ricardo_tomasi

I know the DA lens are not designed for use on a film body, but after reading dozens of comments of "I wonder how..." I decided to try it myself. Having an ultra-cheap 18mm is very appealing, and as I thought I'd be shooting at f3.5-5.6 it would be very useable. Guess I skipped some basic lessons...

A question keeps hammering on my head: how does the poor K1000 predicts the aperture!? If the aperture lever running distance is related to the aperture values, could I block it half-way to use a wider aperture? :)

Anyway, even at f22 it might be useful, as I don't have any really wide lenses for film. The downside is that the distortion is really horrible, and the perspective changes are really weird as you point the lens around. Same with the 50-200, where you can actually see the pincushion effect bending everything at the long end.

Thanks for helping!

Hi,

Just went through a dozen shots with the DA 18-55 and SA 50-200 on a K1000 body,

using ISO 100 slide. After some shots I noticed that something was off. Having

no aperture ring, the lens is always wide open (3.5-5.6), but despite this, I

had to use shutter speeds as low as 1/30 in bright sunlight to get the camera

metering right.

After I got home, I checked with a M lens at f/4. When using the digital lenses,

at the equivalent aperture, the in-camera meter acts like there is up to 6 stops

less light.

Any thoughts on what's going on? Should I aim for the correct exposure as the

meter is telling me, or should I use exposure settings based on a manual lens?

Which will be the correct exposure?

I don't know anything about the inner workings of the K1000, but maybe the light

sensor is located outside of the image circle, where the DA lens can't reach?

I'd appreciate any suggestions, thanks.

I quit buying the Tamron 70-300 right after handling it for the first time and taking some test shots in-store. Horrible purple fringing even on normal indoor lighting, wild focus hunting and very soft. Later I bought a SA 50-200 on sale and I'm very happy with it, even 60% crops are very useable.

I've read positive reviews for the Sigma APO, but if it's as large as the Tamron and as slow focusing, I'd go for the DA. You won't miss the extra reach unless you shoot birds, air shows or field sports - not that the lens would be good for the latter, it's very hard to hand-hold steadily at 450mm, and the small aperture won't give you a fast shutter on most situations.

What I reported is looking at a flat light-colored wall. There is some noticeable darkening in the corners, but that happens on APS-C aswell.

I'm hoping to experiment with it (and the 18-55) on the K1000 during this week, we'll see how it goes. I'm surprised no one has done this yet.

I might be going against the flow here, but I really liked #3. For me, photography is all about meaning. I like the way she is lost in all those hands and staring at the camera, she is in some way detached from what's happening around her.

The other shots look quite "standard" and don't convey any feeling for me. If you really want to use them, I'd go for either a more "punchy" look or a de-saturated one, they look a bit uninteresting, missing some texture, detail or ambience. Try to get lower when shooting too - you don't want to get down all the time, but a lower view would be nice on these other 3 pics.

When I mount my 50-200 on my K1000, I can't see any more vignetting than when it's mounted on the K100/10.

Can I judge this by looking at the viewfinder or am I missing something?

How can you say it is a "pointless" waste of time if you haven't ever used one of the lens on a SDM capable body? So far, focusing speed similar to N/C in-lens motor have been reported. And there are many thousands of photographers out there that don't do action shots and the weather sealing is a much more welcome feature. Either way you are just being gritty.

As for the "reach gain" in using a 1.5x crop camera, you seem to be losing the point. The "central" image is the same because the focal length is the same, that is, the _perspective_ is the same. But the _field of view_ will be cropped by 1.5x on the DSLR. Both images will end up being printed the same size, so that is in effect a gain in reach, exactly the same as using a TC.

Sorry, we're way out of topic here, but I couldn't help it :)