Oh dear, I seem to be losing this one Never mind, there's been some interesting points raised. The Samyang prime does, naturally without extra DR processing and with neutal camera settings, produce more detailed results and deeper shadow tones, in my experience of using it in similar lighting conditions.

Do you have any idea technically Smeggy why this might be the case? A zoom has more complex internals and extra elements, could that explain it?

Thanks for the link there, sorry I have only just been able to take a look. I think we are mostly dealing with terms her - I stuck with that article until being told that 'savants' (ie like the 'Rain-Man' character) 'talk about resolution & contrast being the same thing'

Look, its clear that micro-contrast and the number of discernable levels of white to black that a lens can record will have a bearing on the final output (in this case a camera JPEG displayed on the web). Me talking about 'lens contrast' in this connection is perfectly valid. My assumptions about the camera settings have not been challenged, and I reiterate that my experience of the prime lens and its expected performance here, with the same camera settings, is also valid.

Lens contrast (or micro-contrast) performance is important for final output potential - its not just a case of being able to correct anything in PP - if the full DR has not been detected by the lens at capture you'll struggle more for quality later. All of these UW angles involve significant compromises in design - the Samyang's is distortion. Maybe the compromise on this zoom is a bit less deep tone contrast in front lighting? I must say the shot is not quite as sharp as I'd want - it seems to have lost a bit of bite as a result of the sunlight. Thats not to say its not a good performance, and a great choice if you need that range in a zoom.

Thats looks like a really peaceful spot there, and I imagine the walk in to it was great also. I like the shot, its got a low viewpoint which works well and the eye is drawn along towards the distance. The colours are good, appropriately subdued as its mostly under the 'canopy'.

I'd select the bright open sky area (to avoid brighteneing it any more), then inverse the selection and give a pull inwards on the highlights input slider in levels - this would add a touch more glisten to the bright spots touching the various leaves and sparking water - I think that would add a bit more ... well, sparkle!

Appreciate the technical data you've given there, that is excellent - I should really start recording that more - I find I lose a lot with the conversion. A good way would be to shoot a small JPEG as well a RAW just to store the camera metadata. I see you had +2/3 ec, unusual for this type of location, but I see that there is a lot of brightness in the centre frame ... out of interest were youy using centre-weighted or matrix?

I think there are some good points made above, but I interpreted the OP as wanting advice on mono conversion, so I was rather looking forward to some tips on this in software other than those programs I've already mentioned.

Agreed on No 1, it has just about everything. Great atmosphere & subdued lighting make it. Did you get any from that position just a little wider?

I like all the others, not so much the tree close-up - nice compositions (the lone duck one is great!). I'm seeing rather bright greens though, look a bit too glowing for the conditions - I'm sure its a minor tweak.

Looking forward to some more

I find if I want to nail the eyes, then its best to get the centre-point onto an eye, focus and hold - then move to compose and fire, and all quickly. If you get a few goes it usually helps, and a bit of a burst can help also if there's slight movement, you should get one good hit.

I get good results on manual lenses with 'catch-in-focus' - but it only fires when the centre is focussed, so can be a bit hit and miss - but when it hits its spot on, so again the bursts work well for me there.

I doubt many of us use pre-set different focus points - its just too much faffing when you've got a person waiting - I think that technique would only be good for static objects.

What do you mean by focus and re-compose being a 'super noob mistake'?

Not for me, its one reason I have not been tempted by an UW zoom. Thats not to say I don't appreciate the usefulness of such a lens.

The swan and duck head closeups are the best for me! Really great clarity and detail, and nice colours.

I said 'but at the same time' ... Its not science, but some logic. Lets wait and see on the assumptions.

I love my scientific comparisons, as you know, but at the same time I do know it is possible to develop a valid instinct for certain camera & lens characteristics in relation to specific scenes. Here I am talking about the camera JPEG processor & the Samyang 14mm - the K7 PRIME processor is not worlds away from the K5.

How does this work? Well, there are a few assumptions firstly, which John may be able to verify ... he shoots JPEGs, so that means the camera custom settings are critical to his output, and knowing some of his photography I would say he generally chooses fairly neutral settings. And secondly he has not carried out a lot of PP on it.

Now, my experience would suggest that in order to record that scene with the deep tone contrast as seen, John would have had to have set one of two things - either shadow correction to a higher level, or raised the custom 'low contrast' slider quite a few notches, near max in fact. I would hesitate a (calculated) guess that neither of these is so.

I shoot RAW, so my camera settings are also neutral, with zero low contrast & no shadow correction. I know the Samyang creates deeper lowtone contrast in the many similar lit shots I have taken with these settings. So therefore, by logic, what I'm seeing here must be a result of the lens characteristics.