On 4/23/2014 10:07 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
It's about 1/2 of the image out of the lower middle of a K-5II frame,
so about 8mp of data. As I said, I could probably make a decent 8x10
print from it, maybe even bigger. The lens can produce some pretty
weird bokah, from the donuts, to a doubling effect, on objects just
the right, or maybe wrong, distance outside of the zone of sharp
focus. You've got to be careful of the background in the shot. If
you understand it's limitations, it's more than sharp enough to
produce good, sometimes great, results. These very expensive lenses
in the late 70's and early 80's.
I should mention since I'm fixin' things, the last sentence should read,
"These were very expensive lenses...".
I left out the part about not paying a huge amount for the one I have.
But you guys probably knew that.
It is a little low contrast, but it's much better than the Kalimar
Mirror 500mm f8.0 I was using on the K20D, mostly because the prism
overhang where the PUF resided wouldn't allow the Series 1 to be
physically mounted on that camera.
I guess I'm just lucky when it comes to Mirror Tele's because even the
cheapie Kalamar could be educed to take pretty good photos. I almost
never used it however because even though it was nice and light, the
M*and A*300mm f4.0s coupled with the 1.7x AF adapter, were about 500mm
a bit sharper with better contrast, and about 1/5 stop faster.
That should be 1/2 stop faster.
On 4/23/2014 9:21 PM, Mark C wrote:
That shot looks pretty good - the doughnut bokeh is not apparent
until pointed out. It is a very small pic but the bird looks to be
reasonably sharp.
On 4/23/2014 6:52 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
This was shot with it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20theVictorII.html
You can end up with some gaud awful donut bokeh, and there was just
a little of that in the final image. Contrast is a little low,
though not as low as some lesser Mirror teles, and a number of zooms
I've used. On the other hand, there's a good amount of detail in
well lighted subjects. I thought that the image of the Cardinal was
pretty good. It would have been better but as I said in the Victor
II post, course focusing was by ground glass, but I used the center
sensor for fine focusing, and it picked the tiny branch in front of
the bird not the bird itself.
On 4/23/2014 5:12 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 15:03 , P.J. Alling
<webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, so not really a PESO per se. It kind of feels /finally/ be
able to use this lens on a camera with more or less modern image
stabilization technology. I was really looking forward to doing
that on the K20D but only after receiving that body did Pentax's
true treachery become apparent.
Lugging this around is a bit more discrete than a Canon 600mm L...
As an acquaintance is wont to say it's not long but it's sure big
around.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20bigglass.html
How's the image quality? I have a no-name 500mm mirror lens which
is the most god-awful, low-contrast, crap focus-quality thing I've
ever owned. I'm not sure why I haven't already dropped it in the
driveway and run over it a few times. Worst $35 on a used lens I
ever spent (20 years ago and still not one usable image from it).
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
