraits of handlers with their dogs. This is probably one of the easiest lens to focus for a guy who went mostly to AF because of bad eyes. I love this lens. Thanks for your great contributions to the PDML. Ken On Saturday 15 June 2002 02:16 am, Mark Cassino wrote: On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Alek, on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( I own it-very nice) Alek Not necessarily. I've owned both M100 and K105 and found the M100 better (sharper, more contrast, lighter). So I've sold the K105 and kept the M100 which I am *very* satisfied with. Either I had a poor K105 or my M100 is an outstanding good performer... Regards, Heiko
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, Interesting. According too many users K105 is much better.Maybe you had bad lens, difficult to say. Even on Stan Halpin's site most people prefer old K lens. Alek ytkownik Heiko Hamann [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Hi Alek, on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( I own it-very nice) Alek Not necessarily. I've owned both M100 and K105 and found the M100 better (sharper, more contrast, lighter). So I've sold the K105 and kept the M100 which I am *very* satisfied with. Either I had a poor K105 or my M100 is an outstanding good performer... Regards, Heiko --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz do pacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - za konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi akozak, on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Interesting. According too many users K105 is much better.Maybe you had bad lens, difficult to say. Even on Stan Halpin's site most people prefer old K lens. Alek Yes, I had read that before buying the lenses and I was very surprised, also. It seems, that everybody has to make his own experiences... Regards, Heiko
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a 100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent my K 105/2.8 on to another home... Fred
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 08:41 PM, Fred wrote: Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to N*k*n users. Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its bokeh: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the Some plants at f/2.8 link - g.] woah...flashback city. Nasty. Dan Scott
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
I just bought a M 100/2.8 on your advice. I don't need a macro, but I did need a 100/105 lens for field portraits of handlers with their dogs. This is probably one of the easiest lens to focus for a guy who went mostly to AF because of bad eyes. I love this lens. Thanks for your great contributions to the PDML. Ken On Saturday 15 June 2002 02:16 am, Mark Cassino wrote: On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long In a message dated 6/13/2002 8:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: other lenses that are just as good and many that are -- dare I say it -- even better. Yes! Now it can be told! Zeiss, Kern Switar, Angenieux, Schneider and others are every bit as good if not better than Pentax. Dare I suggest the same is true of C and N? Interesting thread degeneration here. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long
First off, let me say that I own many Pentax lenses including the 15mm, 35mm K 3.5, 28mm K 3.5, 30 mm 2.8, 120mm 2.8, 100mm f4, 200 f2.5mm, 300mmf4A*, 400mm f5.6, just to name a few. But I don't for a minute think that they are far superior to other lenses. It's not about far superiority but the fact that you're buying into a certain optical look. If you ignore it, then it's just fine but why then buy anything with K-mount if you just want the job done? They get the job done and I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. You'll certainly see the difference if you have references. If you put two slides on the light table shot with different lenses you'll see the difference, particularly in color rendition. It's not the lenses that make the shot. They are simply a tool to get the job done. A good lens is a good lens. It isn't that simple. I mean, you can use the same argument about anything like food is food. A car is a car - it's the driver that counts. I'm sure some doesn't see the finer things in lenses but I've learned to appreciate the certain characteristics of (most) Pentax lenses over the years. I cannot understand why using Pentax if not to take advantage of their greatest plusses; the lenses including SMC. So give up the snobbery about Pentax lenses, they're good, we love them but there are other lenses that are just as good and many that are -- dare I say it -- even better. Perhaps, but none of them are third party lenses. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Vic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. Come on guys. Bokeh smokeh. Get real. I'm reminded of Shel's amusing tale about how he posted a shot or two taken with his SMC or Super-Multi-Coated 50/1.4 to the Leica user group and several members remarked how only a Leica could have produced such marvelous contrast and sharpness. There's nothing like a blind comparison to bring out the truth. That's not to say I can't distinguish gross differences, or differences in coloration. There's no getting around differences in distortion. And some lenses have more bite. Perhaps the distinction is more fair when we confine the subject to resolution and limit our statement to the following: Unless you use low-speed film and a tripod or high shutter speed, resolution is wasted. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
I would wager that no one could tell if the images were shot with or without Pentax lenses any more than you could tell if they were shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. Come on guys. Bokeh smokeh. Get real. I don't know about Canon, but I used to have some AF Nikkors. The colour reproduction from some of them appeared very different from the rather pale SMC lenses. I'd say they were particular great for landscapes. About the bokeh, most of my Pentax lenses don't have good bokeh (imo). But one thing remains true, SMC lenses are far more flare resistance than Nikkors. Unfortunately, Pentax don't mention that in their ads (so don't blame the customers didn't choose Pentax). regards, Alan Chan _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
I'm sure Pentax is surpassed at times, but I'm surprised at your statements concerning the following comparisons: 1) FA 35/2.0 AL versus Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (M42) I would bet that resolution will be better for the Pentax, especially in the corners at at any f-stop below f4. I'm not sure in what 'overall' qualities the FA would be inferior to the Zeiss, since it also is extraordinarily contrasty and has surprisingly good bokeh (see Takinami's website). 2) The Pentax F/FA 50/2.8 macro is quite an extraordinary lens - what is the evidence, that the Sigma 50/2.8 is better? 3) Curious: do you have the source for the comparison of the A 135/1.8 and Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3? The A 135/1.8 is not quite as sharp as the A 85/1.4 -but I always thought that this is as sharp as 135mm lenses get. Would be interested to know if the Vivitar is really better (comparing same f-stops of course). Knut PS: Carl Zeiss Jena did produce some quite extraordinary lenses! I do think they are great! But the limitations of non-autodiaphragm screw mounts must be considered as well. At 10:18 14.06.02 -0400, you wrote: I won't even get into which third-party lenses are as good as Pentax; there are too many. But based largely on testimonials, I'd vouch that the following third-party lenses are superior to their Pentax counterparts: Carl Zeiss Jena 20/4 (M42) vs. Pentax 20/4 or 20/2.8 in rectilinearity Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 (M42) vs. any Pentax 35/2 or 2.8 in overall qualities Sigma 50/.28 and 100/2.8 vs. Pentax 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 in sharpness Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (M42 or K) vs. any Pentax 135 (even the 135/1.8 PKA) in sharpness Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar (latter, autodiaphragm version) and 200/2.8 Sonnar vs. Pentax 200/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 300/4 Sonnar Auto Electric (M42) vs. Takumar 300/4 in sharpness, linear correction, and color, and bokeh I've sold off six of my Pentax lenses. Of the 12 lenses that I still have, only three are Pentaxes, and of those, only one below 200 mm. In fairness, I parted with some of these because I had duplicates and felt that I didn't need the Pentax advantage in that focal length. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
In a message dated 6/14/2002 8:24:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Art directors have a funny way of noticing little things like changes in colour rendition. I found this to be such an issue that I changed from Nikon to Pentax, partly to get similar rendition between my medium format and 35mm work. This is the best reason I've heard for sticking to one maker of lenses. -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Just to add: Formally tested the F 50/2.8 is definitely better than the Sigma 50/2.8 EX in contrast as well as resolution according to the www.photodo.com website. Knut - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
Knut, You're right about the 35/2 FA; I had forgotten about this autofocus lens. I guess I stand corrected about the Sigma 50 macro being sharper than the Pentax 50/2.8 FA. It sharpness is nothing short of phenomenal. Yoshihiko Takinami writes: This macro is excellent not only for macro work but also for normal use. Better than Sigma EX because the SMC coating is better In my experiences, FA50/2.8 macro seems the *sharpest* with great resolving power and contrast. And David Collett of Oxford University: My top two sharpest primes (from a subjective rather than objective measurement) are the FA50/2.8 macro and my k35/3.5. My A50/1.4 is a pretty close third. In favor of the Sigma, Tanya wrote, Took the most three-dimensional-looking pictures I've ever seen. And there are also numerous superlatives, as I recall, by users at the various lens rating sites. I think Tanya's comment and others I've read left me with the impression that the Sigma was the macro to beat. Now to the 135mm contest: Pentax 135/1.8 vs. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. Somehow, all my collected comments on the Pentax have been erased. The comments I've collected about the Vivitar state that it's sharp at all apertures. The Pentax, as I recall, must be stopped down a bit to become truly sharp. Not surprising, since it's about two-thirds stop faster but only 5mm wider in filter size. I was drawing an inference that it can't be sharper than the Vivitar. I also agree with you that the lack of an autodiaphragm can be a big drawback. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax lenses vs. the world? (was Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long)
On 14 Jun 2002 at 15:06, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: Now to the 135mm contest: Pentax 135/1.8 vs. Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. Somehow, all my collected comments on the Pentax have been erased. The comments I've collected about the Vivitar state that it's sharp at all apertures. The Pentax, as I recall, must be stopped down a bit to become truly sharp. Not surprising, since it's about two-thirds stop faster but only 5mm wider in filter size. I was drawing an inference that it can't be sharper than the Vivitar. Paul, You'd be wise not to draw solid conclusions on lens performance based on throw away comments by third party users or filter size. As you know I have the SMCPA*135/1.8 and I also had Contax equipment CZ135f2AE and CZ135f2.8MM. You can look up the CZ site and view the superb MTF diagrams for the 135f2.8 (the 135f2 I can send you) however more practically I can tell you that I tested these three lenses under controlled conditions (one film K25, ML, solid tripod, 40x mag etc). I found that the Pentax was better WRT flare resistance and absolute resolution at any aperture, I still own the Pentax lens and the CZ are long gone. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
I've read through this thread and there's lots of interesting advice. A few points that you might want to consider: On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) Also the Kiron is much bigger and much heavier. On Photodo tests: I value these tests and my experience with the lenses I own has been that there is a good correlation between what Photodo says and my personal impression of lens performance. But bear in mind that those tests are all done with the lens set to infinity focus. A lens that is a dog at infinity is probably a dog close up, but if you have two macro lenses that are very good at infinity, you may actually have one that is very good at 1:1 while the other is excellent at 1:1 - and that's something Photodo can't tell you. So I tend to discount Photodo for macro performance because I don't think it really gets into that. On using Pentax lenses: One of the great things about Pentax is that has maintained backwards compatibility better than any other brand. I agree that many Pentax lenses share an aesthetic quality that sets them apart, and that's a strong reason to use them. But I also relish the ability to use older lenses of other brands with my current gear - like the Kiron and some of the older Rikenon lenses that I favor. So I'd argue that the ability to use these off brand, older lenses, and enjoy their unique characteristics, is all part and parcel of the Pentax experience. And I don't have any qualms about using modern third party lenses if they can do the job adequately. On lens performance in general: In terms of sharpness, if you have good technique you'll see the difference between an average lens and a very good lens, if you have excellent technique you will see the difference between a very good and excellent lens, and if you have totally impeccable technique you can see the difference between an excellent and outstanding lens. Once or twice I've managed to produce shots with my A* 200mm macro (outstanding lens) that beat the best I can do with my Kiron 105mm macro (excellent lens) - but all to often I am the limiting factor, or the realities of the shooting situation are the limiting factor. My two cents - if you want to do macro, most of the 100mm macros out there are pretty good - Pentax (of course) but also Vivitar, Kiron, Tokina, Tamron, etc. So if you want to do macro find out what's available, research what's best, and make a decision. When you get to the point where your technique is so good that you reach the limits of your glass - then upgrade. For portraits - hang onto your M 100 f2.8 - the ability to focus more finely / accurately at the working distance of a portrait will be worth it. - MCC At 05:36 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, you wrote: Hey gang... I currently have the M version of the 100mm f2.8. I really enjoy the results this lens produces. However, I'm in the market for a macro lens and I want to know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non-macro/portrait work. Is it as sharp or sharper that the m and a series lenses? Thanks. Brendan MacRae - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Mark Roberts wrote: The F version, by the way, is identical to the FA version except for cosmetics and the replacement of the focus limit switch with a focus friction control. The FA has a focus limiter as well. I think it limits to 2m or 1.5m or thereabouts. Cheers, - Dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, On 12 Jun 2002 at 16:51, Mishka wrote: apart from myself, according to photodo.com the MTF ratings are (...) photodo tests lenses at infinity, which IMHO isn't the apropriate method for macro lenses... Gabor - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Mishka wrote: there are tons of very good used 3rd party macro lenses (i personally have a pka vivitar ser. 1 100/2.5 -- terrific glass, terrific build, does 1:1, and $135 is hard to beat; my only complain is that it focuses the wrong way). unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 The reason for buying an A lens is that it is a Pentax. I see no point in buying Pentax if you ain't going to use Pentax lenses. Pentax lenses have a certain look (and I'm not thinking of what the lenses look like), a certain color rendition and contrast, a certain feel and finish. I'll say using non Pentax lenses on a Pentax body is heresy! Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
I sometimes find the photodo ratings a bit dubious. As in the chart they have the F and FA with quite a large difference in peformance, although they are optically identical. I had the FA100/2.8 macro and now have the Tamron 90/2.5. I would disagree with the photodo rating that the FA resolves less detail. Also the FA has better colour rendition and flatness of field. Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 alright, lust doesn't have to be reasonable. let me rephrase it: the only limitation i have run into with series 1 macro was film, not lens. provia 100f, scanned at 4000dpi. apart from myself, according to photodo.com the MTF ratings are Grade: 4.2 35mm/MF Tamron SP 90/2,5 macro Grade: 3.9 35mm/AF Tokina AT-X AF 100/2,8 Macro Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Tokina AT-X 90/2,5 macro Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Sigma AF 90/2,8 Makro discontinued Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Sigma AF 105/2,8 EX Macro Grade: 3.9 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-FA Makro 100/2,8 Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 100/2,8 macro Grade: 4 35mm/MF Vivitar 105/2,5 Macro Series 1 so, yes, pentax has a lens that is a tad better than vivitar. and still behind tokina. whether it warrants 4 times the money, is, of course, a very personal thing. mishka From: William Robb Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 From: Mishka Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 Obviously, you have never used one..g William Robb Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sometimes find the photodo ratings a bit dubious. As in the chart they have the F and FA with quite a large difference in peformance, although they are optically identical. Ditto for the F50/1.4 and the FA50/1.4 Photodo is completely bogus if you ask me. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 long
In a message dated 6/13/2002 8:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: other lenses that are just as good and many that are -- dare I say it -- even better. Yes! Now it can be told! Zeiss, Kern Switar, Angenieux, Schneider and others are every bit as good if not better than Pentax. Dare I suggest the same is true of C and N? -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Aside from the bulk, the 100 f2.8 macro is a much sharper lens. Macro requires high correction, low distortion and flatness of field. The end result is a fantastic general purpose lens. Bob - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, I'm in the market for a macro lens and I want to know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non-macro/portrait work. Is it as sharp or sharper that the m and a series lenses? Thanks. Brendan MacRae - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
- Original Message - From: Brendan MacRae Subject: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 Hey gang... I currently have the M version of the 100mm f2.8. I really enjoy the results this lens produces. However, I'm in the market for a macro lens and I want to know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non-macro/portrait work. Is it as sharp or sharper that the m and a series lenses? Are you talking about the A100mm f/2.8 macro or the autofocus one? My PUG picture this month is a portrait shot with the A100mm f/2.8 macro. It's a pretty good portrait lens, actually. Until I got the 77mm, I hadn't seen a lens with higher resolution and contrast than the A100mm f/2.8 macro. The 77 may be sharper/contrastier. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
brendan, one thing for sure: it's a hell of a lot more (1) heavier (2) expensive (i'd gess ~$700) (3) difficult to find i don't own it, but i used to have m100/2.8 and i'd guess any decent macro lens would be sharper. there are tons of very good used 3rd party macro lenses (i personally have a pka vivitar ser. 1 100/2.5 -- terrific glass, terrific build, does 1:1, and $135 is hard to beat; my only complain is that it focuses the wrong way). unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 mishka From: Bmacrae Subject: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:25:49 -0700 Hey gang... I currently have the M version of the 100mm f2.8. I really enjoy the results this lens produces. However, I'm in the market for a macro lens and I want to know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non- macro/portrait work. Is it as sharp or sharper that the m and a series lenses? Thanks. Brendan MacRae Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Use one ... compare the results to the $135.00 lens. Then tell us what you think. Oh, make a print larger than 4x6 ... Mishka wrote: there are tons of very good used 3rd party macro lenses (i personally have a pka vivitar ser. 1 100/2.5 -- terrific glass, terrific build, does 1:1, and $135 is hard to beat; my only complain is that it focuses the wrong way). unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 scb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Bob, The pictures are gorgeous. But that shows how good the photographer is. At this resolution it tells next to nothing about the lens (except that it focuses really close :) But then again, for $300 (as was the target price), I would be tempted... Mishka From: Rfsindg Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:34:48 -0700 From: Mishka unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 William Robb replied: Obviously, you have never used one..g Bill, I looked at my PUG contributions... Lots with the A100/2.8 Macro. http://pug.komkon.org/01sep/Stail.html http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/bfly36.html http://pug.komkon.org/01jan/pointsettia.html http://pug.komkon.org/00sep/00sept/diamond.html http://pug.komkon.org/00marc/tulipb.html This is truly one of my favorite lenses. Regards, Bob S. Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, The pictures are gorgeous. But that shows how good the photographer is. At this resolution it tells next to nothing about the lens (except that it focuses really close :) But then again, for $300 (as was the target price), I would be tempted... I bought my SMC-F 100/2.8 macro from KEH for $269.00 It was listed as bargain condition because a tiny hole had been drilled through the filter ring, presumably to mount a ring flash. Filters still screw on and off just fine. The F version, by the way, is identical to the FA version except for cosmetics and the replacement of the focus limit switch with a focus friction control. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Mishka wrote: According to photodo.com the MTF ratings are Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Tokina AT-X 90/2,5 macro Grade: 3.9 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-FA Makro 100/2,8 Grade: 4.3 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 100/2,8 macro Grade: 4 35mm/MF Vivitar 105/2,5 Macro Series 1 so, yes, pentax has a lens that is a tad better than Vivitar. and still behind Tokina. Actually, the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 is the same as the Vivitar 90/2.5 Macro (1:2). That Vivitar, as has been stated here before, boasted the highest resolution score in Popular Photography's tests for many years. I agree with Mishka entirely on this one. I have several quotes from Nikon users who say the Vivitar/Kiron 105 macro is as sharp as the Nikon; one sold his Nikon, seeing no point in keeping it. In a blind comparison, I doubt the Pentax would consistently be picked over the third-party macros as the winner. But then, I sold my SMC 28/2K and kept my Vivitar 28/1.9; sold my Pentax 50/1.4A and 50/1.2A and kept my Rikenon 50/2. For a photographer like me, who shoots primarily at ISO 400 and higher, ultimate sharpness isn't everything; I'll take sharp enough + great color (Vivitar 28/1.9) or fidelity (Rikenon, which happens to be sharper than the Pentaxes from f/2 to f/4.5). Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Mishka, I agree about the resolution. You can't tell much over the internet. Still, I was surprised at how many of my PUG shots were with the macro. I believe that I chose these photos because the slides were special. They were exceptionally sharp, and drew my attention. ...And some of us bought this lens a long time ago, close to your price. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob, The pictures are gorgeous. But that shows how good the photographer is. At this resolution it tells next to nothing about the lens (except that it focuses really close :) But then again, for $300 (as was the target price), I would be tempted... Mishka From: Rfsindg Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:34:48 -0700 From: Mishka unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 William Robb replied: Obviously, you have never used one..g Bill, I looked at my PUG contributions... Lots with the A100/2.8 Macro. http://pug.komkon.org/01sep/Stail.html http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/bfly36.html http://pug.komkon.org/01jan/pointsettia.html http://pug.komkon.org/00sep/00sept/diamond.html http://pug.komkon.org/00marc/tulipb.html This is truly one of my favorite lenses. Regards, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Little bit of a cheap shot here. I'm with Mishka. A Vivitar or Tokina is going to give you just as good results as the Pentax. The feel might be different but the end result is not. The vivitar Series One, Tokina ATX and the Kiron 105mm macros were all excellent lenses in their day and they still are today. Macro lenses are so good that most films don't do them justice. Guys, I love Pentax lenses too but there are plenty of other lenses that are just as good - some even better. Theses other lenses just don't hold their value the way the big name camera lenses do so they are always a better deal, unless you want to sell them. Vic In a message dated 6/12/02 5:30:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Use one ... compare the results to the $135.00 lens. Then tell us what you think. Oh, make a print larger than 4x6 ... Mishka wrote: - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
I'm with you Paul. I have both the Pentax 100mm F4 macro and the Tokina ATX 90 F2.5. Both are excellent lenses but the Tokina gets more use primarily for its speed. Vic In a message dated 6/12/02 9:18:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 is the same as the Vivitar 90/2.5 Macro (1:2). That Vivitar, as has been stated here before, boasted the highest resolution score in Popular Photography's tests for many years. I agree with Mishka entirely on this one. I have several quotes from Nikon users who say the Vivitar/Kiron 105 macro is as sharp as the Nikon; one sold his Nikon, seeing no point in keeping it. In a blind comparison, I doubt the Pentax would consistently be picked over the third-party macros as the winner. But then, I sold my SMC 28/2K and kept my Vivitar 28/1.9; sold my Pentax 50/1.4A and 50/1.2A and kept my Rikenon 50/2. For a photographer like me, who shoots primarily at ISO 400 and higher, ultimate sharpness isn't everything; I'll take sharp enough + great color (Vivitar 28/1.9) or fidelity (Rikenon, which happens to be sharper than the Pentaxes from f/2 to f/4.5). - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Bob: I think there are lots of reasons photographers gravitate to one or two lenses. It's not necessarily that the lens is better than the other lenses in their arsenal, it's often because they feel comfortable with that lens. A 100 F2.8 is a great lens whether it's a macro or not. I'll bet you like its feel, it's speed and the sharpness of the pictures keep you coming back to it. In a message dated 6/12/02 9:25:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mishka, I agree about the resolution. You can't tell much over the internet. Still, I was surprised at how many of my PUG shots were with the macro. I believe that I chose these photos because the slides were special. They were exceptionally sharp, and drew my attention. ...And some of us bought this lens a long time ago, close to your price. Regards, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 Little bit of a cheap shot here. I'm with Mishka. A Vivitar or Tokina is going to give you just as good results as the Pentax. The feel might be different but the end result is not. The vivitar Series One, Tokina ATX and the Kiron 105mm macros were all excellent lenses in their day and they still are today. Macro lenses are so good that most films don't do them justice. Guys, I love Pentax lenses too but there are plenty of other lenses that are just as good - some even better. Theses other lenses just don't hold their value the way the big name camera lenses do so they are always a better deal, unless you want to sell them. Vic Hell Vic, take a few more cheap shots!! Thats OK. The end result is different. The bokeh of the A 100mm f/2.8 is friggin amazing. I had one of those Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 macro lenses that went 1:1 with no extenders. Reputed to be a fine lens. I thought it was, to. Problem was, it had sucky bokeh. So much for art!!. Add to that the feel of the Pentax lens and the A 100mm f/2.8 macro is unbeatable. BTW, Photodo has proven themselves time and again to have worse that useless lens tests. They fall into the sky is pink, I read it on the internet category. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
