Double pah, with knobs on. Try wielding the 135-600mm then, it's a whopping 4.07Kg, and that's without the close-up lens fitted. The 500mm I've replaced it with is about 3.3Kg.

I think the heaviest Pentax lens was the A* 1200/1:8 weighing in at an enormous 8.58Kg.

All of these a dwarfed in comparison to this 256Kg giant. No, it's not a typo, I mean two hundred and fifty six kilograms. I don't think it comes in Pentax mount though, so don't rush out and buy one.

Richard, I'd appreciate an opinion of the IQ difference between your Tamron 70-200 1:2.8 and your newly acquired DA*60-250 1:4.

I also went for the DA*60-250 1:4but I would have preferred a 1:2.8 for indoor horse event photography where the use of flash is not permissible.

The only comparison I have is between my DA* 50-135 1:2.8 on my K20D and the Canon 70-200L 1:2.8 on my son's 30D. Both compare favourably but of course the 70-200L has that bit more reach.

Time will tell if the limitation of f4 is indeed a limitation.

Sanyo Eneloops are my preferred choice too, especially if the camera is going to get infrequent use. NiMh's can go flat through self discharge in as little as two weeks. Annoying to say the least.

These are about the cheapest you'll find anywhere.

Oh yes, and I've left the wife riding shotgun, with little food. She's probably very hungry by now and you wouldn't want to mess with her, even on a good day.

One of two filters, or both, might have helped.

1: A circular polarizer (CP) to lift the colours and cut down on reflections. The haze could be reflections from any mist in the air and it may have helped to minimize it.

2: A UV filter might have helped if the haze was due to Ultra Violet light, but I doubt it was.

If the haze was just dust and traffic grime, you were on a hiding to nothing and the only remedy is to get closer.

The use of a CP might even help accentuate the misty effect to give the result you ask about.

Welcome to the forum. Now, about that revision . . .

jackitec's offering is about the best it'll be I reckon. Well done. I didn't have much time to play with it but that's the kind of cropping I was suggesting in the first instance.

It's much, much more interesting but not worth spending much more time on it.

Take the shot again with a longer lens, from a closer vantage point, on a better day.

I had something like this in mind.




I think it looks more interesting but this is never going to be a great image I'm afraid.

The New forest was one of our favourite weekend haunts when we lived in the UK and had a caravan/camper. Some really excellent photographic opportunities there.

Now I have the Sierra Espuna national park to wander around with just as many opportunities, but very few deciduous trees that are typical of the UK landscape. All I need now is a canine companion to enjoy the walks with me.

Better I think, but I might have included some of the trees left and right in the original image to add a bit of framing, and a bit more interest.

Now that you have a better 'picture' (IMHO) you can see that the image degradation due to the distance from the subject is quite bad.

You needed to be closer or use a longer focal length lens. The latter would not have overcome the atmospheric haze though.