[oxidized]

Okay Ira, maybe I was wrong. So, are those options available even when you shoot in raw? Do they make any difference? In other words, does it matter whether i do that in the camera or the computer?

[JeffJS]

Okay Ira, maybe I was wrong. So, are those options available even when you shoot in raw? Do they make any difference? In other words, does it matter whether i do that in the camera or the computer?

The in camera processing settings are applied to the JPG files that your camera creates. When using RAW, they mean nothing. That is, unless you are using the pentax software, they may then be applied in there (but I'm not certain of that). By in camera settings, I'm referring to sharpness, contrast, etc. Actual shooting parameters (ISO, Shutter Speed, WB, etc) are recorded in your PEF/DNG file. If you are processing with LR, using RAW files to start, then the sharpness setting of the camera should not matter.

One thing in ACR I find that really cleans things up nicely is the Clarity slider.

[oxidized]

Okay, this is what I thought as well. In this case I am back to square one Yea, all the photos are out of lightroom with sharpness set to 0 and clarity 0 (middle of the slider) as well. Thanks JeffJS

[JeffJS]

Boost the clarity up to about 70%. I also note, especially in your photo of the back porch/deck, that there is a Lot of CA, especially along the left side of the house. Proper setting of the White balance can clean that up quite a bit. Your CA/PF sliders can then knock most of the rest out. If you are using a K7, be sure you have the latest firmware (1.10) which includes the update to help correct that for the FA limiteds (in camera made JPGs).

[deadwolfbones]

Clarity will leave nasty "halos" around high-contrast edges when over-used, though, so watch out for that.

[scorpioh]

The images do look very soft at 100% , especially the picture of the house. Quite a lot of fringing too. Definitely not acceptable for me. I am not sure but you may want try grab a second-hand copy of a "Made in Japan" version?

[summonbaka]

I grabbed your last image and did some sharpening to it since you mentioned that no sharpening was done after RAW post-procesing. This is how it looks (100% crop of your last image)

The original compression is horrible so don't expect too much from it. Camera RAW files are always softer since the camera always sharpens the JPG a little. So if you don't do any sharpening, don't expect the lens to behave well.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[oxidized]

Thanks summonbaka. I know that by sharpening the raw i can get a decent sharpness out of the image. I was just keeping them unsharpened as most digital camera tests leave raw files like that in order to stay consistent across lens.

I guess i still dont know if I have a good copy or not. I cant seem to find any samples online of photos with pentax 31mm at F1.8 and focus close to infinity. I know there is small amount of softness at 1.8 close ups (which i think is within the normal range), but I am just wondering if what I get with shots like the house and the back deck is normal...

Could any of you guys that own the lens comment and tell me whether the shots (straight out of the camera with no pp) look like their are supposed to or i just got a bad sample. Even better, could you post a sample or 100% crop of such image? Thanks again!

[Voe]

Return this lens as it has optical decentering common for many 31mm Limited lenses assembled in Vietnam. It's a known issue and I wonder that no one else mentioned it here.

[oxidized]

I really like the lens though. Is there any way to actually get it fixed through the warranty? I am sure if I request a replacement from B&H they will just send me another MIV copy...

[JeffJS]

I really like the lens though. Is there any way to actually get it fixed through the warranty? I am sure if I request a replacement from B&H they will just send me another MIV copy...

If you like the lens and feel an adjustment is in order, send it to Pentax. If you just bought it, it should be a warranty fix.

[piesforyou]

I found this thread frustrating to read and it's not even my lens. oxidized clearly wasn't concerned with anything software related - just the optical performance of the lens, hence why he was shooting raw and applying no post processing. His images are clearly abysmal compared to the review he read - and with the reputation that the lens performs superbly wide open. No amount of post processing or in-camera setting tweaks (which is just another form of post-processing) will change the optical performance of the lens!

Hopefully Voe's piece of advice turns out to be the solution. Good luck oxidized.

[JeffJS]

The reason for the software discussion was the possibility that we were looking at jpgs and there may have been a processing error, either in camera or in other software. It isn't unreasonable to rule out all possibilities as to why a $1000+ lens isn't performing to snuff.

As for returning for exchange, That's all well and good. He May get lucky and the next one will be better. However, these are not made to order lenses. They are wholesaled in lots. Meaning, the chances of him getting a lens from another lot may not be all that great and the entire lot may have issues. A repair or realignment may be the best bet in this case.

Now, if you're tired of reading the thread, the simple solution is to use your browser's back button to leave and read something else.

[Marc Sabatella]

oxidized clearly wasn't concerned with anything software related

I think you're missing the point. While it's true that PP won't change the optical performance of the lens, it's entirely possible that the lens really is performing exactly as it is supposed, and that the only reason the images don't *look* as good as those published elsewhere is that the images published elsewhere had different and more appropriate PP applied to them. So applying similarly more appropriate PP to his images might bring his images more in line with his expectations as set by the other samples he has seen - thus proving there is nothing wrong with the lens.

Or it's also possible that no amount of PP would bring his images in line with others posted - thus indicating there probably is a problem with the lens.

Either way, it's absolutely relevant to at least ask these questions and do the experiment - otherwise one really has no idea if the differences between his images and those posted elsewhere is due to the differences in the lenses themselves or to differences in the PP applied.

[deadwolfbones]

Is the brick wall test the best for decentering?