The DA*50-135 is a 'must', it's quite simply the best zoom I have ever laid hands on, the IQ is magnificent. Other than that, you don't mention how 'short' or 'long' you need to go, but the Welsh Wizard has listed most of the main contenders. BTW, the 55-300 is surprisingly good for what it costs.

Regards
David

I too shoot RAW with both the K-3 and the K-5IIs and my images always look flat in Adobe Camera RAW before they are processed. The JPEG equivalents are much more vibrant, but after processing the RAW files are always better.

I can't explain the different behaviour you've mentioned Dave, but I don't think the 'Bright' setting will have any impact on your RAW files.

Incidentally, I don't have any issues recovering shadow details from K-3 files, nor have I found any noticeable limitations in dynamic range when compared to my K-5IIs. I routinely under-expose by up to 1 stop and after processing the RAW files the dynamic range is very good indeed.

Regards
David

I would sell the two Tamrons and the Sigma, along with the Pentax 50-200 and do as John suggests, i.e. buy the Pentax 18-135 and 55-300. It's good to have a few primes, so keep these. There is no need for a 18-55WR if you have the 18-135, it will not bring you any benefit.

Regards
David

These are indeed noticeably better but it is quite difficult to assess on such large subjects that have a wide range of focus points across them. The acid test will come when focussing on a very small and defined point.

However, I still think there may be an equipment issue here. Not sure if it's my imagination, but in all of the cow images above, they appear to have a reasonably sharp area in the left portion of the image, but nothing that is sharp on the right? How does the camera perform with other lenses? If it is good and sharp I suspect the DA*300 has a problem, if there are also 'sharpness issues' with other lenses it is more likely the camera at fault, maybe a sensor that is misaligned so it is not parallel with the subject?

Regards
David

We all agree that the photographer is important but to assert that the tools are not an equally significant factor is absolute drivel to put it mildly. It's a bit like trying to claim that the Red Baron would have still be a WW1 Ace if he was fighting Spitfires in his Fokker Triplane!

Regards
David

That's a bargain if the lens is in good nick. Anyone looking for a copy of this stellar lens should take a look.

Regards
David

I'm running out of other suggestions John, I don't think there is camera shake on your shots, so it's starting to look suspiciously like a camera or a lens issue. Do you know anyone near to you who owns a DA*300? If so you might be able to do a test comparison?

Regards
David

Is it Self-Heal?

Regards
David

Great stuff again Alistair and you certainly have an eye for a pretty face! That lens is to die for, don't ever sell it! It's not just the sharpness and lovely bokeh, it's the colours and contrast too.

My favourite from these? Number 6, it is full of character.

Regards
David

I've just had a look John and posted some comments and also some images from my DA*300 and 1.4 TC.

There is definitely something wrong here, I think your test shots are back focussed, but that isn't the only issue.

Regards
David