I'm sorry to upset you Nathan. I'll take the pictures down if you wish, no problem.

Shim, the picture was taken on a tripod, mirror up dekayed action at 1/1500th or so and fired with the Pentax remote.

So Greytop, what you're saying is that my camera focusses correctly with the kit lens but not the primes? And Nathan says that even if one lens focusses correctly on my camera body, another will not necessarily?

When I focus on the 2 inch mark on the ruler (see pic above, made with 35mm) with any lens, if it is sharp on screen, surely it should be on the sensor? If, as Nathan says, each lens will be focussed differently because they are constructed differently, that would mean each lens focussed on screen at the 2 inch ruler mark, might show sharpness at different points, some at 1.8 inches, some at 2.2 inches or whatever in the picture.

As far as I know, DA lenses have no focus calibration so it can only be done on the camera body. Which lens then would I adjust the body to focus with? If they are all different, I suppose it must be calibrated for each lens. Is this possible? Is it reasonable to expect a photographer to do this?

I think that if I see a sharp image on the screen I should expect a sharp image on the picture. If it's out, calibrate it. But it should then focus accurately with all lenses, not just some.

My results, by the way, with the 15mm accord with dpreview's test Here

I am beginning to lose the will to live here!

I am satisfied that the focus is not out. Both the kit lens at 35mm and the DA at 35mm were on auto-focus for these shots. If one is out, would the other not be? The phase detection focus unit is in the body, after all, not in the lens.

I have shot the pix again and taken great care over the focus settings. Also some real world shots at 100%. My personal feeling is that there is nothing wrong with the 15mm, this being wide open. And look at the distortion free drawing. The 35DA is wide open at f2.8 to show it at its worst. This looks like a good lens to me.

I note doing these tests, how different the same picture taken on different occasions can look due, I suppose to light,contrast and colour temperature variations.

Results here are (in order)
Ruler, auto focus centred at 2 inches mark, DA35, f2.8. I have not posted the manual focus result as it is absolutely identical.
Centre at 100% da15 f4
Centre at 100% da35 f4
Real world pic of neighbour's house, da 15 f4 at 100% near centre
Real world pic of neighbour's house, da 35 2.8 at 100% near centre
These pix are without sharpening, dng straight to jpg, minimum compression.

I think what is upsetting people here is not that the DAs are bad but how good the kit lens is!

Thanks Stefan - my results look very similar or a little better than yours, my subject being much more exacting in detail terms, maybe the difference between your f2.8 and my f.4.5.

I don't see the relevance of the f8 shot but my lens gives rather better sharpness than yours seems to at f8. However, my shots are almost always tripod mounted and this does make a difference.

You don't say what ISO you use or if any sharpening has been applied. My shots are all straight from the camera RAW, no sharpening at all and 100 iso.

The apparent detail on my 35mm and 15mm after careful sharpening is excellent. The kit lens is excellent, too, as tests have averred.

Anvh, my full frame shots posted look at least as sharp, if not sharper than the ones you post. But you cannot compare yours with my crops of the frame at 100%, of course.

Daniel, all of the primes are excellent lenses in day to day use, so I don't see why I would get rid of them. Look at the distortion free performance of the 15mm. Look at the full frame shot. You wouldn't be unhappy with that, would you? I'm not, anyway.

Remember, no sharpening has been applied at any stage to these shots. They show the out of camera RAW performance. To compare them with your own, you must sharpen them in the same way you would your own.

Also, the 100% shots would require a 54x36 inch monitor to display the full image. You would view that from a lot further away than the monitors we normally use so the image would give a quite different imopression of sharpness.

I agree, mr Mellow, the original 18-55 is as good as anyone would ever normally need (better, probably, especially stopped down a bit). I like the primes because I can fit the camera body and 15mm in one pocket of my walking/ cycling jacket and the other two lenses in another and cover wide, normal, macro and short tele in a couple of pockets but especially because I like the solid, smooth quality feel of them which feels more like my Hasselblad, Nikon, Leics, professional days.

And all for less than the cost of a big plasma tele....

I don't understand the first quote. My camera came with two kit lenses which go from 18 to 200mm between them.

The focussing on all my lenses is accurate and the same (checked by me for all my lenses). The results here are picked from several focussing efforts and in each case manual focussing either side of the autofocus results is less sharp than the auto. As it should be and you'd expect of a relatively expensive camera, of course.

I've done some non-scientific tests on my 15, 35 and 70mm DA lenses comnpared with my kit lenses Here.
They make interesting viewing - but feel free to criticise my methods!

I started work as a trainee photographer on a local newspaper in Kent in 1963. One of the first things my boss and mentor there told me was that I should never worry about how I looked or felt when taking pictures.

The only thing I would be remembered for was the pictures I made.

Imagine if someone tried to judge a pianist by the brand of piano they played. Or a writer by the word processor they used. You'd laugh - wouldn't you?

Interesting. I used it for a several months until I bought Photoshop with ACR and experienced no problems at all.

I didn't like it particularly, mind you.

I'm blushing.

She's nice isn't she? She doesn't mention any camera or other product at all by name. At least my 5 years living in France taught me something!