Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2007, 12:26 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Kjell, it was just the the lighting was not the same as the other photos, that is all. Here is one taken with the Pentax FA* 28-70 2.8 for just for grins at 2.8.

I personally like the FA* better, but for the price the Tokina is good enough in most situations, even wide open.



The Tokina once again at 2.8


Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:33 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

this isn't a good example. one a sunny day and the other cloudy. exif says f3.5 on the FA*. i know the camera reads lens differently.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:46 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

How strange, that is what my EXIF says also, even though the camera showed 2.8 in the viewfinder. This one shows 2.8 in EXIF so it should be a better example of the FA*!

I guess I got too close because he jumped down on the ground, so I guess he better learn how to fly before he is lunch.



Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:48 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i don't see much difference in these tom. except maybe about $800
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:53 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

The big difference is the FA* is a much more contrasty lens and is a bit sharper wide open.

I just noticed that the EXIF data for the Tokina says 1/60 sec @ 2.8 and then it claims the lens is a Pentax F 28-80 f/3.5-5.6, which is very strange since it is hard to shoot at 2.8 when your largest opening available is 3.5.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:58 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i've heard this from others as well. i've got shots with the tak500mm that state f2.8. it shouldn't even be there as it's a stupid lens. should say f0. oh, i never accuse you of using a F 28-80 f/3.5-5.6

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 2:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
i've heard this from others as well. i've got shots with the tak500mm that state f2.8. it shouldn't even be there as it's a stupid lens. should say f0. oh, i never accuse you of using a F 28-80 f/3.5-5.6

roy
I have a FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 PowerZoom that is a great lens. I just thought it was strange the way the EXIF shows the data, although it may be because the lenses are older lenses and they don't send the correct data.

Tom
ennacac 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 1:06 AM.