/p/ - Photography » Thread #2717942

[125 / 28 / ?]

269KiB, 1200x797, 1IMGP0028.jpg

Pentax

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 01:20:23 No.2717942 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2717949 >>2718064 >>2718205 >>2718403 >>2718407

I just bought a Pentax K3 (it replaces the K5 IIs in the picture), and am looking for lenses. Which lenses do you own and which of those get the most use?

So far, I have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 WR, 50-200mm f/4-5.6 WR, and the 35mm f/2.8 macro Limited. The weather-resistant superzoom (18-135mm) looks like it would be useful in the outdoors, but superzooms usually suck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 01:23:24 No.2717944 Report

Quoted By:

an endless supply of m42 lenses until you're broke

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 01:36:34 No.2717947 Report

Quoted By: >>2717967 >>2717973

>tfw I want to get one of the super takumar 50mm 1.4 lenses but it's radioactive and my biggest phobia is radiation

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO super-takumar-135-angle.jpg, 77KiB, 800x601

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 01:39:20 No.2717949 Report

Quoted By: >>2717960

>>2717942
I've probably used that real cheap 50mm 1.8 DA more than anything else

That being said I love this 135mm 3.5 super takumar. I'd like a nice wide lens but im not sure which one to get

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 01:57:43 No.2717960 Report

Quoted By: >>2717963

>>2717949
There's some wide angle Taks, too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:01:02 No.2717963 Report

Quoted By: >>2717975

>>2717960
Is the 28mm 3.5 any good

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:03:04 No.2717967 Report

Quoted By: >>2717969 >>2717970

>>2717947
they aren't that radioactive, anon. it's not like you are going to cuddle with it in your bed at night. put it a few feet away from you and you're good to go. not a single takumar has ever killed a human being since its introduction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:05:39 No.2717969 Report

Quoted By: >>2719235

>>2717967
>not a single takumar has ever killed a human being since its introduction.
Look up "deaths due to radioactivity" in Japan and compare it with any other nation. Go on. I'll wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:07:00 No.2717970 Report

Quoted By: >>2717974

>>2717967
I know that's why it's an irrational phobia

I don't even eat bananas and I'd never get granite countertops

I actually own a dosimeter too

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:08:26 No.2717973 Report

Quoted By: >>2717974 >>2717976

>>2717947
nuclear engineer(ing student graduating in May)
go for it its not going to hurt you

found this but i certainly wouldnt give credibility to the numbers this guy reports, as you cant really get an equivalent dose rate just from counter information, but the activity present is minimal, and not a serious health concern

http://forum.mflenses.com/radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses-t25714.html

but if you're worried about radiation i hope youre not a smoker

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:09:45 No.2717974 Report

Quoted By:

>>2717973
see
>>2717970

>but if you're worried about radiation i hope youre not a smoker

Never

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:09:46 No.2717975 Report

Quoted By: >>2717978

>>2717963
https://www.flickr.com/groups/takumar28mm/
Looks pretty good to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:11:49 No.2717976 Report

Quoted By: >>2717996 >>2718007

>>2717973
on a different note hows the camera? I was considering getting one (my first dslr) because i found one relatively cheap with their 50 mm f/1.8 prime but not sure if i should pull the trigger, being a broke student and all

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:12:52 No.2717978 Report

Quoted By:

>>2717975
Delicious. I might have to pick one up for my k-50. They're real cheap

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:14:08 No.2717979 Report

Quoted By: >>2717996 >>2718056 >>2718115

OP here.

Some lenses I'm looking at are:
>Pentax 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 DA WR
Seems like it would be a useful lens to have on my camera while in the outdoors. Last summer I did a lot of hiking when it rained on me and it might have been nice to have the extra reach of something like this.
>Pentax 100mm f/2.8 D FA WR macro
Decent focal length for telephoto or the odd portrait, and gives a large minimum focus distance for macro.
>Pentax 55-300mm f/4-5.8 DA HD WR
Less expensive than the Sigma options, and weather-resistant. Just not sure how sharp it is at 300mm.

Thoughts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:33:12 No.2717996 Report

Quoted By: >>2718001

>>2717979
>DA 18-135/3.5-5.6
I wouldn't. It's cheap alright, but it's not very sharp at the edges at any setting, and has CA problems. If you want a general-use zoom, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 is a better choice. Albeit more expensive.
>DFA 100/2.8 Macro WR
Brilliant lens, the only thing that's ever bothered me about it is the lack of film-body compatibility (no aperture ring). If you want it, go for it.
>DA 55-300/4-5.8
It's a consumer zoom lens, but a nice one. It's not a miracle worker, but it's decent enough. Certainly better than the 50-200. Shoot at f/8 when you can.

>>2717976
/p/ likes Pentax (well, except for the mirrorless uber alles crowd) since they have good sensors in them, and give you some Nice Things(tm) that Canikon won't until much higher price levels. Compatibility with old lenses, a pentaprism as opposed to pentamirror viewfinder, dual control dials....
If you want one, get it, they give you an awful lot of camera for your money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:39:22 No.2718001 Report

Quoted By: >>2718005

>>2717996
What do you think a fair price would be for the DA 18-135 if I find one used? Even if the image quality isn't that great, it would be really useful to have that much zoom reach in a weather-resistant package on certain hiking trips. The $300 that Amazon has it listed for still seems a little high, but I will probably add one of these to my inventory eventually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:44:16 No.2718005 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718001
To put it in perspective I picked up a 16-45 f/4 for $120. I wouldn't touch the 18-135 with a ten foot clown pole. Life's too short for bad glass, and you don't have to spend a mint for good stuff if you're patient.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:46:28 No.2718007 Report

Quoted By: >>2718010

>>2717976
90% of the time I use that DA 50mm 1.8 on my k-50

Fantastic combo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:49:05 No.2718010 Report

Quoted By: >>2718012 >>2718013 >>2718014

>>2718007
What kinds of things do you shoot, primarily? To me, a 50mm on a crop would be a portrait lens for people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:50:42 No.2718012 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718010
Usually industrial buildings or urban areas and stuff. It works really well in low light and is very sharp and pretty sharp when wide open

I could totally shoot portraits with it but I dont really have an interest to

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:51:03 No.2718013 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718010
Not him, but I rather like the 75mm-equivalent focal length. Even for just general use. It's tight enough to force me to pick a specific subject and fill the frame with it, but not so tight that I can't fit most subjects in the frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:51:58 No.2718014 Report

Quoted By: >>2718207

>>2718010
was just about to ask this. i could get the 18-135 lens with the k3 but it would cost me like 250-300 more than if i got it with the 50mm. i planned on just using the 50mm and picking up some used macro lenses online (theyre dirt cheap 20-75 bucks in pretty great condition)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 02:56:08 No.2718018 Report

Quoted By: >>2718022 >>2718032 >>2718129

Protip for those using old lenses: You get focus confirmation with manual glass on Pentax, unlike Nikon. Hold down the AF button (half-press shutter, or the AE-lock button if you configure that to be AF) and the phase-detection sensor will stare at the center AF point and flash at you in the viewfinder when it sees focus. A split-prism focusing screen is still very nice to have, but part of the reason old MF glass is so popular in Pentax-land is that the cameras make it easy to use, even without one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 03:04:59 No.2718022 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718018
oh fuck I gotta try this

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 03:17:52 No.2718032 Report

Quoted By: >>2718036 >>2718129

>>2718018
Now that Katz Eye is dead, where would I go to get a split prism for my K-3?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 03:20:59 No.2718036 Report

Quoted By: >>2718044

>>2718032
focusingscreen.com still sells them, for just about every model of DSLR you could imagine. I haven't used them myself, but neither have I heard major complaints about them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 03:40:40 No.2718044 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718036
Thanks!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 04:21:38 No.2718056 Report

Quoted By: >>2718900

>>2717979
I second the 16-85mm. Brilliant lens.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0103162-y600px.jpg, 83KiB, 399x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Wed 09 Dec 2015 04:35:06 No.2718064 Report

Quoted By: >>2718098

>>2717942
I have K3 and K5's, and an array of T-mount, M42, K, M, A, FA, DA, Adaptall lenses well in excess of what anybody should ever own.
I think I have finally found some of my personal sweet spots, and I suspect they would be good for anyone.

Pentax DA 10-17mm/3.5.4.5
-dont use it a lot any more, but ultrawide is always useful when you need it.

Sigma 17-50mm/2.8
-kinda replaced my F 50/2.8 macro for general low light and drinking use. I really like this lens even if it can be more difficult to tell if it's focussed or not, and it's FF design makes it oversized for an APS-C camera.

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
-general use lens. Heavy, but sharp and useful image quality across the aperture range.

Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8
-for when the sigma 70-200 is too unweildy. ie travelling etc. It should be noted that this lens is unplesantly stiff to zoom by comparison, but becasue the camera recognises it and applies various corrections, and it has the newer coatings, it produces pretty fucking amazing images straight out of camera.

also: FYI
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
note that there is also a "3rd party lenses" section. Search does not overlap, so youhave to know to search both sections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 06:20:57 No.2718098 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718064
Thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 06:50:53 No.2718112 Report

Quoted By: >>2718117 >>2718404

how snappy is the 35 2.8 limited for daily non-macro? is it gonna hold me up with shutter delay trying to focus all the time?

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO $_577.jpg, 130KiB, 1600x1064

!!Me2iIexFVez Wed 09 Dec 2015 06:55:09 No.2718115 Report

Quoted By:

>>2717979
>Pentax 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 DA WR
Can't comment. But I do own the:
SMC Pentax-F 35-135mm f3.5-4.5
which is good, but I rarely find myself wanting to use any lens that isnt f/2.8 these days.. also my version is noisy (screw drive AF), and the concept of calling it a macro is not entirely convincing.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-
DA-18-135mm-F3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-35-135mm-F3.5-3.5-Macro-Zoom-Lens.html

>Pentax 100mm f/2.8 D FA WR macro
I have the
SMC Pentax-F 1:2.8 100mm macro
It's very good. Sharp and quick to focus, has focus limiter to speed up 1m+ shooting focus seek times, and is easily useful at f/2.8
I haven't used mine a lot, but only becasue I made the mistake of buying another nice lens ( SMC Pentax FA 50mm F2.8 MACRO ) shortly after the 100mm.
I would categorise both of those lenses as keepers though, along with the others i posted about previously.
..even though I don't use the 50mm much now, and the 100mm even less, they are both outstanding macros that can also be put to general walkaround use.
>Pentax 55-300mm f/4-5.8 DA HD WR
As said: It's a good lens for what it is and the price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 06:56:50 No.2718117 Report

Quoted By: >>2718126

>>2718112
It has a long focus throw so if you miss focus, it does take a while to come back to it. Provided you don't miss focus, it's just fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 07:07:51 No.2718126 Report

Quoted By: >>2718133

>>2718117
it won't 'miss' and over-shoot by itself provided you keep the AF reticule on a textured part of your subject? provided the body is a k5 classic

I'm so used to contrast AF, it's been years since I've used DSLR af

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Selection_2015-12-09--17-10-18.png, 22KiB, 781x270

!!Me2iIexFVez Wed 09 Dec 2015 07:11:17 No.2718129 Report

Quoted By: >>2718186

>>2718018
With the K-3 you can specify particular focus point too.

>>2718032
A screen with microprisms or split hemispheres WILL interfere with light metering.
I strongly advise you to avoid those types.
My preference is for the completely bare - no markings - "high contrast" type.
http://www.focusingscreen.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_113&products_id=1108
You can see if focus is achieved just as easily, much faster, albeint *slightly* less accurately, plus you arent constantly center-focusing and recomposing; which is a rookie mistake on wider planar-focus lenses.
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com
and ctrl-F (search) for 'Petzval field curvature'

That said, I have largely gone back to the defalt K3 and K5 screens now, because frankly my f/2.8 lenses are much easier to use, offer attractive boke with sudden OOF falloff, and DOF depths that are actually useful at all distances, and are accurately auto or manually focused with no additional screen.
My advice is unless your lens if faster than f/2.8 don't bother, and if they are faaster then go bare, high contrast.

FYI: focusingscreens screens are cut from canon high contrast screens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 07:15:07 No.2718133 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718126
I don't know. I have only used it on a K5 IIs and K3. I would think that performance would only be worse on older generation bodies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 07:52:27 No.2718149 Report

Quoted By: >>2718159 >>2718174

Daily reminder that making a new thread about gear is only acceptable if it's about Pentax

fucking double standards around here

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 08:22:45 No.2718159 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718149
Who gives a shit this board is slow as fuck

Go fuck yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 10:11:21 No.2718174 Report

Quoted By: >>2718185

>>2718149
Pentax used to be the autist camera brand around these parts. Is it now the norm? Have we run off all the cool guize?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 10:59:43 No.2718185 Report

Quoted By: >>2718192 >>2718543 >>2719211

>>2718174
I think the Canon and Nikon gearfag charm has worn off and all the gearfags now gather around Sony.
Pentax was never autistic, it was and still is the smart choice for certain things, even for beginners.
For example I never wanted to shoot normal photos, I was only interested in astrophotography. I got mine because of the GPS astrotracer thing but I soon started taking regular photos and getting actually interested in all the various kind of photography, thanks to the non-gearfag /p/ residents and their photo threads.
By suggestions on this board I got the 35/2.4 prime in addition to my old teles and a whole new world has opened up. With that said, don't ever buy old Sigma glass! Never ever! Getting stuck with a bad lens is the worst photog experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:00:51 No.2718186 Report

Quoted By: >>2718187 >>2718192

>>2718129
>>A screen with microprisms or split hemispheres WILL interfere with light metering.
hasn't really been my experience. I bought a Katzeye screen for my K-50 just before they closed up shop, has a split-image with a microprism collar. It meters fine. Maybe the focusingscreen.com ones are different, idk.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:04:28 No.2718187 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718186
This is why I hate Katzeye. One week I was browsing for the screens for my new camera, next week when I was about to buy it the website said they closed up shop. FFFFFFFffffffffffffffffffffffffff...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A0049507-y600px_1.jpg, 120KiB, 400x600

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:25:00 No.2718192 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718185
>don't ever buy old Sigma glass
Some very decent lenses have been made by Sigma.
It would be more useful to say don't buy shit lenses, or lenses you can't review objectively before buying.
>>2718186
Mine would give extremely variable results. Depended entirely on lighting conditions, mostly the angle of entry into the lens, and probably also related to the additional light that bounces around in a fullframe lens on a crop camera. But it did make it impossible to meter properly in a significant portion of cases. At first I didn't notice because I wasn't familiar with anything different and editing gives some lattitude. But it is very apparent looking back on photos from that time. I wouldn't tolerate that again.
...never mind that the habit of centre focusing is bad, and focus and recomposing almost as bad if not a worse habit on wider focallenghts....and of course the useless black blobs that hemisphers and prisms become when there is low light... fuck that.
/p/ has debated me on this since the first time I suggested bare high contrast as being superior to hemispheres... and yet afaik every time someone actually tries a HC screen they come away seeing the advantages.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:44:42 No.2718201 Report

Quoted By:

Does anyone have any experience using a magnifying viewfinder eyepiece? I want mine a bit extended because my face, more precisely my nose and cheekbone interfering with my photography, also bigger shade around the eyepiece would be better.
Is there a good quality brand for these, also can these magnifying ones be troublesome if my eyes diopter is below 1?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:50:10 No.2718205 Report

Quoted By:

>>2717942
The bokehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm

50mm 1.4f or 1.7f

should be able to get one in your classifieds pretty cheep depending on the seller 30-50.

also go thift shops. people dont reguard pentaxs and trowh them away i find.

apartent from that m42 and m39 russian lens are crazy sharp and cheap and the adpaters are 5/10 quid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 11:52:08 No.2718207 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718014
pick up a used manual 50mm. yourll have money to save up for a nice auto 24 or even wider and have a crazy ass lens.

i have a kx film camera and a k-30 and id say 90% i just use the ashanti 50mm i have

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 17:20:26 No.2718403 Report

Quoted By:

>>2717942
35mm 2.8 is a must have

I have it, with a 8mm samyang, a 50 1.4 fa and that's all

my legs do the work for longer shoots

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 17:23:01 No.2718404 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718112
it's fucking sharp as fuck. I ablolutely love it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 17:25:48 No.2718407 Report

Quoted By: >>2718429

>>2717942
Why do people ask questions like this? Why would you be looking to buy more equipment if you have no idea what you need, or whether you need it? You buy tools to do the jobs you are looking to do. A plumber does not need the same tools as an aircraft mechanic. Asking what tools he uses is worthless information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 17:28:31 No.2718409 Report

Quoted By:

Lol, so much poorfaggotry in this thread.

Ditch the zooms, get the Ltd range of primes, the ff ones are much better than the non ff ones. These lenses are the only reason to shoot pentax. All the ff k mount stuff will rocket in price once the ff body is out

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 18:14:45 No.2718429 Report

Quoted By: >>2718435 >>2718441

>>2718407
I have some ideas of what I need, but sometimes the equipment isn't up for the task of satisfying exactly what the user wants. For example, Pentax has very little to offer in terms of <f/2.8 primes in general. The question I'm asking isn't "what lenses should I buy." The question is "where are the Pentax lens sweet spots." It would have entirely different answers for Canon, Nikon, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 18:28:54 No.2718435 Report

Quoted By: >>2718444 >>2718909

>>2718429
Generally you can't go wrong with Limited primes, DA* and FA* primes and zooms.
The best portrait prime lens is the DA* 55/1.4 nicknamed "pixie dust" that whoops canon and nikon pro ass
See why: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-55mm-F1.4-SDM-Lens.html

Pentax offers lots of great lenses, you only have to do is look for them. This is a good place to start: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 18:32:47 No.2718441 Report

Quoted By: >>2718444

>>2718429
Why would that matter? "People seem to like lenses that fall around 50mm! I know I want to shoot fashion style portraits and architecture, but I'd better buy what everyone else has!"

Most homeowners have a lawnmower. I don't have a lawn. Asking what people keep in their garage is going to make me think I need a lawnmower, or, it's going to waste the lawmnower people's time. So either you're an idiot, or you're a dick.

Don't ask what lenses people like. Say "I want to shoot ducks, please help me identify which gear I need to achieve my goals"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 18:41:39 No.2718444 Report

Quoted By: >>2718450

>>2718435
>>2718441

I guess the point of asking here is to see what's in the average Pentax user's camera bag. For example, most Canon users have either the 50/1.8 or the 50/1.4. A lot of Canon users have the 17-40/4 L zoom and use it as their standard zoom on a crop body, instead of the other standard zooms. Likewise, a lot of Canon users use the 70-200/4 L zoom for telephoto instead of a telephoto prime or other telephoto L zoom (70-300). I'm relatively new to Pentax. I can say that with Pentax, a lot of people might be drawn to the 18-135 zoom for its useful range when walking around in the rain, but it sounds like they wouldn't stay with it because the image quality is so bad.

These are conclusions that most users would probably come to on their own after enough experimentation. The point of asking is to get a starting point for my own experimentation that is hopefully much closer to the ending point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with probing other people's minds to see what lenses by a certain manufacturer they find themselves using the most. It's not necessarily an indication of the best-performing lenses. It might take many factors into account, like size/weight, price, focusing speed, as well as lens speed and image quality. The point is that lens sweet spots are not always going to be the same as the best-made lenses in a lineup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 18:50:53 No.2718450 Report

Quoted By: >>2718453

>>2718444
Pentax users vary a lot more than Canon or Nikon. Mostly because Pentax didn't change too much on the mount and it is virtually seamless to adapt old lenses. Also Pentax users in general know what they want where say an average Canon user will go with what others or "Pros" use. This is why you see so many aimless photographers running around with a 70-200.
Pentax have a lot to offer for many needs, some for very specific needs. Most Canikon users will see the lack of the general range as a lack of lenses but it is very far from the truth.
You really have to know what you want to shoot, what situations you find yourself in most of the time and look for the lenses accordingly. Like Anon above said, asking what others have is pointless, what they have fits their needs not yours. You will only end up disappointed and frustrated this way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 19:01:21 No.2718453 Report

Quoted By: >>2718455

>>2718450
You're still just bloviating about a subject that you clearly despise instead of leaving, hiding the thread, or God forbid, actually contributing to the conversation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 19:10:18 No.2718455 Report

Quoted By: >>2718458

>>2718453
You'd be better off reading a few books. Start with Bryan Petersons Understanding Exposure, and the rest of his series. Maybe it will help you get a grasp on photography. Hint: it's not about lens collections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 19:11:45 No.2718458 Report

Quoted By: >>2718461

>>2718455
You're bloviating again, friend.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 19:16:26 No.2718461 Report

Quoted By: >>2718462

>>2718458
Whatever man, just don't expect for someone to help you because there is no real help in what you are asking.
Decide first what you want to shoot, how you want to shoot it and then find the appropriate lenses for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 19:18:59 No.2718462 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718461
>just don't expect for someone to help you
50+ posts earlier in the thread prove you wrong. You've made your point, though. You're not here to help. You're here to shitpost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2015 21:22:44 No.2718543 Report

Quoted By: >>2718722 >>2718778

>>2718185
There used to be a guy on here that would post stalker photos of girls in public places that used Pentax exclusively. Pretty autistic.

Also, i have a K5, its awesome. I have a sigma 30mm 1.4 and its pretty awesome.

When i first got it i though there was a problem, but it turns out my K7 was just being a K7. Ditched it for a K5 and all problems disappeared.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 03:16:07 No.2718722 Report

Quoted By: >>2718853

>>2718543
So you are saying one man equals to all brand users? What the fuck? How old are you, son?
And you are surprised you don't have many friends.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0124684-y720px.jpg, 90KiB, 480x720

!!Me2iIexFVez Thu 10 Dec 2015 05:07:01 No.2718778 Report

Quoted By: >>2718782

>>2718543
That would be me. K5 and K3
Yes, lets look at what you refer to as my stalker autistic photos again, so we can all see how fucking retardo butthurt people like you really are.
http://oh-hi.info
http://flickr.com/betlog

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00089337-y600px.jpg, 45KiB, 400x600

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 05:17:49 No.2718782 Report

Quoted By: >>2718826 >>2718828 >>2719347

>>2718778
Sorry, bro, but this is some REALLY stalkerish shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:35:42 No.2718826 Report

Quoted By: >>2718827

>>2718782
>Standing plainly in front of people.
>Getting smiles & poses.
>Meeting literally hundreds of people.
The stalker part is you. Not eggy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1334922631015.jpg, 83KiB, 341x512

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:39:19 No.2718827 Report

Quoted By: >>2718835

>>2718826
>standing plainly in front of people
That's a funny way of saying "peeping on people from across a field with a 500mm Rokinon mini telescope uncharmingly".

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A0048120-y600px.jpg, 84KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:39:35 No.2718828 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718782
actualPhotographersLaughing.dng

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A0037838-y600px.jpg, 82KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:44:52 No.2718835 Report

Quoted By: >>2718839

>>2718827
wooo! It's butthurtAgendaFagLord
Post all those dank projection memes you've been saving to express your inner sperg.
..no really, I didn't save these rare-becasue-shit-pepes the first 3 times you posted them, but I am now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:49:12 No.2718839 Report

Quoted By: >>2718840 >>2718851 >>2719492

>>2718835
Can you please just fuck off out of my Pentax thread? You're like the pedophile who shows up at an anime convention. We don't like you. We don't want you here. We barely even tolerate your existence.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0045683-y600px.jpg, 91KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Thu 10 Dec 2015 08:56:35 No.2718840 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718839
>we
>muh legionz

no

..I keep wondering how long it will take your infantile mind to realise that meangirling me does not have the effect you want. Quite the opposite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 09:45:58 No.2718851 Report

Quoted By: >>2718854

>>2718839
>my Pentax thread
Who's the autist now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 09:48:04 No.2718853 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718722
in contrast we had other name fags like Mike L running Nikon gear, and the stalker dude posting his weird public stalking shit.

Also have you been on the pentax forums?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 09:48:22 No.2718854 Report

Quoted By: >>2718856

>>2718851
...I'm the OP, bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 09:49:54 No.2718856 Report

Quoted By: >>2718857 >>2718874 >>2718890

>>2718854
So? Try to delete it then. It's "your" thread you should be able to have "power" over it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP0028.jpg, 1016KiB, 4500x2992

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 09:53:47 No.2718857 Report

Quoted By: >>2718869

>>2718856
Why would I want to delete my own thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:13:30 No.2718869 Report

Quoted By: >>2718870 >>2718890

>>2718857
To prove a point. If it is yours you should be able to create the same exact thread again.
Don't get me wrong, I know you can't do it. You can start a thread but you own none of it. You are just a spoilt manchild filled with angst and acting immature, projecting out.
You are easily calling other autistic while you're the one acting like that. You think you own the board and talk to people without a hint of respect. I suspect you are like this in real life, without friend, being alone, living with your parents. You think everyone else should think the way you do.
Here's a hint for you pal, there are lots of people in the world and nobody is interested in your narcissistic ramblings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:15:46 No.2718870 Report

Quoted By: >>2718872 >>2718878

>>2718869
Hey, faggot. I proved my point. Did you look at the image I just posted and compare it to the one in the OP? It's time for you to take a deep breath, close the browser, and go to bed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:18:39 No.2718872 Report

Quoted By: >>2718874 >>2718890

>>2718870
You just went full autistic, mate.
Who cares if you started a thread? It's not yours you cum gargling fuckwad!
Don't worry, your autism will be archived for generations to see and laugh at.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:22:24 No.2718874 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718872
>Who cares if you started a thread?
You do: >>2718856

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:25:26 No.2718878 Report

Quoted By: >>2718879 >>2718890

>>2718870
BTW nice going ruining your own thread, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:27:18 No.2718879 Report

Quoted By: >>2718883

>>2718878
I bet you blame rape victims for dressing provocatively, too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:31:53 No.2718883 Report

Quoted By: >>2718884 >>2718885 >>2718890

>>2718879
>I'm dodging and calling names because I ran out of reasons
Arguing for the sake of argument. Seek help.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:32:31 No.2718884 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718883
What's your argument?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:35:34 No.2718885 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718883
Seriously, though. I just re-read your previous posts to the thread and I can't find an argument. Are you sure you have one?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 10:45:23 No.2718890 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718883
>>2718878
>>2718872
>>2718869
>>2718856
>spewing vitriol and buzzwords non-stop
>irrational, immune to logic

Spotted the female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 11:29:07 No.2718900 Report

Quoted By: >>2719105

>>2718056
thats a nikon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 12:12:15 No.2718909 Report

Quoted By: >>2718912

>>2718435
on DXO, the 55 1.4 is equal or worse than the 50 DA. I think it was photozone where I also read that it was slightly wider, about a 47mm in reality. Whether or not people dis dxo (because they are canonfags, most likely) these do make me wonder about that lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 12:21:27 No.2718912 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718909
Seeing the actual results made me reconsider if those charts and numbers on DXO actually say anything.
Now if I'm interested in a lens I google up a few example shots and do my own comparisons. Charts and numbers don't mean much in real world applications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 19:07:30 No.2719105 Report

Quoted By: >>2719137

>>2718900
Huh?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 20:54:38 No.2719137 Report

Quoted By: >>2719138

>>2719105
there is no pentax 16-85. maybe u meant 16-45

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 20:55:46 No.2719138 Report

Quoted By:

>>2719137
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56-ed-dc-wr.html

Proved you wrong, fag

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _IGP8568.jpg, 744KiB, 1936x1296

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 21:58:24 No.2719162 Report

Quoted By: >>2719207 >>2719385

I have a lot of older Pentax glass
the f 70-210 4.5-5,6 is really nice and you can it cheap
the fa 28 2.8 is also a great little lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 23:07:30 No.2719207 Report

Quoted By: >>2719652

>>2719162
What I've seen the 50-200 kit telezoom lens offers the same IQ as the F 70-210 but with weather sealing.
If someone was looking for a lens in that range I'd recommend the HD DA 55-300 WR. A bit higher price but definitely worth it. Still in the budget category but better reach and stays sharp at the long end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 23:20:13 No.2719211 Report

Quoted By: >>2719218 >>2719372

>>2718185
>don't ever buy old Sigma glass
just bought a 25 yr old sigma 400mm 5.6 and it works great. If you buy from pretty much anywhere legit they have protections for buying defective products. Don't have to be stuck with anything

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 23:35:28 No.2719218 Report

Quoted By: >>2719372

>>2719211
Yes, that lens I told you about is a manual focus 25 years old Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO
It is good if you resize your 24MP image into 5 or even 8 MP or don't really care about detail.
Just take a few shots and compare them to photos made with say Tair 300 or any other older lens with comparable focal length.
That Sigma is sitting on the bottom line of IQ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 23:54:46 No.2719235 Report

Quoted By: >>2719238

>>2717969
>nuclear bombings
>nuclear disasters
>high radioactivity deaths

hmm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 23:56:49 No.2719238 Report

Quoted By:

>>2719235
>nuclear bombings
>nuclear disasters
>high radioactivity deaths
>takumar lenses

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pepelaugh.jpg, 60KiB, 500x495

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 03:18:33 No.2719347 Report

Quoted By: >>2719372

>>2718782
>Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 750 mm

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00083408-y600px.jpg, 31KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:12:04 No.2719372 Report

Quoted By: >>2719445

>>2719218
>>2719211
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/showcat.php?mcats=all&what=titledesc&si=sigma+400mm+5.6&showposts=0&firstpost=1

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/showcat.php?mcats=all&what=titledesc&si=tair+300&showposts=0&firstpost=1

>>2719347
inb4 you think that implies being hundreds of metres away.
>Still this stupid.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SMC_Pentax_28mm_1:2.8--f2.8_f4_f (...).jpg, 3MiB, 7458x1024

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:26:18 No.2719385 Report

Quoted By: >>2719445 >>2719460

>>2719162
>FA 28mm/2.8
I have the M and A series of this lens, and they are nice. They were probably mu favorite walkaround lens back when I shot film.
There was a time recently when I was progressively updating my A and M glass to A series or newer, but it was watching the prices get jacked higher and higher by collectorfaggots on ebay that put a stop to that bullshit. Then I realised the newer zooms are better anyway.
The 28mm/2.8 i lurk on ebay has been presenting for ~300USD lately, which is fucking ridiculous
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-28mm-F2.8-Lens.html
i'm sure the FA - if one ever appears - would be typically more expensive
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28mm-F2.8-Lens.html

A few months ago I decided to spend 400AUD on the sigma 17-50mm/2.8, and have been very plesantly surprised. Now I have no inclination to want to 28mm at all.
the 17-50/2.8 effectively replaces all 3 of my favorite film-era lenses:
Sigma 16mm/2.8
M-series 28mm/2.8
M-series 50mm/1.2

So yeah, the F and FA 28/2.8 are nice.. but not worth what people typically demand for them now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 07:45:37 No.2719445 Report

Quoted By:

>>2719385
>>2719372
Literally nobody cares, stalkerfag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 08:30:55 No.2719460 Report

Quoted By: >>2719535

>>2719385

You're confused there is no smc Pentax - m 50mm f1.2

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 10:00:07 No.2719492 Report

Quoted By:

>>2718839
Speaking of
What would be a good lens for cosplay portraits? I love how sharp the 50mm 1.8 is but that is hard to use in a hotel hallway.
Bounce down to 35 or is there something better suiting?

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Lenses_SMC-Pentax-A-50mm-f1.2_SM (...).jpg, 415KiB, 1200x1800

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 11 Dec 2015 13:31:31 No.2719535 Report

Quoted By: >>2719657 >>2720092

>>2719460
whatever.
anything that isnt a K is an M
effectively the same diff

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 17:30:24 No.2719652 Report

Quoted By:

>>2719207
the f70-210 has more elements and a 9 bladed aperture for nicer bokeh and its sharp at 4.5.
Its heavy af though.

Another nice lens: Tamron adaptall-2 sp 35-80 2.8-3.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 17:41:15 No.2719657 Report

Quoted By: >>2720090

>>2719535
Do they have a sex offender registry in Australia?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 05:27:47 No.2719990 Report

Quoted By: >>2719996

>bought a used K-S2 off amazon for $425
>just found out lensrentals sells their cameras too
>could have gotten a K-5IIs for the same price
>at least I got a "free" extra battery r-right guys?
god damn I feel stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 05:34:36 No.2719996 Report

Quoted By: >>2720225

>>2719990
>>bought a used K-S2 off amazon for $425
couldve bought a brand new one from pentax for 440 but it would have to be the orange stripe one

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0126667-y720px.jpg, 81KiB, 480x720

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 10:50:51 No.2720090 Report

Quoted By: >>2720093

>>2719657
Yeah. They have laws for cyberstalking and defamation of character too fgt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 10:52:47 No.2720092 Report

Quoted By: >>2720143 >>2720144 >>2720148 >>2720158

>>2719535

M 50mm 1.4 vs A 50mm 1.4 which do you prefer?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 01-1.jpg, 850KiB, 1250x1250

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 11:08:49 No.2720093 Report

Quoted By: >>2720094 >>2720133

>>2720090
speaking of stalking, I think this guy was taking photos of you today

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 11:11:14 No.2720094 Report

Quoted By:

>>2720093
I always respected maritime nature photographers, whale watching is serious business.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0126538-y720px.jpg, 108KiB, 480x720

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 13:09:50 No.2720133 Report

Quoted By: >>2720138

>>2720093
There were several photographers I saw today who gave that vibe.
Thing is; unless people bother to say hi, or as is often the case: can't even make eye contact, I don't bother. Most photographers are fairly timid and introverted anyway.
I obviously don't recognise people who post anonymously, so I make a point of not giving any fucks when they stalk me in a curious way. It's the hater stalkers that I do document.
That said I do usually shoot people with cameras, particularly the ones who have the "I real photographer nao" look, but today was very generic christmas normie crowds, so I guess I wasn't really on my game.
This crew seemed to be doing a lot of nothing, so I can't help but wonder what they were reporting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO trolley-1.jpg, 654KiB, 828x1250

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 13:21:12 No.2720138 Report

Quoted By: >>2720148

>>2720133
I was wearing a backwards cap and had a taped up GR with a viewfinder in Queen Street today, you might have seen me amongst the crowd. Decided to take some photos after getting all my xmas shopping done. Don't think I took any photos of you though.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO $_57 5.jpg, 39KiB, 800x535

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 13:29:43 No.2720143 Report

Quoted By: >>2720614

>>2720092
Always the A
M is older and more likely to have shit in the lens of some form or another.
A is (iirc) identical optical formula, and conceivably has better, or *some* primary element coatings.
Plus of course A series is easily used in manual mode on the aperture dial anyway.

If you asked me what lens to buy I would say none of them, none of the ones in my test... I'd say get a SMC Penatx-FA 50mm/2.8 macro
It's easily my favourite 50mm prime.
http://oh-hi.info/tech/50mm_compare/
These aren't the ideal tests as the lenses vary a little in clarity etc, and I should have focussed and aligned the images more accurately.. but you can see that there isnt a lot between them. My f/1.4's seem to be a little shit compared to the others, so I'm not sure if that's the lenses I own or that lens in general.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00151195-y600px.jpg, 77KiB, 398x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 13:40:16 No.2720144 Report

Quoted By:

>>2720092
...or a 50mm/1.7 M or A or whatever
Some of the faster lenses are a little tedious in actual use, and it's generally better to have a lens that is always sharp as fuck and optically clean, that you can nail the image every time.
Slightly more boke and less DOF isn't significant when it comes right down to it.
I *thought* used to love that 50/1.2 as a teenager, so I bought an A series a few years back. But I never use it. It's not sharp till f/2 anyway, and it's fucking impossible to focus and even when you do nail focus it can still look soft unless you get exactly the right bits of the subject in focus... a high contrast, blank, no hemispheres/prisms.. BLANK focusing screen helsp to be able to see this as it pos into focus, but not much. I used to focus bracket a lot with that lens and was always annoyed. On APS-C I consider a lens that is sharp and focuses easily in almost no light to be far superior. The FA 50/2.8 macro is that lens.
image related

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0057629-y600px.jpg, 112KiB, 899x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 13:51:09 No.2720148 Report

Quoted By:

>>2720138
Maybe. I see a lot of people, and tend to almost instantly forget everyone as soon as I look away from them.
>>2720092
The other beautiful thing about a slightly less fast but easier to use lens is when you put a flash on it, shoot wide open, and in Av.. You can generally shoot with or without the flash and not do anyhting exept switch the flash off.. or fire once with flash and again before the flash cycles, and both will be exposed correctly, focussed,m and with a DOF that is useful for almost anyhting you point it at.
In days of old I would put a flash on my ME Super and the M 28mm/2.8 set to f/8 and focused to 3m.. then i could point and shoot at anyhting out to about 10m (iirc)
I use the 50/2.8 the same way, but it's even easier and produces better images in most respects becasue you are actually focusing rather than relying on hyperfocal, and the TTL flash is mostly just backup.
Difficult to explain I guess, but it's good. Faster lenses would be less good i'm sure.
And before anyone asks: this is an AF160FC ring flash.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0057582-y600px.jpg, 75KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 14:14:06 No.2720158 Report

Quoted By:

>>2720092
>blah blah blah
seems vaguely relevant: i was with a guy shooting a Nikon Df and old 50mm/2.5 or something..
I took this to illustrate something about the gear i was using: but don't recall what for exactly... k-3 WB, shake reduction, 50mm/2.8, high ISO... dunno.. but it's a good example of a shot that shouldn't work, and yet isn't technically horrible. Admittedly I shot a handful of frames to get one where it wasnt obvious I was drunkstaggering like an idiot.
Point being: it's a nice easy lens to use. And visually very similar to a faster lens.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0057593-y600px.jpg, 96KiB, 400x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Sat 12 Dec 2015 14:19:28 No.2720159 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 17:10:39 No.2720225 Report

Quoted By: >>2720242

>>2719996
That's the one I got off amazon actually. Oh well, I like it a lot, not complaining, just feel retarded. And it's not like it was heavily used, only 75 actuations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 17:27:58 No.2720242 Report

Quoted By:

>>2720225
Stop worrying about nonsense! Just go out and take your beautiful photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 13 Dec 2015 04:37:21 No.2720614 Report

Quoted By: >>2721300

>>2720143
Any recommendations for a 28mm or a 85mm manual K-mount lens? It'll be used on a Pentax film SLR. I already own the SMC Pentax-A 1.7 50mm and love it to bits, just need some more variety

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _A002403-y600px-1.jpg, 75KiB, 900x600

!!Me2iIexFVez Mon 14 Dec 2015 03:09:11 No.2721300 Report

Quoted By: >>2721301

>>2720614
I have M and A series 28mm/2.8, basically the same, so if your body supports it get an A series.
Not a bad lens. I used mine a lot on film, particularly with flash because small, hyperfocal, and easy.

The only 85mm I own is a Carl Zeiss 85mm F1.4 Planar ZK T*
It's nice, but being a cinema-style lens it's a little stiffer to focus than what I like, and to be honest I'd prefer to use my Pentax FA 100mm/2.8 macro, but mostly just becasue it's more versatile.
One thing I dislike about the zeiss is it's minimum focus distance is almost exactly the same distance as where you might want to shoot a portrait shot... so it could conceivably be called a design flaw if you like getting close for headshots.
I'd gladly sell you any of the above lenses. They are good, I just don't use them enough to warrant keeping them.

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Mon 14 Dec 2015 03:11:18 No.2721301 Report

Quoted By:

>>2721300
>good
or fucking excellent if cinema-85mm/1.4 is your thing
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/carl-zeiss-85mm-f1-4-planar-zk-t.html

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Pentax