Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:13 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

This is a full frame picture I snapped (all of the pictures I'm posting are just snaps) as I was showing off the lens to a friend of mine.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:14 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

And a 100% crop, no USM or other sharpening:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:16 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I just like this picture - not anything special, and it doesn't show off much except for the small DOF you can get with this lens.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:24 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

The one picture whereI noticed a problem - there's quite a bit of vignetting on this picture (this is the full frame, resized picture). I know that 135 is hardly a lens to use for birding, but even stopped down to f6.3 (which this picture was taken at), it's more than I had expected. Maybe it wouldn't be so obvious if the picture weren't underexposed, because I didn't see any problems with the other scenes (I took the same robin at 2.8 - the vignetting was worse and either there was some camera shake or else the camera missed the focus because it was blurry).
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:25 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

But the bird looks pretty nice when you do a 100% crop. Considering this has had no sharpening and was taken at the maximum range (135) of the lens, I can't really complain much.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:27 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

A neighbor's flower - slightly cropped, but mostly resized:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:28 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

And 100% crop:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:29 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Another one I just like:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:31 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

And 100% crop:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 12:42 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Last one (I know - I got carried away). A neighbor's yard. This one was pushing things a bit - lots of high contrast, lots of lines etc. It isn't the best picture in the world, andI wasn't going to post it (not really my kind of scene). Iwas going to posta tree trunk picture that is sharp and has lots of texture, but thought this one was better as an example of some limitation - there's some CA in this picture (not surprising considering the subject matter). I used bicubic instead of bicubic sharper because I thought it looked oversharpened when with it.

Focusing is very quiet and smooth, though I'm not sure it is much faster than the in-camera motor (been using manual lenses mostly recently). I like the way it handles and the zoom feels smooth too.

Myfirst impressionis that this is a really sharp lens, one that won't need much post processing even when used wide open. It's no macro lens (minimum focusing distance is about 3-4 feet so not bad either). Tomorrow I'll take it out with the DA 50-200 (my problematic lens), the K-mount Takumar and the Phoenix for some comparison shots and I'll get a better idea about the AF.

P.S. - you can tell I haven't done anything to this picture, the vertical lines haven't been straightened and they are way off!

Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:38 AM.