I'm a bit dubious (although not dismissive) about the SR conclusions. I've shot a lot of images in my time, most not on a tripod and all of these with SR on. I have never seen any SR induced shake on any shots at high shutter speeds. I do think I am pretty good at holding a camera steady and can usually get blur free shots down to about 1/8 of a second, depending of course on focal length. If SR was inducing blur at higher speeds I think I would have seen it?

Of course, it will react differently to different photographers and how they hold the camera, whether it is relatively still etc, but even so, I would expect to have experienced issues if SR was the culprit? I've used K-x (three), K-m, K-5 (two), K-01 (two), K-5iis, K-3 and Mx-1 in my time with Pentax digital cameras, with all manner of lenses, including a lot of shooting with telephotos.

Regards
David

I doubt you'll find anything much sharper than the 16-45 in a zoom. I can't comment on the 16-50 as I've never owned one, but the 16-45 always seemed to me to be a pretty sharp lens. You can find lenses with better build quality, including the Pentax 17-70 and the Sigma 17-70, which is IMO sharper than the Pentax lens, but probably not sharper than the 16-45.

If sharpness is your reason for wanting to swap, you may have a poor copy, or you may have to spend a lot of money to better the 16-45! If your reason is to get a better handling lens or a longer focal length, or wider aperture, or better bokeh I can understand this, but I wouldn't assume you will get sharper if you swap.

Regards
David

Some fantastic images in your collection, beautifully shot.

Regards
David

The K-5iis is a GREAT camera and always has been, but I don't prefer it to my K-3. It has some advantages such as marginally better low light sensor performance, but all round I think the K-3 is a better camera. In any case, I will say I don't think these shots would be bettered with any K-5 variant.

Regards
David

I think diffraction is setting in on these Derek, I would be tempted to reduce the tube length a bit and sacrifice a bit of magnification. The images are good though, I especially like the rose, for which the 'sharp but not sharp' actually works extremely well.

Regards
David

Looking at these, I really don't understand your dislike of the camera Mike. The quality on these is very good across the board, no doubt down to your skill as a photographer, but also the equipment appears to be working beautifully. The snake shot is great, but my favourite is the Jay, it's a stunner.

Regards
David

I can empathise with you Derek on the 'Home Improvements' front. I seem to have done little else for the past 2 years, converted the entire cellar areas of our Victorian house into a music room, bar area, laundry room and workshop / storage area. Very hard work, good luck with your improvements and hope you get finished quicker than I have!

Regards
David

For me, the DA*300 and 1.4 TC for shots of wild birds. So much better than the Sigma 150-500 I had previously. Oh, and a ball head for my tripod.

Regards
David

I don't think you can switch it to manual, it has to be a manual focus lens in the first place? Might be wrong, but I think that's the gist.

Regards
David

It also looks a bit like a multiple exposure to me, one long exposure and one shorter? Might be wrong but it looks a bit suspicious that many of the people are almost static, whilst others have made long trails. I don't think that would happen in a busy place where there is obviously a lot of constant movement.

Regards
David