Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Pentax K5

B

benroy

Subscriber Member
We've come full cycle on our review of lenses for the K-5...started with the 40 Pancake, and we'll finish up with the 40...opinion: very much underrated lens...very sharp...excellent rendering of fine detail...examples below:

Roy Benson
 
Last edited:
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
woodyspedden said:
Jono (and others)

I am completing my lens research for the K5 and so far have settled on the DA 15. FA 31. FA 43, and FA 77. I need macro and telephoto so am looking at the WR 100 as a possible solution.

Jono I know you blew both hot and cold on this lens and if I recall your last thoughts were that you would keep it and forego the Zeiss 100 2.0. Are you still feeling that way. What do others who own the lens think?
Click to expand...
HI There Woody
I have changed my mind about the 100, BUT it's very important to learn how to use it - 100mm macros usually have long throws, and tend to focus in and out a bit. The 100 WR should have a focus limiter, and it should be quieter as well - irritating.

However - using the focus over-ride means that if you get into the habit of doing a rough manual focus first, and then half pressing the shutter for the AF, it really doesn't hunt at all (and therefore it doesn't make a nasty noise either).

It's advantages are that its really sharp, it has a great bokeh, it's weatherproof and it's really small (for that type of lens). The Zeiss is much more expensive, and it doesn't have AF at all (if you make the 100WR into a MF lens that doesn't make any noise!).

So, my final conclusion was that to buy the Zeiss because I didn't like the noise of the AF on the 100 WR was rather topsy turvy logic!

Having said all of this - I use the 35 macro much more often!

all the best
 
W

woodyspedden

New member
Armanius said:
What did you not like about the SDM 55? I was thinking about that one (other than the DA70) and possibly re-getting the DA21. The 200 looks intriguing too, particularly after seeing Ashwin's baseball photos.

I initially liked the FA100 a lot, particularly because of its built. It felt nicer than any of the Ltd lenses I've handled so far (DA15, DA21, FA43). I had to do a +4 or 5 with the microadjustment on mine. But I returned it after I got frustrated with the auto focus. Given that it's a macro and the lack of a focus limiter, whenever the AF misses the focus, it runs through the entire focal length. It's slow. And noisy. Probably not any noisier than other screw driven lenses, but given that it's slow, it ends up sounding a whole lot louder.

The FA100 is decently sharp at 2.8. But it gets much better at 3.5 and onwards.

The FA100 has increased in price by $20 since I returned it. Nowhere near the $200 increase for the FA43!
Click to expand...
Hi Armanius

Nothing to dislike about the 55 SDM. But when I consider the entire kit, and my love for the 43FA, it feels like extra money not worthwhile spent. F1:4 is nice but F1.8 is fine for 99% of my shots

Woody
 
JMaher

JMaher

New member
I went to A Strobist shoot tonight and shot the 18-135 and my new (old) 50 1.7 and 70 2.4.

I'll try and get examples out tomorrow but here is an 18-135 to start.

[/url] Ybor Strobist Shoot by jmmtampa, on Flickr[/IMG]


Jim
 
Last edited:
scho

scho

Well-known member
A few bird shots with the K5+55-300. All hand held snapshots.

Female cardinal getting a south wind blow-dry.


Wren with morsel.


Conceited male goldfinch.
 
R

Rich M

Member
Carl....I can see how one could favor the 55-300. These are all perfectly acceptable shots.

How does it do in lower light?

R
 
scho

scho

Well-known member
Rich M said:
Carl....I can see how one could favor the 55-300. These are all perfectly acceptable shots.

How does it do in lower light?

R
Click to expand...
Rich,

It seems to be OK at lower light levels, but if changing distance it helps to pre-focus manually first because of the slow autofocus mechanism. Here is one wide open (f/5.8) in late evening at 6400.

 
R

Rich M

Member
scho said:
Rich,

It seems to be OK at lower light levels, but if changing distance it helps to pre-focus manually first because of the slow autofocus mechanism. Here is one wide open (f/5.8) in late evening at 6400.

Click to expand...
Carl.....the 55-300 sure seems like an acceptable, low-cost, lightweight, long range zoom lens.

I am sure that like many longer, slow(er) zooms, it flourishes in bright light.

R
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There
Carl - love the blow dry - I've been thinking of that lens as it's so small.

Here are some shots from the last day or so

here are two with the 35 macro:





and a couple with the 100 WR macro



 
W

woodyspedden

New member
Jono

I like the work you have done with the 100 WR. A versatile lens to be sure but it seems soft to me. Am I wrong about that÷

I just received my 200 (I needed some reach to go along with the smaller lighter FA lenses)

I have only been able to shoot some test shots out the window of my computer room (looking at the golf course) and I am really impressed with the sharpness, bokeh, and color from this lens. I expected a lot having seen the many shots from Benroy but I must admit my expectations were exceeded.

For those who need reach and are willing to work with a fixed focal length this lens should be on your must evaluate list. Plus it is fast and with the SDM motor very silent.

Woody
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top