Succumbed to LBA

[htarragon]

<p>Since I'm still kicking myself for not purchasing the Pentax 18-270 a few years ago or the Tamron version, I've had itches to buy new lenses. In May, I bought a Pentax 55-300 and a Tamron 10-24, and I'm glad I did. The 55-300 is rarely off my camera and the 10-24 is a lot of fun. I just received my third lens, a Rokinon 85mm 1.4.<br /> I played with it briefly and then said to myself, Oh no, I've got a 90mm f/2.8 macro, did I really need this lens (especially since I bought the 90mm for dual duty - macro and portrait)? So I did a test with my 55-300 f/4, my 90mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 on my K10D. The results were thus:<br /> 55-300 @63mm f/4 (max aperture) 1/20th of a sec<br /> 90mm f/3 (2.8 max aperture) 1/30th<br /> 85mm f/1.4 (max aperture) 1/125<br>

<br /> So I've gained 2-2½ stops and much better bokeh. The lens sits like a stone in my left hand, balancing quite nicely on the K10D. Handholding shots will actually be easier because of the weight.<br>

I'm a happy camper.<br>

<br /> Here are the shots -sorry for the tungsten color cast:</p>

<p>Pentax DA 55-300@63mm f/4 1/20</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>Tamron SP 90mm macro f/3 (2.8 max aperture) 1/30th</p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 (max aperture) 1/125</p><div></div>

[ukhov]

<p>-look like Rokinon is very good addition to what may call LBA<br>

-say macro pic a bit larger should be ,but not match in the scale to compare?! Any way -congrats on the new glass!<br>

Truly yours , Yury!</p>

[hagar]

<p>Howard, are these tripod mounted? <br>

The Tamron is the sharpest of the lot in these photos.</p>

[hinman]

<p>I can see sharper reflections on the big spoon on right in the Tamron shot. Rokinon is still an inexpensive fast lens to get. But I truly miss the Tamron 90 that I had before. Both the tamron and Rokinon will serve you well. </p>

[htarragon]

<p>No tripod, handheld, sitting on a couch. I should try again with tripod and 55-300 @ 85mm. I'll try, tomorrow. Wasn't that a movie? Actually a softer look would be good for portraits rather than the sharp macro.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Thanks Yury and Hin. The way the lens looks on the camera makes me feel more like a photographer than than just someone with a camera. Shouldn't be that way, but I'm getting a kick out of it. Now, to get some portrait SUBJECTS!</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll try, tomorrow. Wasn't that a movie?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sort of --but about a different addiction. I can certainly understand your enthusiasm--those are three very good lenses, each with different strengths and I know you're going to make good use of them.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Howard: these are good examples of those lenses can do , but to me , the tripod would have been better because to my eyes frame one is a touch fuzzy and frame three is a touch fuzzy but two is right on the mark ?<br>

I would have used the 55-300mm at 85mm and 90mm just for fun:<br>

But very good comparison:</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Lauren - I will try that w/ tripod.</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>Shot taken with 55-300 would be better in my opinion.</p>

[snik75]

<p>But if one happens to be shooting hand-held, as you were doing , I can definitely see the advantage of f/1.4. Within its range I suspect the macro will be pretty darn close, though.</p>