Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
You're right the little 35 to 70mm isn't the sharpest lens Pentax ever
made. It isn't even the sharpest zoom that Pentax ever made. It falls
short a bit short when compared to the 20-35mm f4.0 or it's original
stablemate the 70-210mm f4-5.6. But then the 20-35 is damn near the
sharpest zoom I've ever seen and the 70-210 seems to be one of the best
regarded zooms Pentax ever made in that focal length range. A good
prime will easily out preform it, but you'd expect that. It's forte is
being very small, about the same size and length as a normal (35mm on
APS-C digital, or 50 on 35mm film), prime, and sharp enough. It fills
the focal length gap between the two aforementioned zooms nicely and
gives better than adequate results.
Doug Franklin wrote:
>P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yea, compare it to the best... Poor thing must have gotten an
>>inferiority complex. I didn't like this lens on film as much as I liked
>>the FA 28~70 F4.0 many it rest in peace. Seems that most aren't happy
>>with that lens on digital...
>>
>>I think that the F 35-70mm probably out resolves the 6mp sensor. Maybe
>>I'll be disappointed with it when I finally get a K10D.
>>
>>Doug Franklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Boy, that sure wasn't my experience [with the smc Pentax F 35-70mm
>>>f3.5~4.5]. [...] I was disappointed in the sharpness, [...]
>>>flare control was certainly up to Pentax' (high) standards. [...]
>>>could've seemed less sharp because the same rolls contained shots
>>>from the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 and A 50/1.4.
>>>
>>>
>
>I guess I should give it a try on the *ist D.
>
>When I got back into photography after a long hiatus, it was a handful
>of months before the ZX-5n/MZ-5n came out, so I ended up getting a ZX-5.
>Trying to economize, I also got the F 35-70 and F 100-300 lenses with it.
>
>I made those decisions in the emotional aftermath of trying to shoot the
>first Petit le Mans with a K-1000 and a couple of Promaster zooms (35-80
>and 80-200). They were *not* the best decisions I ever made, or the
>most considered ones.
>
>>From almost the beginning, I wasn't satisfied with the 100-300. At
>first I thought it was me. After I bought some serious glass, I found
>it wasn't. Since I shoot mostly at the long end of the focal length
>spectrum, it quickly went into a box in the closet while better lenses
>populated my field bag.
>
>For a long time, I was mostly satisfied with the F 35-70, but I always
>felt that I wasn't getting the images I should be getting from it. It
>had been quite a while, but I got into this hobby with a K-1000 and an
>SMC-M 50/1.4 and a buttload of Tri-X Pan, many moons ago. The F wasn't
>coming close to what I was expecting.
>
>When I got an A 50/1.4 I finally started getting the images I expected.
> Granted, it's one of the best 35mm SLR lenses around, but it's what
>that old M 50/1.4 had trained me to expect.
>
>As I attempted more motorsports photography (it's almost all I do
>anymore), I realized that it was a situation where the equipment really
>does matter. So I started getting good long lenses, like the FA*
>200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5. I couldn't afford the FA* 600/4 or FA 400/5.6
>or FA* 400/2.8 or FA* 300/2.8, but if I could, I'd snap them up in a
>second. I have a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro that's good, but I still want
>the Pentax.
>
>[BTW, the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 are absolutely, bar none, the cat's
>meow. It took me a long time to find them at reasonable prices, but it
>was worth the wait. I can't wait to see how they perform on the K10D,
>because they look as good on the *ist D as they did on 35mm film.]
>
>I don't have credentials, so I have to shoot from the cold side of the
>fences. That means distance. I'm used to working corners where the
>cars are a dozen feet or less away. Shooting from the "nearby hillside"
>just annoys the heck out of me, in addition to making it more difficult
>for me to get the shots I want to get. The shots that I know are not
>only there, but that none of the "pros" there are going to get.
>
>[Note: The skills for getting good shots at 10 feet are a bit different
>than the ones for 50m with a long lens. :-) ]
>
>
>One thing that just annoys the feces out of me is the "herd photography"
>I see at pro race events. At the Petit le Mans last weekend, there were
>probably somewhere north of 100 credentialed still photogs and more
>credentialed video photogs. And they move around the track like a herd
>of bison on the prairie. For the Thursday night practice session, the
>course marshals ("corner workers") at turn seven had to call in to race
>control asking for "crowd control" support, because they had /31/
>photogs blocking the Emergency Vehicles (EVs) access to the track,
>between the turn station and the "Jersey Barrier" wall to drivers'
>right. WTF?! Get off your lazy asses.
>
>I work corners, so I know a lot of the corner workers at any given event
>at several tracks. All I would have to do is work o
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
P. J. Alling wrote:
> Yea, compare it to the best... Poor thing must have gotten an
> inferiority complex. I didn't like this lens on film as much as I liked
> the FA 28~70 F4.0 many it rest in peace. Seems that most aren't happy
> with that lens on digital...
>
> I think that the F 35-70mm probably out resolves the 6mp sensor. Maybe
> I'll be disappointed with it when I finally get a K10D.
>
> Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>> Boy, that sure wasn't my experience [with the smc Pentax F 35-70mm
>> f3.5~4.5]. [...] I was disappointed in the sharpness, [...]
>> flare control was certainly up to Pentax' (high) standards. [...]
>> could've seemed less sharp because the same rolls contained shots
>> from the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 and A 50/1.4.
I guess I should give it a try on the *ist D.
When I got back into photography after a long hiatus, it was a handful
of months before the ZX-5n/MZ-5n came out, so I ended up getting a ZX-5.
Trying to economize, I also got the F 35-70 and F 100-300 lenses with it.
I made those decisions in the emotional aftermath of trying to shoot the
first Petit le Mans with a K-1000 and a couple of Promaster zooms (35-80
and 80-200). They were *not* the best decisions I ever made, or the
most considered ones.
>From almost the beginning, I wasn't satisfied with the 100-300. At
first I thought it was me. After I bought some serious glass, I found
it wasn't. Since I shoot mostly at the long end of the focal length
spectrum, it quickly went into a box in the closet while better lenses
populated my field bag.
For a long time, I was mostly satisfied with the F 35-70, but I always
felt that I wasn't getting the images I should be getting from it. It
had been quite a while, but I got into this hobby with a K-1000 and an
SMC-M 50/1.4 and a buttload of Tri-X Pan, many moons ago. The F wasn't
coming close to what I was expecting.
When I got an A 50/1.4 I finally started getting the images I expected.
Granted, it's one of the best 35mm SLR lenses around, but it's what
that old M 50/1.4 had trained me to expect.
As I attempted more motorsports photography (it's almost all I do
anymore), I realized that it was a situation where the equipment really
does matter. So I started getting good long lenses, like the FA*
200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5. I couldn't afford the FA* 600/4 or FA 400/5.6
or FA* 400/2.8 or FA* 300/2.8, but if I could, I'd snap them up in a
second. I have a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro that's good, but I still want
the Pentax.
[BTW, the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 are absolutely, bar none, the cat's
meow. It took me a long time to find them at reasonable prices, but it
was worth the wait. I can't wait to see how they perform on the K10D,
because they look as good on the *ist D as they did on 35mm film.]
I don't have credentials, so I have to shoot from the cold side of the
fences. That means distance. I'm used to working corners where the
cars are a dozen feet or less away. Shooting from the "nearby hillside"
just annoys the heck out of me, in addition to making it more difficult
for me to get the shots I want to get. The shots that I know are not
only there, but that none of the "pros" there are going to get.
[Note: The skills for getting good shots at 10 feet are a bit different
than the ones for 50m with a long lens. :-) ]
One thing that just annoys the feces out of me is the "herd photography"
I see at pro race events. At the Petit le Mans last weekend, there were
probably somewhere north of 100 credentialed still photogs and more
credentialed video photogs. And they move around the track like a herd
of bison on the prairie. For the Thursday night practice session, the
course marshals ("corner workers") at turn seven had to call in to race
control asking for "crowd control" support, because they had /31/
photogs blocking the Emergency Vehicles (EVs) access to the track,
between the turn station and the "Jersey Barrier" wall to drivers'
right. WTF?! Get off your lazy asses.
I work corners, so I know a lot of the corner workers at any given event
at several tracks. All I would have to do is work one day of an event
to have a "track" access pass, which would get me to virtually any "hot"
area on the property, and virtually none of the "VIP" areas.
Since I work corners, I'm used to being in places and situations on the
"hot side" that most people don't encounter. So maybe I'm being a
little hard on the "herd". But I don't really think so. It only takes
a little bit of looking around to find great shots that no one is
exploiting.
Unfortunately, I don't have a "blue vest" (official credentials), so I
(mostly) haven't been able to take advantage of this. One case where
some "friendlies" took care of me was the first turn of the first lap of
last year's Petit, and it resulted in these shots:
http://NutDriver.org/Wreck/Narrative.shtml
When I took those photos, only one "pro" was anywhere nearby, and no
amateurs of any stripe. We were in what is euphe
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
On 10/2/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like it too. Nice composition, and the exposure > even works well despite the different foreground, > bridge, and background lighting. What Rick said! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
Well seen and well executed. Paul On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/2006 12:49:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Not much to say about this one. I liked it. The only comment I > have is > about the lens is that it's much better than it's price would > indicate. > Sharp with good flare control even wide open. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_-- > _theothersideofthetracks.html > > Technical Stuff: > Pentax *ist-Ds ISO 800 @ 1/4000sec (Av) > smc Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 @ 35mm f3.5 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
In a message dated 10/2/2006 12:49:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not much to say about this one. I liked it. The only comment I have is about the lens is that it's much better than it's price would indicate. Sharp with good flare control even wide open. http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_theothersideofthetracks.html Technical Stuff: Pentax *ist-Ds ISO 800 @ 1/4000sec (Av) smc Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 @ 35mm f3.5 == I sort of like that, Peter. I like the two pools that sort of reflect the two rocks that sort of reflect the two people (not a reflection as in a mirror). There are even two gates or something at the top. The image isn't particularly pretty, the bridge/tunnel/pipe/whatever is sort of ugly, etc. But it has interest. Nice one. ER, two. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
I like it too. Nice composition, and the exposure even works well despite the different foreground, bridge, and background lighting. Rick --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not much to say about this one. I liked it. The > only comment I have is > about the lens is that it's much better than it's > price would indicate. > Sharp with good flare control even wide open. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_theothersideofthetracks.html > > Technical Stuff: > Pentax *ist-Ds ISO 800 @ 1/4000sec (Av) > smc Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 @ 35mm f3.5 > > -- > Things should be made as simple as possible -- but > no simpler. > > --Albert Einstein > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
Yea, compare it to the best... Poor thing must have gotten an inferiority complex. I didn't like this lens on film as much as I liked the FA 28~70 F4.0 many it rest in peace. Seems that most aren't happy with that lens on digital... I think that the F 35-70mm probably out resolves the 6mp sensor. Maybe I'll be disappointed with it when I finally get a K10D. Doug Franklin wrote: >P. J. Alling wrote: > > > >>[...] the lens is that it's much better than it's price would indicate. >>Sharp with good flare control even wide open. >> >>http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_theothersideofthetracks.html >> >>Technical Stuff: >>smc Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 @ 35mm f3.5 >> >> > >Boy, that sure wasn't my experience. I've used it on film extensively >but haven't tried it on the *ist D since I got the 16-45/4 with the >camera. But on film I was disappointed in the sharpness, though the >flare control was certainly up to Pentax' (high) standards. On second >thought, it could've seemed less sharp because the same rolls of film >contained shots from the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 and A 50/1.4. > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- The other side of the tracks.
P. J. Alling wrote: > [...] the lens is that it's much better than it's price would indicate. > Sharp with good flare control even wide open. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_theothersideofthetracks.html > > Technical Stuff: > smc Pentax F 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 @ 35mm f3.5 Boy, that sure wasn't my experience. I've used it on film extensively but haven't tried it on the *ist D since I got the 16-45/4 with the camera. But on film I was disappointed in the sharpness, though the flare control was certainly up to Pentax' (high) standards. On second thought, it could've seemed less sharp because the same rolls of film contained shots from the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4.5 and A 50/1.4. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
