K3 Lens reommendation.

At the moment my camera and lenses that I use are K3 with 18-55mm kit lens and 18-135mm, and 55-300mm lenses. Whilst I find the results of these reasonably sharp I feel that they do not compare with what I see of pictures from Olympus lenses. Can anyone recommend a Pentax lens which will give me the cuttingly sharp results I seek and which does not cost the earth. I am drawn towards either the 50mm macro lens or the 100mm macro lens. Would either of these produce the results I seek.?

Hi Dennis

It really depends what you want to use the lens for. If it is for macro work then I would highly recommend the Pentax 100mm F2.8 WR Macro, but I would not recommend this or the 50mm macro for general use, they are not really suitable.

For general use I would recommend upgrading from the kit lens to a better zoom, like the Pentax DA 17-70 for example. This is a very sharp zoom and is a big step up from the kit lens, here's a couple of landscape examples taken with it, both with the K-5IIs:







I'm not sure why you can't get sharp enough images from the 55-300, this is a sharp lens if calibrated properly to the camera and I wouldn't really recommend changing it unless you spend a lot more money, or go to a prime telephoto instead, in which case you would lose the flexibility.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards
David

To be brutally honest, I would look at my own technique first. You should be able to produce bitingly sharp images anyway. It is a bit vague though, and if you want the sharpest images then ultimately the prime lenses may have the edge.

Couple these with the K-5 IIs or the K-3 and you will have images as sharp as you can cope with.

..and look at the processing too.

'Cuttingly sharp' for me occurs with a combination of lens, camera technique, and developing techniques.

Some sample images would help a lot to discern where the issues might be

Matt

Have you taken any images with the lenses you currently own using the K3 on a tripod? You will then be able to see if this improves image sharpness and clarify if you could improve your technique?

With regard to a sharp lens, the sigma 35 art lens is the sharpest lens I own. However, it is used for specific tasks and just because it's the sharpest, it does not make it the best lens to use every time I take a photograph.

A good starting point might be to tell people what focal lengths you like, together with the things you want to photograph, people may then be able to offer suggestions lens wise.

I have a plethora of lenses, some of them for example my Pentax A 50mm f/1.2 stopped down to around f/5.6, or the DA*50-135 stopped down a bit, and even most of the other old pentax primes at their optimal aperture have an incredible amount of detail resolution( what some might be confusing with sharpness ). Even my Sigma 17-70 zoom continues to amaze for it's detail give it's price range.

But bear in mind that unless you are planning on printing your images at a large size or you have a ridiculously high resolution computer monitor that resolution is lost by the limits on pixel size. A 1600x1200 monitor is only 2 mega pixel.

Sharpening is largely done in post processing. The lenses you already have are more than good enough to give you a paper cut

what are you using to process your images?

If you are willing to experiment with primes, a safe start would be the DA 35mm f2.4 and the DA 50mm f1.8. These are outrageously cheap, built to a budget for sure, but with excellent glass they do outperform my 18-55, 18-135, and 55-300. If you enjoy the primes, there are the DA and FA Limited lenses which you can move on to.

The zoom which most impressed me for sharpness among other things was Pentax's DA 12-24 - that's if you are into wide angle photography.

I can't comment on any of the * lenses because I can't afford these, but for a good zoom lens I am tempted by the 17-70; even if slightly put off by problems with the sdm focus motor of earlier ones. David's photos are very persuasive but I suspect he is capable of taking the finest of photographs through the bottom of a bottle.

So much for lenses. What did make the most significant difference in my own experience was calibrating focus (or using live view), keeping the aperture between f5.0 and f11 when appropriate, keeping iso below 800 and of course using every means possible to keep the camera steady, not forgetting to switch shake reduction OFF when on a tripod.

These comments, however, are just based on my own experience which is strictly as a hobbyist, and using a K-5.

Just notices Smeggy's comments after I wrote this - he usually offers wise and unbiased counsel.

You might try something like an A50/1.7 which should be cheap and produces superlative images. Or any of the 50s really.

That should dispel any doubts about whether it is lens or technique causing current dissatisfaction, and the lens is worth having in its own right.

Ah, I see you're in Hemel. You can come and try some of my glass if you like

Many thanks to everyone who answered. It has given me a lot to think about. To David I am tempted by the 17-70mm as it wont break the bank. To GWING thanks for your offer to allow me to try some of you lenses if we can arrange a time. Where are you in the Chilterns ?. I am going to try to attach a couple of pics to this comment taken with the 18-135 lens, if I can find out how to attach.

It's difficult to check at such small image sizes. At these screen resolutions the images look very sharp.

BUT, I can see that the EXIF data was:
1 - 24mm, ISO800, f/11, 1/1000s
2 - 21mm, ISO3200 , f/5.6, 1/3200s

Both of these images could easily have been taken at a MUCH lower ISO - and this would have increased quality and perceived sharpness.

Not sure what Auto-ISO range you have set - or whether you have overridden the ISO - but I would certainly start by aiming for lower ISO. Generally work towards the shutter speed faster than 1/focal-length. (e.g. faster than 1/25 or 1/20 in these shots. A good rule of thumb would be between 1/60 and 1/200s - covering the range of your 18-135 without introducing shake)


A local Pentaxian would be a good start

Matt

I agree with MattMatic, keep the ISO as low as you possibly can whilst avoiding camera shake. Higher ISO's result in loss of usable resolution, the difference between ISO 400 and 3200 will be significant.

Regards
David

If you have the $$, the DA* are great lenses. I have the DA*16-50/2.8 since 2008 and it is my default "kit" lens. The next lens is the DA*50-135/2.8 which is to compliment the 16-50. Great combo.

Both the DA* lenses are now running on screw drive as a friend has help to disable the SDM. Runs faster too.

Also agree with Matt, your ISO is far too high ... you could use a much slower shutter speed to lower it which would sharpen up your pictures nicely (although they look fine at the displayed resolution anyway).

The 17-70mm is a fine lens and would be a worthwhile upgrade over the kit lens anyway but I would check your settings before splashing the cash on new equipment.

I'm just down the road at Chesham so not very far at all. Time's always going to be the problem but I think you have a Saturday market in Hemel don't you? If so and the weather is decent I could come over this weekend and put it down as 'shopping time' Weekends after that get difficult but I could come back home via Hemel one evening after work.

Watch out for in-camera jpg noise reduction, there's always a trade off between noise and sharpness especially at high ISO.

I've got a Sigma 17-70 (old type), Sigma 17-50/2.8 HSM, Pentax 35/2.4, Pentax A50/1.7, Pentax K55/1.8 , Tamron 70-200/2.8 as my best lenses. They're all sharp when used properly in real-world situations, but the sharpest one is the oldest, the K55/1.8 - must be all that lead and radioactive stuff they used to put into glass. It's not really sharpness though, it's micro detail in similar blends of colours that impress.

I've used Olympus cameras a few years back and their strengths are in the jpg engine I would say - better than anyone else's.