Sorry Ken, I don't quite follow.

I know the Samyang is sold under other names, although my copy is actually branded Samyang.
I was referring to the forthcoming release of the recently announced 85mm f/1.4 HSM from Sigma link. AF would be a nice feature to have & if it has the same performance characteristics as their 30mm & 50mm f/1.4's then I'd be tempted at a sensible price.

edit: I do like it Ken, very much so & have been one of the ones to sing its praises, I'm just surprised that the threads praising this lens have passed people by, or they simply haven't believed that such an affordable lens can actually be a stellar performer. But they will of course believe a journalist with the same conclusions.

There have been several threads about the 85mm with those who own it, singing its praises on performance. Now it's in a magazine, it must be true

I'll be picking the mag up on Tue, but did it say anything about the poor hood & front cap ? As these are its main failings I think, being on the flimsy side in construction & fitment.

It'd have to be a better performer & reasonably priced to lure me from teh Samyang, but I'm looking forward to the release of the Sigma 85mm, AF would be beneficial for moving subjects.

Emma, the original is very contrasty which has been amplified by your original conversion. Try shooting on standard jpeg settings (currently you have contrast & sharpness maxed out in your settings) - as you are not afraid of some post processing you can always add some contrast or sharpening to the final shot, but once you've lost tonality at the jpeg conversion stage, you will not get it back.

Also, after looking at some of your other shots from the series, I still stand by my advice on using a more moderate aperture for best sharpness, but I think the main culprit of the softness may be the Polariser as some of your shots should really be sharper & it doesn't look like camera shake to me. Try taking some scenes with & without the CPL fitted so you can compare them later.

I'm guessing that again it is the combination of diffraction (f/22) & iso1600 causing noise reduction smearing that have conspired to give the softness. Elements should do a decent enough job in resizing, certainly better that the forum software.

I won't want to have to type that each time though !

There is a fine line to tread on C&C if you want to be seen as Mr Nice to all & sundry & it has to be tailored slightly dependent on the posters experience but we do not always know this in advance.

I do cringe when I see poor shots being lavished unworthy & unhelpful praise, but turning up after a few have jumped on the bandwagon makes you look like the proverbial "Mr know-it-all" so I then tend not to bother offering some advice from my limited knowledge.

Technical perfection is not the be-all & end-all of photography, but with landscape it tends to be more than most areas.
But as I see it, if it's not showing something remarkeable or unrepeatable then it needs to be sharp & well exposed or it's filed under b for bin.
Those who can take technically proficient shots of the remarkable & unrepeatable are the true leaders of photography who require no C&C, us mere mortals should rely on it & also offer it with more honesty I feel.

You don't have to take photos to please others, I know I don't & other togs are a tough crowd to please in the main anyway, but I do value honest C&C as it helps me understand what others see in my shots, good or bad.

Bob

Emma, don't take it personally. Mike has offered a little helpful advice here, albeit without pointing out the positives (which is rare for Mike, I guess the AA comment is just the straw that broke the camels back)

Plus, don't be discouraged. Critique helps us improve, I look back at some of the shots I was proud of around 18 months ago & can pick massive holes in them straight away & they wouldn't get through the net now. I'm not saying that I have improved massively, but it's enough of a jump to be apparent.

If you just get lavished with undeserved praise, you will not be motivated to improve & you will not easily be able to see in which areas you can improve.

You've obviously given some thought to composition, with foreground interest, a nice diagonal on the hill & a level horizon. Whilst there are some supposed "golden rules" to composition, you can bend these to suit your own taste.

As for the technical side, this is where you should strive to improve. Ideally for this scene you'de have wanted a tripod to take a few exposures to blend, but as you didn't have one to hand you would have to rely on post process to get the balance of exposure this shot deserves.
I see you've shot with +0.5ev which is probably the cause of the burnt cloud (spot metering the clouds could help prevent burnt highlights as this is the brightest area in the scene) - also you have the jpeg contrast setting on hard so it's going to give you a strong contrast curve & lose some tonality in the scene.
Shooting at iso 1600 will result in noise & loss of detail from noise reduction, you had plenty of shutter speed available for your focal length so could have reduced this somewhat. Also shooting at F19 will result in defraction & despite giving more depth of field will result in a resulting softer image. Try shooting at f/11 for landscapes & focus on something about 2/3 of the way into the scene, the kit lens will give a great result at f/11, also the wider aperture will give you a faster shutter speed & allow you to lower iso even further.

There are probably loads more things to take into consideration but I'm on that learning curve myself. Some people have the knack of exposing correctly, but I tend to have to think about it a fair bit still. But understanding the relationship between iso/shutter speed/aperture/focal length WILL result in a better understanding of exposure & allow you to decide what is important in a scene, not the camera, in getting the best possible image out.

Whilst we're loosely on the subject of AA, you might want to look at the Zone system of exposure developed by the man himself.

Keep plugging away & you will see the improvement. Also if C&C is offered & you don't quite follow the criticism, ask for a technical explanation on how to overcome it, there are years & years of experience to be tapped here so use it to your advantage.

Bob

I'd have to agree about the camera shake Adrian. Looking at the exif you're shooting at 300mm at around 1/50 of a second. I know you have SR to help but it doesn't work miracles. You'd have been better pushing the iso up a little more, I'd rather have sharp but noisier images to work with.

At 300mm I'd practice your handholding technique & try and stick to 1/200 & faster even with SR on.

The Sigma 30mm is a great performer, & that extra 2 stops will be ideal indoors.

It won't get as sharp in the corners of the frame as the da35, even when stopped down, but the centre sharpness is there from wide open.
I really like the rendering of the Sigma 30mm (and 50mm for that matter), there is a smooth transition between sharp & oof areas, quite creamy.

There is place for both in your bag, the Sigma is fantastic for shallow dof & low light situations, but if you only ever intend to shoot outdoors in good light then you may prefer the Da35.

Surely there is also an advantage to entering early if you have an original idea. Getting in there first will discourage others from the same subject matter, the trick is getting it good enough in the first instance.

I did notice this statement in their T&C's

Acceptance of your order and the creation of a legally binding contract between us will only occur when we send you an email confirming your order has been despatched. Alternatively, we may decline all or part of your order for any reason, in which case we will immediately refund you via PayPal.

I'm sure ebay/paypal will beg to differ !