Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
there are things in live and photography other than resolution. and attaching labels. of course different lenses render differently. it's just that the resolution is usually not among the differences, in 6MP cameras at least. best, mishka On 4/26/06, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A person can pixel-peek and lpmm-count to his heart's content. But you'll never convince me that I'm not getting better photos out of my FA50/1.4 than my FA28-105/3.2-4.5. Both good lenses in their classifications, but if I'll bet that if I took the same picture, at the same aperture and focal length with each lens, I could tell you which one was taken with the 50mm/1.4.
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
I have the manual focus Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8, and my only real complaint about it with film was how easily it flared. However, I'm finding on the DS2 that it's fairly lousy when the subject is more than about 20 feet away, even at f8. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:33 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. best, mishka On 4/24/06, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Aaron Reynolds wrote: I have the manual focus Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8, and my only real complaint about it with film was how easily it flared. However, I'm finding on the DS2 that it's fairly lousy when the subject is more than about 20 feet away, even at f8. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie Date: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:33 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. best, mishka On 4/24/06, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG Relieved to hear that. I missed a Sigma Superwide II 24/2.8 on eBay a very short while ago. Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Aaron Reynolds wrote: However, I'm finding on the DS2 that it's fairly lousy when the subject is more than about 20 feet away, even at f8. That's where I saw the difference: subjects at a distance. With the Pentax lens, magnifying the picture, I could make out details in subjects at long distances that I had not expected -- based on experience with the Sigma -- to see. That's a subjective impression, so I want to do some more standardised tests. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote: That's where I saw the difference: subjects at a distance. With the Pentax lens, magnifying the picture, I could make out details in subjects at long distances that I had not expected -- based on experience with the Sigma -- to see. That's a subjective impression, so I want to do some more standardised tests. I initially thought I was seeing limitations of the format or the chip or whatever, so I shot at infinity with my 50mm f1.4 and my A* 200mm f2.8, both of which were razor sharp. I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the 24mm I have doesn't focus fully to infinity, or that infinity is different between 35mm and digital, or different enough to make a difference in this case. -Aaron
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I initially thought I was seeing limitations of the format or the chip or whatever, so I shot at infinity with my 50mm f1.4 and my A* 200mm f2.8, both of which were razor sharp. I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the 24mm I have doesn't focus fully to infinity, or that infinity is different between 35mm and digital, or different enough to make a difference in this case. It's a Sigma lens and therefore, in my utterly biased and not particularly humble opinion, just a piece of junk that looks like a lens. Worrying about infinity focus calibration is going overboard. The fact that it works at all is the miracle of Sigma lens engineering. ];-) - obligatory smiley Godfrey
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
While I'll grant that I've only used one Sigma AF lens that was not terrible and a number that were atrocious, the 24mm performed very well for me on film for around six years. Aside from the flare. Ever seen the Sigma AF 28-105 f2.8-4? At 28mm it had what we liked to call Gumby Distortion. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie Date: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:52 pm Size: 768 bytes To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I initially thought I was seeing limitations of the format or the chip or whatever, so I shot at infinity with my 50mm f1.4 and my A* 200mm f2.8, both of which were razor sharp. I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the 24mm I have doesn't focus fully to infinity, or that infinity is different between 35mm and digital, or different enough to make a difference in this case. It's a Sigma lens and therefore, in my utterly biased and not particularly humble opinion, just a piece of junk that looks like a lens. Worrying about infinity focus calibration is going overboard. The fact that it works at all is the miracle of Sigma lens engineering. ];-) - obligatory smiley Godfrey
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's a Sigma lens and therefore, in my utterly biased and not particularly humble opinion, just a piece of junk that looks like a lens. Worrying about infinity focus calibration is going overboard. The fact that it works at all is the miracle of Sigma lens engineering. ];-) - obligatory smiley Fair enough! And, as I thought, the performance of the Sigma comes as no surprise to some of the more experienced on PDML! It reduces the number of choices I have to make so, ultimately, makes my life easier: I'll stick with the Pentax glass when it matters. (For snapshots, the Sigma, particularly the AF, is handy so I'll probably still use it then.) Thanks for the feedback. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Mishka wrote: *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. Perhaps not a coke bottle...but, then, who knows? BTW, having done one quick and simple test, there are also rather marked differences in the features you mention: contrast and colour saturation. The Sigma has more of both. (Not that this is an issue because a small tweak in Rawshooter fixes things quickly.) Thanks for the response. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
my only Sigma lens, a 8mm fisheye, is waiting to being compared to Pentax 10-17 fisheye zoom. this discussion may just lower the activation barrier to let me take a few pictures of a USAF resolution chart... than again, no matter what, there's simply no alternative to 8mm (except belorussian Peleng, which I don't have and don't want) best, mishka On 4/26/06, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mishka wrote: *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. Perhaps not a coke bottle...but, then, who knows? BTW, having done one quick and simple test, there are also rather marked differences in the features you mention: contrast and colour saturation. The Sigma has more of both. (Not that this is an issue because a small tweak in Rawshooter fixes things quickly.) Thanks for the response. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Keith McGuinness wrote: Mishka wrote: *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. Perhaps not a coke bottle...but, then, who knows? BTW, having done one quick and simple test, there are also rather marked differences in the features you mention: contrast and colour saturation. The Sigma has more of both. (Not that this is an issue because a small tweak in Rawshooter fixes things quickly.) Thanks for the response. A person can pixel-peek and lpmm-count to his heart's content. But you'll never convince me that I'm not getting better photos out of my FA50/1.4 than my FA28-105/3.2-4.5. Both good lenses in their classifications, but if I'll bet that if I took the same picture, at the same aperture and focal length with each lens, I could tell you which one was taken with the 50mm/1.4.
Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Kieth, which is better? Jack --- Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
*istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. best, mishka On 4/24/06, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got my *istDL before Christmas and have so far done nearly all my shooting with the lens that came with the camera: a Sigma 28-125. I've been using that lens because (a) it is autofocus and I have trouble focussing, (b) it has a nice range of focal lengths, and (c) it's fairly light. In the last couple of days I've been shooting with one of my old Pentax lenses: the SMC-A 35-105. This used to be my favourite lens on my Pentax Super-A but it is one heavy beast (and, of course, not AF). This will be old news to many here but the difference in resolution between the Pentax and the Sigma blew me away! I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Keith McG
