Lens shake?

Has the OP tried some shots without the UV filter, yet?

'

Not yet, i'm hoping to take some tomorrow, unfortunately i don't have my tripod here but i'll try using some kind of support.

I'll post the results here.
I'll use no in-camera adjustments at all, shoot RAW, no 'Shake Reduction' and no processing.

Whatever RAW coverter you use, I would recommend taking a close look at all the lens correction options - sometimes there are positive activations by default which may be acting on your image even though you do nothing. A common example of this is ACR sharpening of +25.

May I suggest one thing at a time, otherwise you won't know which change has made the difference? Personally, I'd try it without the UV filter as the first option. If that makes no difference I'd be surprised, but then you could put it on a tripod. those would be my first 2 things.

I will add my voice to the 'DA55-300 hates filters' brigade! It's true, for some reason this particular lens does not take a filter very well at all and the very first thing you should do is get rid of this!

I think you might be surprised about what a difference it makes.

Regards
David

I'm glad you finally turned up, David!!

To all who have advised removal of a filter from the 55-300, big THANK YOUs!

I checked and have only just noticed that there is and always has been one on mine - but no more. All other lenses are filter free and remain so except when using polarising or neutral density filters.

Hopefully this will lead to better images from this, up to now, fickle lens.

I know that conventional wisdom is that we should keep them on to protect the lens glass, but if I remember correctly Ken Gartmore told us a story of how a shattering filter destroyed a fine lens. Also, as a good friend of mine explained, lens manufacturers go to great trouble to create as close to perfect a lens as possible, not for us to cover it with a (sometimes cheap) disc of glass.

You're welcome!!

Well, I've been back to the rocks and tried again without the filter and this is the result:

ISO 160 800th sec @ f7.1 @120mm



I tried other subjects and it only seems to affect edges against white (or nearly white) backgrounds and seems worse on slightly out of focus edges

Otherwise the lens is fine and produces excellent images.

........I wonder if anyone else can replicate this with their 55-300 or is it unique to mine?

Thanks for all your comments and help so far

Maybe it's just a quirk of this lens and I'm being too 'Picky'?

Sorry, sold my 55-300 yonks ago.

Took this hand held with a 55-300mm @190mm 1/1250s f/4.5 iso 100. Have only resized to 72ppi for forum. Can't see anything as bad as you have.

The problem seems to be in the out of focus plane. The rock in the top left hand corner that is in the focus plane does not exhibit the issue.
Was the image from a processed RAW file or jpeg straight from the camera?

I've always kept a filter on my 55-300 and never experienced any issue. No intention of removing it unless to put on a different filter!

No beach rocks round here, but this is what my DA55-300 does just now on a K-5ii at 135mm f6.7 1/250 :



Full size here. No edge problem as in your shot.

Similar subject Stan, but completely different shooting conditions/lighting.

I think that the OP is seeing some chromatic aberration in the out of focus parts of the dark rock, shot against a bright background. What I don't understand is why it's showing as grey rather than magenta or cyan.

Many lenses will have a problem given those lighting conditions.

There is even some CA in the shot above. Open the large image and zoom in to the cut cables of the aerial. They are showing a magenta CA to the right of the cable. Similarly in the cable that extends up the right side of the mast. Not much, but it is there, and again it's showing on dark objects with a bright background.