DA * 50-135mm Fun

Very well done. Sharp where it counts, good color. Though I would use DXo6.6 + Olympus E-3 profile on the 2nd shot and see what happens.

Yup, the 50-135 is a very nice lens. I have only one objection with it but otherwise works great. And it's not absurdly expensive and still relatively small while being weather sealed.

- Raist

Great photos - dynamic with great color
Jim

Good stuff, Jim...just what I would expect from you, and from the lens...really sharp and socko color!

Roy Benson

Like it very much. Jim can you tell little about set of k5 during show?

VladimirYo said:

Like it very much. Jim can you tell little about set of k5 during show?

Click to expand...

I kept it very simple.. I used aTV mode with the shutter set around 200 to 250 and the aperture set to about 3.5 or 4.0.

All of these guys were strutting around the stage and it was not lit very well. plus, the photo/security pit was pretty close to the stage causing shooting issues due to the closeness of the performers... that is why I now know I need the DA * 16-50... it should be here tomorrow.

I will have the same issues at the upcoming Willie Nelson 4th of July picnic in Fort Worth...

Thank you
Last sunday I shot сapoeira show. Looks like shutter set 320 is too long. Blure effect. Fast lenses still rules inspite of great K5 =)

Jim Radcliffe said:

Just had to bite the bullett and buy the DA * 50-135 F/2.8 for low light concert work. Glad I did.. very sharp lens and quite capable. The only issue I have with it is the somewhat slow AF when compared to my old Canon 70-200mm L glass.

What I found out while using this lens is that I need the equivalent of the 24-70 L I had for the Canon 5D MKII... ordered the SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens today.. hope it does not suffer from some of the issues I have read about.

Here's a few from an event I shot on June 25th.

Click to expand...

Fine series, Jim. I'm really impressed how well the lens performed under these difficult conditions in terms of IQ.
I tried one myself the other day and found AF a rather nervous exercise.
Now let me add that I was trying to shoot a flower swaying in the wind and the lens was far from new and might have taken some serious bashing.

I'll take the other way around: already owning the 16-50 and then presumably getting the 50-135 one day ...

Regarding my 16-50 copy, all I can say it's doing fine at the extremes, but in between (20-24-35) its performance is a little less convincing.
Hope you're happy with your copy.

Kind regards.

Jim: Like Bart, I have enjoyed the 16-50...it's a lot of fun to shoot...images are very good provided you are not too fussy about edges and corners (close-up stuff, is sharply rendered)...but you're going to shoot people, I gather, not architecture...good luck.

Roy Benson

benroy said:

Jim: Like Bart, I have enjoyed the 16-50...it's a lot of fun to shoot...images are very good provided you are not too fussy about edges and corners (close-up stuff, is sharply rendered)...but you're going to shoot people, I gather, not architecture...good luck.

Roy Benson

Click to expand...

Yes, true, for the most part... I had reservations about buying the lens due to all the reports of motor failures and softness but when I took it out of the box and began taking a few test shots it was spot on with the AF and required no micro adjustment. It is a lens I will not use often but when I need it, I will have it. It should do quite well for my landscape shots on the Pacific Coast and low light concert work. Speaking of which, I have performed a number of test shots wide open and am pleased with the results.

I do have the 31mm Ltd but being a prime it limits me at times. I like primes but there are times when you really need a wide angle zoom.

Couple of creatures I passed on the way to the beach today. One is rare and not to be disturbed, so I didn't move the offending dead vegetation.
David