trying out another macro

Well, here's just one comparison between the 'new' Promaster 100mm f//3.5 and my Sigma 50mm f/2.8.  Both are shot around 1:2 closeup, which is the 100mm native max (but comes with a matched closeup lens for 1:1).  Both look quite nice and sharp here at f/4.5; the Sigma is a touch bluer and lower key but other shots did not show this.  Another shot was more of a bokeh torture test and showed the Sigma looks a bit better in that regard - but at double the focal length so many parameters change!  So often in testing a single shot will show things that will not prove repeatable, so one must learn a little then learn to let go of what one wants to believe is "always true".

This Promaster was surprising, as it looks identical to the somewhat-revered Cosina known as the "plastic fantastic".  That lens has reviews in many places, and once again shows that what is "always true" isn't.  The Cosina feels fragile, sounds like a meat grinder when focusing, and cannot be used in manual focus because of the grip/slip nature of turning the ring by hand.

I will let stand the plastic part, as it does feel like a less-durable plastic than most lenses - but like every screw-drive lens I own the AF is a short buzz and MF has less resistance than I'd like.  I posted at pentaxforums and found another owner with the same result.. so something has changed since those Cosina reviews were released, apparently.  I paid more than the average Cosina price too, but given how it exceeds the reviews I'm OK with that.

In any case, a 205-gram 100mm lens that can do 1:2 closeups with no effort sounds good to me!  It could shake up the kit again around 50mm if this knocks the Sigma off its macro perch.  I expect the Sigma is better overall - but one thing that is "always true" is that no macro lens is a bad lens.  That can't always be true can it? :^)  The Tamron 90 is an excellent lens but at 400+ grams it stayed home too often; at about half the weight for similar results, the Promaster can stick around a while.

OK maybe just one more.

I need to step away from the computer for a while and take some photos.  I just perused the auction site in search of a 100mm± prime lens at a budget price.  That would mean manual focus and exposure, at best an f/4 macro type but not likely.  Hmmm, the notorious 'plastic fantastic' 100mm f/3.5 macro is up for a slight surcharge.  Manufactured by Cosina but sold under many labels, it's known as a cheap-feeling loud-focusing lens that is optically incredible.  Loud focusing but auto not manual - if it's too loud just go into MF mode!  It also has electronic aperture (the 'A' setting in Pentax-speak), an unexpected touch.  So it's on its way, and I really must stop now.

One of many reviews are at the Minolta/dyxum site - and here's one from photozone; scroll right to the bottom and see mechanical / optical / value ratings.  Ugly to look at, a joy to look through.  Enough said!

But hey, didn't I sell off a 90mm Tamron macro a few months ago in favor of the 50mm Sigma? 
While on the surface (and maybe even deeper?) that makes little sense I think it's reasonable; the Tamron was dense and large, and at over 400g was the sort of bulk I often choose to leave behind.  The Cosina (this one's a Promaster actually) may use ugly plastic but at 210g it's absurdly light - so light that I could take the SMC-M 50mm f/2 and this lens for less mass than the Sigma alone.  We'll see in a while if another kit-busting move is in the making; I don't think so just yet, but I seldom see it in advance!

trying again

About a year and a half ago, I wrote this about the Pentax DA18-135WR lens, which was supposed to be my best answer to the kit-lens replacement conundrum.  I had tried replacing the kit with several different lenses (DA16-45 and Sigmas 17-70 18-200 and 18-50 f/2.8-4.5) but this one had the best feature set of them all.

The DA18-135 was pretty new at the time, and I got mine via a swap.. which meant that I had no receipt on which to rely if the lens had issues.  It did: I could not bear to look at the results beyond about 70mm.  I let it go to another owner instead of making Pentax aware of it, and let my frustration be known; nearly every reply told me that lens was a bad copy that should have been sent off for inspection.  A couple of reviews online were not favorable, with flaws similar to what I found - but most reports are that it beats the 18-55 in its range plus does well at longer FLs as well.  I have felt bad ever since about not getting it repaired, since it was too new to be beyond any sort of warranty.  Too late.

Even with my bad experience, the features remain tantalizing.  If you need WR you are best served by not switching lenses, even from one WR to another.  And the silent focusing of the DC motor pairs well with the K-7 and K-5 with their soft shutter sound.  So once again, the 18-135 sounds like an ideal lens!

So I'm trying again, having won a bid on a copy removed from someone's new K30 kit.  (Guess the seller has the coveted 16-50 and 50-135 DA*, or something else to make this surplus to his/her needs.)  I sure hope this one meets my standards, but if not I will send it in to be inspected regardless of any proof of purchase.  I would love to wander with this lens and either the DA55-300 or the SMC-M 200/4 for longer work, and my two Sigmas (15mm fisheye and 50mm macro) available off the bench.

Update - this is undoubtedly a better copy of the 18-135.  Sharpness is decent, but more important is the lesser degree of color fringing at telephoto focal lengths.  Yes I can make it look bad if I try and if I look hard, but that's nothing compared to the old copy.  This of course shakes up the kit again - off with the 18-55WR and whatever else can bring in spare funds.

camping at last

 After nearly three years without any practice, my first trailer-camp required backing up between two thick trees and up a 20-degree slope.. and oh yes it was pitch dark, not counting the many nice relatives who illuminated our site and called out warnings or encouragement as I struggled to regain old habits. 

We hung out in the bug-free woods for three days.  I brought two cameras to play with: the K-5 and a fine red Lumix GF2.  While its primary purpose is its AF video more than raw-image stills, it wandered the camps with me nearly as often as the K-5.  In fact the K-5 sulked a bit - not exactly that, but it showed signs of a K-5 battery trait that is fairly well documented.  The mirror mechanism fired twice for several shots when using a freshly-charged battery, and as the battery is used the issue 'always' resolves - and my camera ran true to form.  The GF2 had just its 14-42 kit (28-84 equivalent) while the K-5 used 15 (fisheye), 28 and 50mm (macro) lenses (22, 42 and 75mm equivalent).  All had their uses, and for the family photo I went old-school with the 28mm Rikenon.  This old manual lens is a sharp one, and I captured the bunch of us very well.  Sadly my wife was ill through all of Saturday, so the trip had rather strong ups and downs.  But despite the health problems we did it!