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
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
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.
[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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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,
[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
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
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
[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
[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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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:
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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'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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
- 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
56 matches
Mail list logo
