This is a bit off-topic, but I doubt whether the K30 has better AF than the K-5II variants. If Axel is buying a new K-5 it would be a K-5II, not a Mk1.

Regards
David

I think that the issue is that the images don't look 'real', they look like a cartouche of the way the scenes would have appeared to the naked eye. There is nothing wrong with this, if this is what appeals in a photographic sense to an individual then it is fine, just as images that are constructed from a variety of originals and presented as 'digital art' are also fine. To me, this doesn't particularly appeal; I prefer to see images that are as close to the original scene as possible, but that's just me.

By the way, no-one else has commented on the images being out of horizontal alignment - is this just me again or are they a bit lop-sided?

Regards
David

Same as Mike from me, first and last don't have any depth or anything to make them stand out, the second one however is very good and suits the saturated look.

Regards
David

Hi Alistair, interesting to see you posting about this again. There are probably several routes you could take for extra sharpness. Here are a few of my thoughts:

- The image posted above is nice, but it is definitely not the sharpest and you could do much better with better quality glass

- DA 16-45 is sharper than the kit lens and good for landscapes; I recently sold mine to fund a DA 17-70, but I'm just about to buy one back as I've missed it (see comments below on the 17-70). Example DA 16-45 image:




- There are some great older prime lenses out there for landscape work that you can buy very cheaply, take the Pentax-M 28mm F3.5 for example. I often praise this lens; it cost me £30, is very sharp with great colours and contrast; see image below that I posted on a similar thread today:




- DA 17-70 is sharper than both the 18-55 and the 16-45. Landscapes with this lens are very detailed, although it does distort quite badly at wide focal lengths (this can of course be corrected quite easily). See example image below with the DA 17-70




It's probably difficult to tell from the reduced size images above, but when viewed in full resolution, the sharpest is probably the Pentax-M, followed just a whisker behind by the DA 17-70, then the 16-45. All are what I would describe as sharp and all are much better than any of the 18-55's I own or have owned (I've had 4 of them and currently have 2).

Hope this helps, unfortunately I can't comment on the Tamron as I've never had one and don't know anyone who has.

Regards
David

This is interesting. I have a 17-70 bought second hand, primarily for use at weddings, although also intended for landscape work. I use it for weddings on my K-5 mk1, as my K-5IIs is usually paired with a Sigma 105 DG EX Macro.

Shaun Wilson has exactly the same setup on one of his wedding cameras, so when I was out with Shaun on Saturday I mentioned that my 17-70 tended to 'hunt' and 'jiggle' on the focussing, particularly at the longer end. I swapped lenses with Shaun and found that his copy does not have any issues. However, I have narrowed this down a bit further and found as follows:

- When the 17-70 is mounted on the K-5 and AF is set at 'AF-C', the focussing issues are apparent

- When it is on the same camera and set at 'AF-S' there is little or no problem with focussing - I took close on 400 shots with this combination yesterday at a wedding, many in poor light, and it nailed focus on 95% of them

- I tested Shaun's 17-70 on my K-5 mk1 and there was no hunting or 'jiggle', even on the 'AF-C' setting, so it appears this issue may affect some copies and not others

- On my K-5IIs, there is no focussing issue with the same lens that has some minor issues on the mk1 - it locks on and does not hunt

The issues I have with mine are not severe enough to require manual focussing and I am comfortable the lens will not let me down under pressure, but only if I leave the focus setting on 'AF-S', which is fine for what I use it for.

I would be interested to hear what other DA 17-70 owners think, particularly those who have both K-5 mk1 and K-5 mk2.

Regards
David

Superb Alan, a really stunning image.

Regards
David

Thanks for letting me know Robbie and thanks also for the endorsement Kris. It is a beautiful lens, I would have kept it but couldn't justify having it sat in the cupboard for long periods.

Regards
David

Thank you John, very kind of you to say so. Actually, one thing worth pointing out about the M28mm F3.5 that is probably also true of the K variant is that the lens has virtually no distortion, as you can see from the horizon on the shot above. This makes it decent for architectural shots and also good for making panoramas.

Regards
David

David

The M is very good; I wouldn't dismiss it. I don't doubt that the K is better, but if you look carefully you can pick up a nice M for about £30 and the results can be excellent:




Regards
David

My 55-300 is superb, very sharp at all apertures and all focal lengths. My advice would be to send it back, but also never use your 55-300 with filters. For some reason, this lens hates filters. See Example below, this one at 210mm:




Regards
David