You were blaming the lens, have you tried a different one to eliminate that?

I still cannot work out what or where you are seeing whatever it is though.

John

Janusz,

I've taken the liberty of squishing your two files (and apply sharpening) to make them more internet friendly using Irfanview. If you are not OK with me doing this let me know and I'll remove them.


The f11 one:




The f4 one:



To me, now viewed at a manageable size, neither of the images look terrible (far from it!) Can you explain again what it is you are seeing that you are not happy with, if indeed you can still see the problem?

Would that be the Isle of Wight by the way? Could be around Bempton but I don't think it is.

John

For info, the Kenko has a twin in the Tamron-F 1.4x Pz-AF MC4. Besides autofocussing even with SDM, they pass the aperture setting through to the camera. With these the aperture setting is passed through unaltered unlike the Pentax 1.7x AF converter which adjusts the aperture info.
Generally teleconverters work better with standard to telephoto lenses and less well with wide angle lenses. The 1.4/1.5x converters only loose a stop so having good light isn't usually too much of an issue.

John

Regarding your query no. 2, take a few shots at both sizes and compare your A3 prints. I'd expect the larger file size to be better. While taking raw images will eat up your memory cards even faster, from them you can create a jpeg at any size with the best possible picture fidelity - or even 16 bit images (eg TIFFS) which would print even better than 16megapixel jpegs.

At the end of the day, it really depends on what is best for what you want to achieve. Sometimes just a 2MP pixel images is sufficient (a screenshot for ebay for instance.)

John

Maybe I'm missing something but the only artefact I can see in the first (f11) photo next to the cliff edge is a seagull of some sort! Sorry, it's too small to identify properly but probably a Herring Gull.

The 2nd f4 one looks to me to be suffering from a shallow depth of field. The posts at the back are out of focus but the nearer cliff face looks to me to be reasonably sharp. (Could be a bit of camera shake?) What was the intended point of focus or are you relying on the camera to decide for you? Could be the camera had a different idea to you.

The optimum regarding sharpness for most lenses is right in the middle of your two photos, usually around f8.

I cannot see anything odd about the colours though, what are you viewing the photos on? If the colour balance was off, the chalky cliff face wouldn't look white.

It's difficult to look at the pictures properly (fully) on the monitor though as I have to scroll around them as they are too big for viewing in Firefox! It's also difficult to to identify a problem seeing just a couple of photos. Everyone gets bad ones now and again, but if it is a consistent problem then maybe the lens or the camera has a focussing issue. Does it look soft in the viewfinder? Also is the lens set to auto focus or manual focus? Just a few pointers to get a bit more info for others to hopefully help solve it for you!

John

Yes I'd noticed that one. Trust it's good.

Mine came in a collection of bits where I'd noticed an A 28 f2.8 which I was after along with a P-30, filters etc so was a bit of a surprise bonus given most zooms that came with cameras in lieu of a 50mm standard lens often seemed to be a bit of a let down. I didn't expect to want to keep it and now its made it difficult to decide which lenses to take out with me!

Be interested to hear your opinion of it.

John

Several Casio's do that, eg the EX-FH20 which came out about three years ago (so Nikon aren't offering anything new.) In fact you can save the whole buffer of 40 frames at 7mp resolution if you wish.

John

Optically I think it equals either of the current 35mm's (the f2.4 DA & f2.8 Macro limited) and the 70mm limited (though of course it's not as fast.) It betters the DA 17-70 significantly, though lacks the wider zoom range. That's some claim but I compare my lenses by taking a photo of a house number down the road and enlarge it in camera as much as it will go and compare the images. No, I can't believe it either! Contrast and colour rendition is good too.

Its only downside is that the focussing ring is at the front and rotates so it makes using a polariser more tricky.

I was expecting it to be a rubbish lens that I'd want to pass on quickly as it came with a cheap second hand P30, but truly far from it.

John

Indeed Nice to know though that if we do get a FF sometime it's a great lens that is sort of compatible.

John

Hopefully we'll have the new Pentax 560mm soon.

John