Lens Stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.

ApertureF11Sniper

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jan 20, 2023
Messages
232
Reaction score
177
Location
Washington State
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Sorry for such a technical thread title.......I am looking at adding a couple of lenses. I rarely shoot at 2.8 so that will not be a factor in my choice of lenses. I am looking at getting the Pentax DA 18 to 135mm and the Tameron SP AF 90mm 2,8 Macro 1:1 lens.........I want a good macro lens

I am also looking at getting the Pentax K Mark 2 Full Frame......If you shoot regular lenses with a full frame camera what do you run into? I noticed there are specific lenses for full frame........

My associate who shoots for National Geographic told me that a full frame will pretty much eliminate the need for a tripod as you can shoot at such a high ISO with no noise.
 
Sorry for such a technical thread title.......I am looking at adding a couple of lenses. I rarely shoot at 2.8 so that will not be a factor in my choice of lenses. I am looking at getting the Pentax DA 18 to 135mm and the Tameron SP AF 90mm 2,8 Macro 1:1 lens.........I want a good macro lens

I am also looking at getting the Pentax K Mark 2 Full Frame......If you shoot regular lenses with a full frame camera what do you run into? I noticed there are specific lenses for full frame........

My associate who shoots for National Geographic told me that a full frame will pretty much eliminate the need for a tripod as you can shoot at such a high ISO with no noise.
Most manufacturers make lenses for ASP-C (crop) and full-frame cameras. Check this:
 
My K3II and the DA 18-135 hardly ever gets changed. It's an excellent, light weight, walk around combo.

Over the years I've accumulated a lot of APS-C glass, which I use on my K1MII frequently. The only issue I've had is you sometimes get vignetting at wide open apertures, especially on a fast lens. The solution is to either switch to crop mode on the K1 or stop down. I prefer to do the latter.
 
Footnote to the above. The K1MII body is heavy, carry it very far and you'll know it. Put the f2.8/70-200 on it and it feels like your lugging an elephant. Because of that the K1 is mostly used in studio with primes. My go to choice in studio are the f2.8/35mm, f1.4 50mm, f1.8 77mm, f1.8 135mm. It's not an overly expensive lens but the full frame HD 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 is a solid performer in the f5.6-8 range
 
Sorry for such a technical thread title.......I am looking at adding a couple of lenses. I rarely shoot at 2.8 so that will not be a factor in my choice of lenses. I am looking at getting the Pentax DA 18 to 135mm and the Tameron SP AF 90mm 2,8 Macro 1:1 lens.........I want a good macro lens

I am also looking at getting the Pentax K Mark 2 Full Frame......If you shoot regular lenses with a full frame camera what do you run into? I noticed there are specific lenses for full frame........

My associate who shoots for National Geographic told me that a full frame will pretty much eliminate the need for a tripod as you can shoot at such a high ISO with no noise.
Your national geographic friend obviously has a limited range of subject types. I often want to make use of slow shutter speeds, ISO has no relevance on that. Tripods can be a great benefit when shooting wildlife too, you might have long periods waiting with a heavy telephoto. If it's on a tripod you camera can be aimed at the nest/den & all ready for when the subject briefly pops into view.

I rarely shoot at f/2.8, but have been known to shoot at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7, f2 etc - there are times when shallow DOF can be useful.

Over most of the last 50 years FF would be classed as 'regular', certainly it was the most common format in the 60's, to 90's. These lenses work fine on my FF body (though some are overly soft or poor performers in other ways). Going back further to when 35mm was first introduced for stills, it was considered a miniature format.
Some of my APSC lenses also work fine on FF, but it's not uncommon to have dark corners for these as the lenses are not intended to cover a FF sensor.
FWIW I use many of my FF lenses on crop bodies. There's no real disadvantage to doing this other than a heavier camera bag.

If you are intending to go FF that's worth considering carefully before building up you crop lens selection. I'd expect the lower third of the focal length range on the 18-135 to vignette so badly on FF that you just won't use it.
 
Your national geographic friend obviously has a limited range of subject types. I often want to make use of slow shutter speeds, ISO has no relevance on that. Tripods can be a great benefit when shooting wildlife too, you might have long periods waiting with a heavy telephoto. If it's on a tripod you camera can be aimed at the nest/den & all ready for when the subject briefly pops into view.

I rarely shoot at f/2.8, but have been known to shoot at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7, f2 etc - there are times when shallow DOF can be useful.

Over most of the last 50 years FF would be classed as 'regular', certainly it was the most common format in the 60's, to 90's. These lenses work fine on my FF body (though some are overly soft or poor performers in other ways). Going back further to when 35mm was first introduced for stills, it was considered a miniature format.
Some of my APSC lenses also work fine on FF, but it's not uncommon to have dark corners for these as the lenses are not intended to cover a FF sensor.
FWIW I use many of my FF lenses on crop bodies. There's no real disadvantage to doing this other than a heavier camera bag.

If you are intending to go FF that's worth considering carefully before building up you crop lens selection. I'd expect the lower third of the focal length range on the 18-135 to vignette so badly on FF that you just won't use it.

A) So your saying my associate a well established photographer who's shot all over the world published in National Geographic and Mens Journal does not know what he's talking about B) and your saying that ISO has no relevance when taking a picture?.......
 
He said you can shoot at ISO 6,400 with virtually no noise......For MOST photographers it's not often your shooting at a slow shutter speed, I can't imagine shooting wildlife at a slow shutter speed. But then I'm not a wildlife photographer......... I'm sure there's a context Steve was speaking in and for most shooting it would in fact eliminate the need for a tripod but he did not say it absolutely eliminated the need for a tripod.....
 
I rarely shoot at f/2.8, but have been known to shoot at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.7, f2 etc - there are times when shallow DOF can be useful.
Absolutely......I rarely shoot at 2.8 but it has it's application and is nice to have.
 
A) So your saying my associate a well established photographer who's shot all over the world published in National Geographic and Mens Journal does not know what he's talking about B) and your saying that ISO has no relevance when taking a picture?.......
No, what he is saying is that one style of shooting or one set of equipment is not appropriate for every scenario. wildlife photography often needs a very different set of skills and equipment than portrait photography or macro photography. ISO does matter, but often only at the more extreme ends with modern cameras and fast lenses. as for a tripod, it depends on what you are shooting, how long you need to wait with the camera aimed at a single spot, and how mobile your subject is. But ISO is also pretty easy to check. pick something to photograph and see how high you can go before you start disliking the results. since portrait photography is my scene, external lighting usually negates the need for me to go over my camera's native ISO 100, but that doesnt mean I dont want the ability to shoot at higher ISO levels if I should find I need to for some reason. it also means that for me, tripods, while not absolutely necessary, are used most of the time during shoots. you didnt mention in this thread what your subject material is for photographing so its hard to give specific advice on equipment.

I shoot fuji now so full-frame lenses are not an option, but my 18-135 is often my "go-to" lens since I'm usually stopping down to at least f4 to f5.6 anyway for the DoF.
 
I like to shoot at F11 or F8 but it's not always possible.....With a Full Frame, for me, it would be possible in just about every situation except shooting waterfalls and maybe at night..... I have not done much with long exposures but I would like to do more this year.
 
I suspect that you might have taken your friend's comment out of context. As Pixmedic noted style, scenarios, exposure, equipment, etc. change requiring adjustments to be made.

Not all cameras are created equally when it comes to handling noise in high ISO. I routinely shoot at elevated ISO levels and frankly the K3II I feel handles it better than the K1MII despite its native ISO 819,200. Check out my Avatar image, this is a very extreme crop from a laser light show projected onto the face of Stone Mountain in GA. It was hand held, f/3,.5, 1/60, ISO 25,600. Blow it up, in the background you can see the bias relief carvings in the mountain. With the 5 axis stabilization in both k3II/K1 and controlled breathing I can hand hold to 1/30th.

Where most go wrong on high ISO images is to not get a good exposure in camera, they'll underdexpose thinking they can boost it post. I know I can go to where my blinkies start and not blow the whites. Thats a full data file, with the minimum noise for the ISO.

As to apertures there are no favorites, I use what's needed for the DOF required, and to balance the exposure triangle. In my experience most glass loses sharpness as you get closer to either end of its limit. Sometimes it becomes a trade off considering the other points of the triangle.
 
Where most go wrong on high ISO images is to not get a good exposure in camera, they'll underdexpose thinking they can boost it post. I know I can go to where my blinkies start and not blow the whites. Thats a full data file, with the minimum noise for the ISO.
I always shoot 1 stop under as I was taught you can always add light but blow it out and your done, the reverse for film......I do not do much editing to my images. Shoot a good image. I edit with photoshop Elements #4 which is laughable but it does everything I need...... My aforementioned associate who shoots for Nat. Geo has been after me to get Lightroom but I do not know the program at all and the advantages have not been explained in any detail.
 
I always shoot 1 stop under as I was taught you can always add light but blow it out and your done,
This is another one of those statements that requires context. Yes it's true if you blow out the highlights, you can't recover, but there's another side to story, especially when you go above base ISO.

In digital photography there are three types of noise - Fixed pattern, Random, and banding. This will explain in more detail Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types When you bump the ISO on a digital camera, you aren't changing out the sensor, you're bumping the gain or amplifying the signal. Each pixel on your sensor is recording the light reflected from your scene. When you increase ISO, you make the sensor more sensitive to the light by amplifying the signal, but the trade off is increased noise.

The problem with applying gain post is that any gain you apply will affect not only the image but the noise already in the image. Think of it like a radio station on low with static. You increase the volume, you hear the program, but the static increases also. That's why it's important to fully expose your file when shooting higher ISO speeds. I'm not a believer in underexposing a digital image then trying to boost in post. Even with a base ISO you still increase noise visibility. I know from experience that with either of my cameras I can raise the exposure until the blinkies start to flash, and the line just starts up the right hand side without blowing highlights.
 
It is important to consider the input of others so I will try to digest this. What is blinkies that you refer to?
 
It is important to consider the input of others so I will try to digest this. What is blinkies that you refer to?
Blinkies” is photography slang for the blinking, overexposed areas on your preview on the camera display. Most cameras have this feature turned on by default, but if you don’t see them, dive into the menu to turn it on. On Canon cameras, this feature is called “Highlight alert.” On my Pentax cameras, when I just start to see them, I know I have a 1/2 stop left before I blow the brightest highlights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top