My hiking and travel combo

Pentax DA16-45 plus Tamron 70-300/4-5.6! The combination is reasonable light, and it provides a wide range of focal length plus the capability of macro shot. I use this 2 lens in most hikings and travel.

And I just go for a short hike with my 5-years old son today.

by DA16-45/4


by DA16-45/4


by Tamron 70-300/4-5.6


by Pentax 16-45/4

#10K, 20K and 30K photos

My istD is more than 2 years old, and has been clicked for more than 30,000 times. Dropped for once (with the neck-strip holder bended), shoted in small rains for a few times... and it's still going very well.

Here is the number 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 photos from my istD. Surprisingly, they are all shoted with DA16-45.

#10,000


#20,000


#30,000

Hoya and Pentax merge!

Hoya and Pentax just annouced their merger.

I havn't go into the details of the merger, but I do believe the Pentax brand name will be continued for the cameras and lens. If this will be the case, it's definitely a good news for Pentax (camera) users, because that means the production capacity of Pentax cameras and lens can be increased if needed, and it should be easlier to buy new Pentax lens. The R&D for new lens can be speed up too, if there is sufficient demand.

To the lease, we Pentax userrs no need to worry whether Pentax will bankrupted in near future, and we can continue to buy the K mount cameras and lens for many years, whatever the brand name will be.

My worry is, neither Pentax nor Hoya has do a good job in consumer electronic market. They may not be able to play a good game in the marketing of Pentax (or Hoya-Pentax) cameras / lens, and the K-mount system might continue to decline...

Let's cross our finger about this merger.

More samples shots with Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD

Both photos taken with istD, in jpeg mode. Slight unsharp mask was applied.

I am always positive with this lens, and I keep thinking so.

At macro range, the lens is less sharp at f/8 or larger apeature. So I have to use flash, which is not a big problem for me cause I only use this lens to take macro shots of fast moving inserts - flash is the way of life for these photos. For stationary subjects, I still prefer my 105 macro lens.

The bird shot here also proof the lens has a very nice color.

RAW convertor programs - Pentax Lab 3 vs Photoshop CS

I don't shot much RAW files, so I really don't pay much attentions to the RAW convertor program. I only tried a few programs: Pentax Lab 2 and 3, Photoshop CS, and Pixmantic Rawshooter. The CS's color is too cool (when compare to the jpeg shots from the same scene), and Rawshooter is too sharp and shown jizsaw edges in some occasions. So I just keep using the Pentax program in the pass.

However, a friend using Pentax complained the Pentax Lab 3 sucks and loss a lot of details. In that comparision, he compared it with Silkpix, but un-sharpen mask was applied when he use the Silkpix program. So that is not a good comparision.

I don't have Silkpix, so I just do a quick test Against Photoshop CS. Below is the 100% crop of a screen shot, side by side comparsion:

Camera: Pentax istD
Lens: Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG macro
Camera setting: all parameters set to "0"
RAW conversion settings: all use camera setting, ie: no tuning.
*CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE*



I don't find any difference in terms of sharpness. The color, as I experienced before, is that Photoshop gave a cooler color tone, but that's easy to correct in the parameters of Photoshop RAW conversion.

One final note: the image responsed very well to un-sharp mask filter in Photoshop, and does not show much artifices even with aggressive setting. It's very 'processable' in short.

Sigma Macro 105/2.8 EX DG (compare to Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5)

I only tried 15 minutes with this lens, so here are some quick and subjective comments.

All photos shoted with Pentax istD, and converted with Pentax Lab 3.0.

at f/5.6, shot at jpeg.

The color is quite nice, with a present skin tone. At 100% view, this photo is not as sharp as other macro lens. Probably the soft jpeg from istD, or my quick snap action blur the image; but it also possible the characteristic of this lens. No conclusions here.

So how sharp is it at f/11? (shot at RAW)


100% crop:


It's a sharp lens at f/11, but I am sure it is not the best score macro lens in sharpness. I think the Sigma cannot win (if not loss) in sharpness when compare to my Vivitar.


And a quick color comparision Vivitar:

at f/11, shot at RAW.


The color seems very saturated, but the level is not quite right (under). So try to lighten-up a bit:


and Compare with a similar shot by my very old Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 (shot in jpeg):


I find the color of this Sigma quite bright and saturated. The contrast is also a bit higher than my old Vivitar. However, I do prefer my Vivitar as I feel the Vivitar color is more fateful to the scene.

Overall comment: bright, saturated, but over-do color. Sharpness is okay, but can be better. I will not be crazy with this Sigma lens, but it's really the cheapest mid-tele macro in the market, so I won't complain.

If I have the chance, I will try to compare it neck-to-neck with the Pentax DFA-100 (rumor Tokina OEM)

How jpeg compression affects image quality

Especially with the red channel!!

This is a photo originally taken in JPEG. Resized in Photoshop and save-as low compression (quality =9 or 10) JPEG:


Now see how it happens with save-as high compression JPEG (quality =4):


Blow-up the two files to 400%, and directly compare the two file side-by-side (Left: high compression / Right: low compression): Click on the image to enlarge it


You can see how a high compression distroy the details in the red color, and how it introduce artifects to the image.

Sigma 30/1.4 DC

-- Photo taken by istD, with DA21/2.4 --

One of my friend, a long time Pentax advocate, surprised me by his sudden acquisition of 2 Sigma lens. I only have took a few indoor shots with his 30/1.4, and am surprise by it's usable f/1.4 apeature. The lens is very attractive in price (around HK$2,500, parallel imports), has reasonable good image quality, and has a very useful focal length. With the large apeature, you can shot available lighting in almost all situation (yes, even with one single candle light).

Honestly, it makes me itchy. The only drawbacks are: 1) it's relative large size, especially diameter; 2) it's a Sigma.

Carl Zeiss Jana 80/1.8 vs Russian Jupitar 85/2

Both lens are quite famous M42 lens made in the communist countries. A neck-to-neck comparision done a long time ago.

Both lens set at approx. f/8, camera on tripod, RAW, with istD.

Carl Zeiss Jana 80/1.8:


Jupitar 85/2:


It may appear that the color of the CZJ is more saturated, but the real fact is that the photo from Jupitar-9 is slightly brighter than the CZJ:


On a 100% blow-up on screen, I can't find any signaficant difference between the 2 lens:


My conclusion: the 2 lens are very similar at the apeature I tested, and the sharpness cannot compare to that of modern primes.

Bokeh of DA21/3.2 AL

Just 2 sample shots at open apeature:

#1 @f/4:


#2 @f/3.2:


Of course the bokeh cannot compare to the legendary FA77/1.8, but as a wide angle lens, I am very satisify with it. At least it's better than that of my FA*24/2

Flat copy artwork with DA16-45/4 EDAL

I flat copy my son's drawings with a simple off-camera flash set-up and the DA16-45/4 lens. Since I only have 1 flash, I tried a few different setting but still cannot get a totally even illumination over the drawings. Another problem is since the drawing is a with caynons on yellowish drawing paper, the overall contrast is not ideal for photography - ie the d-range on the drawings are less than regular scenes. I adjusted some level and white-point, the overall result is acceptable.

See here for the entire gallery, if you are interested.

Some sample for M 50/1.4

@f/4

@f/8

Well constructed, very smooth focusing mechanism, and good optics, this should be a great portrait lens on digital body. Too bad it don't have have the auto apeature so using it on my istD is not as convenient as the A or FA version. Also note that the overall tone for the M50/1.4 is a bit cooler.

Just post a few samples.

DA16-45/4 EDAL full open

At full open, the lens still give reasonable good picture quality, a usable apeature IMO. I've seen picture from some of the cheap zoom, especially Sxxxx, the picture at max apeature is really terrible.

Metal lens rear cap

Just obatined 3 of this nice looking metal cap at a clearance sales, for HK$20 each. It's not Pentax original, but it is very good fit on the lens. The inside is matted black (not the grey color which shown on the photo), and there is a silver engrave on the outside.

Some people asked if it would scratch the lens mount. No it won't. Afterall, the mount on the camera is also metallic.

Good result with macro filter

This is a high-quality 2-elements macro adaptor producted by Olympus, originally meant for small DC. I used it on my Tokina ATX 80-200/2.8 with very good results.

People sometimes complain they cannot get good result with macro filters, but I think it mainly the results of cheapy single element filter and using of cheap zooms. With a quality filter and quality lens, the result should be good.

However, I really don't recommend using filter as the solution for macro photography. First, you only get a very limited focusing distance with a macro filter, you will always need to move back-and-forth your camera to focus. Second, a quality macro filter is not easy to obtain and ofter quite expensive. I happen to buy my OM macro adaptor with my old OM4040 DC, but I spent HK$650 for it.

PS: I am very sure the OM macro filter is made of 2 (or more) lens elements: I get some dust between the elements.... :(

Pentax F70-200/4-5.6

This is NOT the famous F70-210 version (rumor that the 70-210 has ED elements inside). I saw this F70-200 at a local 2nd hand shop, mistaken it to be the famous, and unfortunately paid my money without further checking. Too bad Pentax gears are too hot in the 2nd hand market and you really have to act fast. You just don't have the time to go back home and google it for a while and go back to the shop the next day - the lens won't be there anymore.

Thou the F70-200/4-5.6 should be the chicken version of the 70-210, it's still not a bad lens. It's not cripsy sharp, and tends to be softer at tele end. However, the sharpness is good enough to give me a decent full screen view, which is somewhat bigger than a 8x12" print. I remember this is a really a cheap zoom, so I think it's good enough. I don't have a detail comparision with my other tele-lens, but I think it's on par with my Tamron 70-300/4-5.6.

Color tone is the best part of this lens. It's a bit warm and very vivid in color, and the skin tone in portrait is just great! It beats the Tamron hands-down in color tone.

Bokeh is a very important aspect in tele-lens. The out-of-focus area of F70-200 is good, at least it don't render the lines into ugly double-lines like the Tamron. Since it is not a large apeature lens, you should not expect the out-of-focus to be creamy - ie. don't expect the bokeh to be excellent.

Pentax is a very strange company that it's F lens are better than the FA lens, especially in the cheap zoom ranges. I am quite sure F70-200 is still better than the dog-tele-zooms in the FA or FAJ range. I have not test the DA50-200 yet, but my gut feel is that the DA will be sharper and higher-contrast than the F version.

Child portrait with DA21/3.2

It's not a very good lens choice for portrait, but the Pentax color doesn't let me down in the skin tone.

Macau Fragments with DA21

It's a family trip, not meant for photography. So I only took 3 lens with me in this short trip: DA21/3.2, DA16-45/4, and M50/1.4.

Besides using the zoom for a few shots, I shot 99% of this trip photos with the DA21/3.2. I never border to change lens, and the nice view is good for snaps, food, family group shot, and children photos. The DA21 makes me forget my other lens - that's my main complain about this lens.

Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD macro

"Butterfly" was the only reason I purchase this lens. But it became my most used long zoom after I get it (well, I don't have much good long zooms).

At that time, I want to get a handy lens for taking butterflies, but Sigma 180 macro was the only reasonable choice for me. The Sigma was not cheap, and it is Sigma. I hesitated for a long time. Until I chatted with a shop manager in a camera shop, he recommended this Tamron because it's cheap, and it can give reasonable result.

So I get it at a little over HK$1,000. It's cheap indeed.

The lens is very plastic, very cheap in construction. It doesn't not give a good displacement turn for focusing, so the Pentax may mis-focus it at long focal length, and it's a pain in the ass to focus manually. At it's price, the image quality is not bad, but don't expect razor sharp image from it.

I don't care all these disadvantages. The lens can focus to 0.95m at macro mode, and it's 1:2 at 300mm. It's the macro function I want from it, and it can deliver.

In use, I seldom zoom all the way-up to 300mm because it's quite soft there. But that's the common problem with cheap long zooms. I can still take butterflies or other inserts very comfortably at 180mm (the shortest focal length allowed at macro mode), or zoom up to a bit over 200mm. The result very not bad if you are do a correct job at Photoshop.

Because of it's versatility, I carry this lens together with my DA16-45/4 for traveling. Not that it's very good (I indeed think the DA 50-200 will be better), only because it's the better long zoom I have on hand.

It's not a Pentax lens, so don't expect it can give you the natural tones legendary for SMC lens. The colors from Tamron is a bit too saturated and high in contrast, but I don't have much complain.