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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 11, 2007, 10:17 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
inneyeseakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,379
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
The original, uncropped version, resized only in CS2.
"Holy Vignetting Batman!" Can't wait to see the comparison shots with/without the hood. Hopefully that is all that's causing the problem. Really like the first shots... and that 100% crop of the construction "worker".

Keep them coming, asI can only dream of a lens of this nature.
inneyeseakay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 12:31 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I took a couple of pictures today without the hood and got similar results (f2.8, 135mm focal length and looking up into the sky) - the problem isn't the hood. I only get this when I'm shooting the sky - when I'm shooting something else I might get a slight bit of vignetting in the corners, but not much. This is the full frame picture taken this evening, it was slightly underexposed so I used LR to adjust the exposure, then resized sharper in CS2 - no other sharpening done. Maybe a bit of vignetting, maybe it's just the scene (I'm not really sure), but certainly not anything like what I got shooting into the sky.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 1:58 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Harriet,

I've been doing some testing with my DA*50-135, and the lens exhibits considerable light falloff at 135mm, the worst at f2.8, and tho it's pretty much is gone by f8, that's not very good, IMO. . . I really like other aspects of the lens, but I'm disappointed with this. There is still some vignetting, but less at shorter FLs. AT 50mm, it's pretty much gone at f4. You are correct that the hood is not a factor in this problem.

This may be a big negative for a lot of people, but the more I think about it, for my main purpose for the lens, it's not that big a deal for me. I plan on using this lens as mainly a people lens -- for candids -- and for that purpose (at least the way I usually shoot them) vignetting, even significant, won't much matter.

I'll have more observations about this lens probably in a couple of days -- with some samples -- Unfortunately, my gout has flared up at just the wrong time, and I'm forced to deal with that first. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 5:47 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

snostorm wrote:
Quote:
Hi Harriet,

I've been doing some testing with my DA*50-135, and the lens exhibits considerable light falloff at 135mm, the worst at f2.8, and tho it's pretty much is gone by f8, that's not very good, IMO. . .* I really like other aspects of the lens, but I'm disappointed with this. There is still some vignetting, but less at shorter FLs. AT 50mm, it's pretty much gone at f4. You are correct that the hood is not a factor in this problem.

Scott
I would expect the stellar portion of FL is between 60-110mm. To expect no falloff at the extreme end is unrealistic. The question is just by how much it falls off. To counteract that , the optics has to be heavier and more expensive. At 135mm it is useable though.

Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 9:32 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Scott - hope your attack goes away quickly - sounds like a horrible condition to have.

I came to a similar conclusion as you did. I bought the lens as a walk-about lens to replace my problematic DA 50-200 (the funny thing is that I couldn't get it to do it's half-fuzzy thing when I was half-heartedly taking test shots at the track). I have the A*300 for birds and the kit lens for wide angle landscape. Most of the times I'd want 2.8 are indoors, and I've had no particular problems there (as the Starbucks shot shows). Outdoors it works well for candids and most "travel" type of photography, whether shooting at a specific aperture or just letting the camera do it all (I often do this so I can think about the scene, or not think at all). I'm still very, very happy with this lens.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 8:34 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Looking for CA - this picture was taken in late afternoon with a really low sun that was shining directly only on this person. I loved the way the sunlight separated her from the surroundings but couldn't quite get a clear shot of her without other people being in the way. It's a picture I would normally just discardas a photo that didn't quite work. But as you can see from the picture, the dynamic range was way beyond what the sensor's ability. I post it as a high contrast subject that should show how much CA you could expect with the lens, not as great photography.

This is the original picture, converted in LR, resized in CS2 with no other post processing.

P.S. - yes, the white shirt is way blown out - I was metering more off of her face.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 8:35 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Cropped with resizing (it's not 100% crop). No other pp (by the way, this was taken at f2.8 ).
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2007, 8:36 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

The same picture as above with a little sharpening added. The lens has very little CA.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2007, 6:54 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

looks nice and sharp at 2.8
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 5:39 PM   #20
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

finally had a chance to look at these using my good (sharp) monitor.

I'm impressed with the 2.8 results! Nice and sharp!

The vignetting is only normal. I've seen it with a lot of Canon users aswell and it seems like a nice effect sometimes. Esp. with black and white...

I'll probably save up for this one together with a K10D. After the new model comes out...that way I'd have a wheatherproof concert kit.

Tom
TDN 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 3:58 PM.