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 Jun 8, 2007, 5:21 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Shot a friend shooting pool tonight and knew though my latest 50mm A lens (MF) was 1.4 that would be far to shallow DOF.....but a little slow.

So K10D MTF auto choice of F/2 .... seemed like a good compromise and was.... 2.8 might have been better for deeper DOF

And didn't have the F/2 one with me to compare (where it would have chosen f/3.5 or 4 for the MTF).... but seems like the 1.4 at f/2 did FAR better than the F/2 50mm ever did at its min....

And not just talking about focus or exposure but just over all shot... was impressively better than anything I remember getting out of the F/2. I mean the dim background stuff is still sharp (beyond slightly beyond DOF) and very contrast decernable. Don't think the F/2 50 would have pulled that off.

Focus I can see... being a stop up from min.... but again just the over all quality/eveness was rather surprisingly better.

And actually I have had all three of the common ones of them..... 2, 1.7 and 1.4... little physical difference beteen the 2 and 1.7... but the the 1.4 is NOTICEABLY heavier and bit more bulky....yes I know there is a 1.2 but rather rare and can't see the extra $2-300 even the A's go for for that extra 1/2 stop. (vs only $50 more for the 1.7 to 1.4)

And again amazing results given they typical pool table lighting, the f/2 maybe even never would, though 1.7 might have been close to.

Oh an PS... for those saying how lacking it can be on the K10D that is also AWB... not real bright (again typical bar pool table) tungsten light.


Attached Images
 
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2007, 6:03 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

And second shot IS at f/1.4.... again its min.... note not quite the background/shadow dynamiic range there was at f/2. (And of course much shallower DOF) Could just be difference in angle to the back wall but I think more than that. I note the end of table seems to be more shadowed as well... though same light.

Anyone else with any opinion on this.... ie difference in min f/stop vs same F/ on a faster lens? (And again not sharpness, nor corner fall off.... still looking center frame.... just overall exp)
Attached Images
 
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 7:12 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

Technical issues aside, these are 2 very aesthetically pleasing pictures! The natural lighting and the very natural poses of the subject make for a realistic "magazine" quality image! F/2 or not, excellent work!!

Jay
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 7:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Thanks.... other than capturing moments.... no posing.... just a friend very seriously playing pool (and he is good).....one figuring that 8 ball, cue ball painfully close to the stripped ball behind...he got it and won..... 2nd just having taken a shot... probably not quite in the pocket yet.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 9:27 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi Hayward,

Nice shots! I don't think it would have mattered which version of the 50mm you used to get them would have made to much of a difference.

A little playing in PSP 11.20 gave them the little push they they needed for a print. But as I do my playing with pictures I don't post my results of playing with others pics.

Again nice shots!

Rudy
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 1:17 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Good shots Hayward.

Excellent use of DoF, and atmospheric lighting.

These are the pics we were all waiting for from you!!


Darren

Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2007, 1:23 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Good shots Hayward.

Excellent use of DoF, and atmospheric lighting.

These are the pics we were all waiting for from you!!


Darren
Thanks, but as I have said before I tend to post only for technical reasons not looking for pats on the back.... IF I wanted to do that I'd do itin the image forums.

Unfortunately no one has yet to reply to this thread even poised purely that way, yet. :?
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 12:50 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Hayward, I am really not sure what you are asking here. From what I have read, there seems to be broad consensus that the 50mm f/2 does not hold a candle to either the 50mm 1.7 or 1.4 versions. I do have one f/2 M, my limited experience with it was that it did not even measure up to my 18-55 kit lens, except for max aperture. Both my A and F 50mm 1.7 lenses are among the very best that I own, for sharpness, contrast, and general quality of the images.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2007, 1:52 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

NonEntity1 wrote:
Quote:
Hayward, I am really not sure what you are asking here
Essentially the question is....

Is f/2 on a faster a lens same as one where it is the MIN f/stop. ( again not talking sharpness or corner fall off etc... just overall... just looking center area exposure)

In my example here the 1.4 shot is noticeably inferior to the F/2 shot (or even noticed it until I got it home on a big screen vs cam LCD)... but again didn't have the F/2 50mm A along with me to do a direct comparison..... but I'd bet the min vs being in the stop or two up "Sweet" range the 1.4 was at f/2 would look as deficient. (IE look more like the 1.4 shot than the f/2 on the 1.4)

As in NO wall detail (dynamics) and even end of table and white postes even if not in focus (they would be at f/2) much darker. Though table is the exact same exposure/brightness.... just lens reaching a LOT more at its min 1.4 vs stop up f/2


Or to put it another way on the f/2 lens likely Id have to shoot at f/4 to get the dynamic range I did in the 1.4 at f/2

Again the f/2 AT MIN WOULD LKELY LOOK LIKE THE 1.4 ON THE 1.4

So is there a difference in same f/stop on faster lenses vs min on another... that is the simple question? (and again leaving out sharpness and corner fall off etc... just center overall exp) in others experience?
Hayward 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 9:08 PM.