stephen_van_egmond1

... pentax lens:

 

(sorry, I have no idea how to attach two images to a posting)<div></div>

Woops, not attached. Take two.<div></div>

Sorry,

I suppose I should clarify what I meant by "remarkable". Remarkable for what it is, which is essentially a cost center in the prodction of the camera kit. The obvious approach would be to make a lens that makes the owner only barely satisfied with owning the camera, and hungry to upgrade to other lenses. I've found the kit lens to exceed that by a decent margin. Close focusing is great, and the corner performance is (to me) good but not great.

 

I happen to have the kit lens and the Sigma 17-70 here at my office, so I shot a pictre of my desk diorama with both lenses. Attached.

You might try swabbing the terminals on the hot shoe and flash with diluted (say 33%) rubbing alcohol. I've never had to pay attention to what order I assemble things with my 360fgz and *istD.

 

I assume you're locking it down?

Unless you dropped your kit lens, don't bother replacing it. It's remarkably good.

 

My lens buying addiction led me to get a Sigma 17-70. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine lens, and certainly feels nicer than the kit lens, but it's not $350 nicer.

 

Instead, head on down to your local sketchy pawn shop and see if they have any manual primes and have yourself a ball.

 

Otherwise, +1 to the suggestions to pick up a wide or long zoom depending on your interests. I picked up a DA14 as my second lens and it's been fantastic.

Blur, as in motion blur, or blur as in out of focus?

 

Do you have shots, posted on flickr, say? With a look at the EXIF data we might be able to help a bit.

 

For instance, if your ISO is pegged at 200 you would get consistently over-long

Beg, borrow, or rent a Pentax DA14. It's really good, particularly if you're interested in sharpness.

I use NiMH batteries. They're dirt cheap, and don't suffer from many of the annoyances of NiCd. However NiCd will work.

 

I suggest you use them until they stop working, then get rid of them.

I should emphasize also that the first shot (of a vine trunk) was at the widest aperture to give the shallowest DOF, to emphasize what it could do. That blob in the background is a car about 10 meters away. The wall shots were F8, and I forget what the flower shorts were. I think the image files have EXIF data.

Jason, I've gone out in the incredibly grumpy overcast weather to shoot some photos in the parking lot outside my office. It includes same samples at a painted brick wall at a variety of focal lengths, as well as some very close-up work with some flowers (though I seem to have bungled both the exposure and focus). However if you study them you'll probably find much to note.

 

The purple flowers were about 1 inch across, the white ones 1 cm.

 

I converted the RAW files to same-resolution JPG's with Apple's Aperture. No post-shot processing.

 

Ref: http://svan.ca/~svanegmond/sigma-experiments/<div></div>

I just bought a Sigma 17-70 last week, and considering the horrible reputation that Sigma's earlier lenses has, you wouldn't know it from this one. It's well-built. Optically I have no gripes.

 

 

Tell you what: I've been short on photography inspiration, so this is my call for requests for shots. What would you like me to see me image with this 17-70? You mention portrait, landscape, and macro.

I own a Pentax DA14, and it is super zowie wide. Certainly enough to take in any buildings I might be near, and anyhting that is near the enormous front element.

 

It's a virtually flare-proof, well-built lens. I like it.

 

Its uses at a wedding might include wide-angle perspectives on a dance floor or outside-of-building scene, incorportaing architecture and an audience.

 

It would be a lousy, lousy portraint lens. Everyone's nose would be huge!

 

Unless you know why you want a fixed wide-angle, I would suggest you look at lenses that range from (teens) to (70-ish). Sigma makes a 17-70, and Pentax just released their DA* in about the same size.

 

Have to disagree with the advice to get a fisheye. The effect in wedding photography would be corny to say the least.<div></div>

Sorry, I meant to say that (prime) Macro lenses are borderline useless for anything non-macro except maybe portraits.

I have an offer from a friend on (his description) "28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 LD

Aspherical IF Super II Macro" lens by Tamron for Pentax for my istDL.

 

My main use for it is a tourist lens, because right now I'm spending my

retirement on prime lenses and I've discovered to my horror I'd rather just grab

the kit lens in many circumstances. Hmm, maybe I need a better bag...

 

My research suggests this is a regular 28-200 zoom, produces no high art, but is

adequate for tourist/family picnic time. No idea what on earth the "Macro"

designation is doing there, though. I was under the impression until now that

Macro lenses were prime, and tuned focusing for close-quarters and borderline

useless for anything.

 

Philip's one line dismissal of macro zooms - http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/ -

suggests that they are useless as macro lenses, and the designation might as

well not even be there, and this just a plan old (some say venerable) 28-200.