First outing with the 55-300mm :)

I do tend to use filters, but purely to protect the lens element and the filter threads. Some lenses seem to tolerate filters better than others and I have found the 55-300 to be very picky in this regard. I cannot get it to focus at all with a circular polariser and although it focusses fine with a UV filter, the images are a tad softer than without a filter. The 55-300 is capable of taking very sharp images if used correctly. It also benefits from being stopped down to around 6.3 or 7.1.

Compare this with the 16-45, and this lens doesn't seem to suffer noticeably when used with a filter, either polariser or UV.

Regards
David

I bought a second-hand DA55-300, in virtually new condition, earlier this year from another PUF member. To check it I put a few test objects (magazine pages, etc) on my garden wall and moved the camera (on a tripod) back and forth so that the same image area filled the frame at the different zoom lengths.

This particular lens autofocussed accurately, and the results at all settings were very good. However, when examined at 100%, the sharpness was noticeably "off" at the extremes of zoom and at max aperture. This is exactly what one expects of most lenses; the surprise is that the differences are relatively little with the DA55-300. Between 230 and 300 mm, and even at 55 mm, the sharpness is detectably inferior to the mid-range settings. Also, the sharpness at f/8 is always better than at maximum aperture, though the difference is not great in the mid-zoom range.

JAK has made several comments on the difficulties of avoiding blurring by camera shake at telephoto settings. His earlier photo, cropped from an image of the Queen Mary 2 off Scarborough, is as much a testimony to his personal ability to keep a long lens steady as it is to the quality of this lens!

Martin