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 Sep 21, 2010, 12:50 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default zEE Creepwe Cawlree

went to the bathroom in the middle of last night and what did i see on the wall a rather large spider - pretty common beasty but for some reason i thought i would take some pics of it last night

never been a huge spider fan and seeing it up close doesn't diswade me of the notion they are horrible evil beasties from the depths of hell.... but they can make for some interesting photos just so long as i dont have to touch it

so hope you liek them - were taken with tamron 90mm macro and flash on a wireless flash trigger







__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 21, 2010, 12:54 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Very interesting shots - looks like it has 'club' feet ?!

How dare you call our friendly soul mates " beasties from hell' !

Do you always take a camera with you when you go to the Loo ?
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 1:03 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Do you always take a camera with you when you go to the Loo ?[/QUOTE]

Uh, yeah. doesn't everybody?

Good work there JP, can't say I could do any better in the middle of the night.
__________________
GW

Life's a breeze on a Goldwing...
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 1:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

lol no i dont take my camera to the loo with me - perhaps this is something you like to do though? i went and got it when i saw the spider! =)
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 4:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

which tamron the 2.5 or the 2.8? nice shots
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 5:23 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

f2.8 - f2.5 an older model? the one i got is abit plasticy and build does feel abit lightweight but is optically very sharp and to be honest liteness aint to bad specially here where was hand holding shot with one hand holding flash in other hand
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 5:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,522
Default

Very sharp and detailed photos of your "little friend!" Thanks for sharing!
mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 6:57 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

yes the 2.5 is an older model, Im asking because Im trying to figure out if the 2.8 version is worth the extra 200 bucks. I havent seen many pics of the 2.5 version but I can get my hands on one for under 100 bucks which seems great, I just dont want to buy it just to end up buying the 2.8 version down the road

thanks for response on that
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 8:36 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

My thoughts on spiders are much like your own, however I do like the little jumping spiders that watch you, creepy as that sounds.
__________________
Ira
Riverview, NB, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment
Pentax K5, K3:
FA 35mm f2, FA 50 f1.4, FA 28-70mm f4, FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, F 50mm f1.7, Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di, DA 10-17 f3.5-4.5, DA 14 f2.8, DA 16-45mm f4, DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 WR, AF-540FGZ

Olympus E-P2, E-P5, OM-D E-M1: 9mm to 150mm lenses

_______________________________
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2010, 9:27 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMRecording View Post
yes the 2.5 is an older model, Im asking because Im trying to figure out if the 2.8 version is worth the extra 200 bucks. I havent seen many pics of the 2.5 version but I can get my hands on one for under 100 bucks which seems great, I just dont want to buy it just to end up buying the 2.8 version down the road

thanks for response on that
Hi NMR,

I'm not an authority on all the variants of Tamron macros, so I may make some assumptions that are incorrect, so keep that in mind. . .

I believe that the f2.5 is the Adaptall 2 version, and you'd need a PK/A adapter in addition to the lens to fully function on your Pentax body. If the price that you've been offered is ony for the lens, then count on spending another $75-100 on the adapter. Also, it's a 1:2 magnification lens, so to get 1:1 macros, you'd either have to use a 2x TC or extension tubes, either of which would effectively decrease the wide-open light transmission capabilities of the lens.

On paper, this doesn't seem to matter because you will not be shooting wide open anyways since it's common to stop down to f11-f16 to get greater DOF. . . but, to me at least, it does reaaly matter because you have less light at the viewfinder to focus with, and that makes a big difference, IMO. At an effective f5.0 with a 2x TC, for example, you only have @ 1/4 of the light that you'd have with an f2.8 1:1 macro since you'll always focus with the lens wide open.

On the other hand, if the 90/2.5 being sold is already K-mount compatible, less than $100 is really inexpensive for a major-brand dedicated macro, even a 1:2. . .and I think that you'd not have much trouble getting at least the price you paid back out of it if you later came across a great deal on a 1:1 macro that might catch your fancy. . .

. . .and a 90mm f2.5 is a nice spec for a long portrait lens.

You can see from this that I have the ability to rationalize any lens purchase, -- I'm very practiced at this. . .

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; Sep 21, 2010 at 9:30 PM.
snostorm 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 11:21 AM.