htarragon

<p>A gloomy and cold day with rain and ice.<br> Clouds on the ground</p><div></div>

<p>Too late, I just got a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, so I'm covered. either way.</p>

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

<p>Number 3</p><div></div>

<p>Number 2</p><div></div>

<p>Doug, we're getting ready for snow and sleet tomorrow, so your pictures are a welcome sight. My photos are of about 10 minutes of a changeable and very cold day last week with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and new Tamron 50-200 f/2.8, which is a beast of a lens, in size and weight.<br> Number 1</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>In the immortal word of Charlie Brown "AAAAAUUUUUGH!"</p>

<p>Andy, now I'm in trouble. I WANT THIS LENS! and it's all your fault.</p>

<p>I see it now , the discontinued, but available on e-bay, FA*. Takes gorgeous pictures (as seen on a forum).</p>

<p>Andy, you're safe, the $4000 lens is not available in Pentax mount. The newly available hood for the lens is $339. The Sigma 85 1.4 is $969 so you save about $3000 - now that's a bargain! By the way, what Pentax 85 1.4 are you talking about?</p>

<p>This and the follow on link explains it but yes the 85mm has a shallower depth of field.<br> <a href="http://neilvn.com/tangents/?s=50mm+vs+85mm">http://neilvn.com/tangents/?s=50mm+vs+85mm</a></p>

<p>It will probably depend on the distance between you and the subject and the subject and the background.</p>

<p>Scott, you're right, especially the guy, even though he's not as bright as the cab (for me, anyway). I was pretty far away, so they're not nearly blurry enough. If I had been as close as Neil vanNiekirk in the link above, they would have just been a blur. I'll have to keep that in mind.</p>

<p>Here's Neil van Niekirk's take on 85mm 1.4s:<br> <a href="http://neilvn.com/tangents/85mm-best-lens-change-portrait-photography/#more-18260">http://neilvn.com/tangents/85mm-best-lens-change-portrait-photography/#more-18260</a></p> <p>If you order from B &H or Adorama, you can use it for a couple of days, then return, but you may want to be ready to say "I gotta have it!"</p>

<p>Yes, the bokeh is very nice, but none of the subjects are actually in sharp focus. The lens comes labeled as Rokinon, Bower or Vivitar. I suppose I could take a trip to B&H or Adorama and see if AF makes a real difference. One would hope so at about 4x the price. </p>

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

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

<p>Here are 3 examples taken at 1.4 with the Rokinon (manually focused):</p><div></div>

<p>I have the Rokinon 85 1.4 Manual focus for Pentax. I am constantly wishing for AF when I open it up because nailing focus is really difficult. The bokeh is quite nice, though. I also have a Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro which can nail focus but it's not actually great for portraits, since it picks up detail really well.<br> In my opinion, a 1.4 is going to be very disappointing at basketball games because you're going to miss focus most of the time on a moving subject with a DoF of just under 12 inches if you're 20 feet away. Maybe not with good AF. Might be a lot easier to up your ISO and have a decent DoF. See if you can rent the Pentax 1.4. Let us know if you do.</p>

<p>My 70-160 has a wobble betwwun between the variable macro sction and the main body of the lens. Also the aperture blades are not closing past f/11. Can I get this lens repaired? It's much less expensive than the similar Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 SDM AF!</p>

<p>Doug - Thanks for kicking these POTWs off each week. Some of us have gotten lazy. Your first two look surreal - I like them. That bird is very ambitious.<br> Harry - the subtle colors on the tree in #1 make it for me.<br> Matt - the first two shots don't quite look like this planet, which, as a sci-fi fan, interests me.<br> Rick - My first photo is the black & white tree with the hazy sun, but I'm glad you like "Birdfeeder 1"<br> Yury - I like your last one.</p>

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

<p>Bird feeder 3</p>

<p>Bird feeder 2</p><div></div>