Help! Blurry bears with my new DA* 60-250mm

JeffJS · 07-27-2011, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by RXrenesis8

I agree, and would also add that when you upload an image to pentaxforums and it is too large the forum server is configured to reduce it in a very unpleasant way. You loose a lot of sharpness. This is in stark contrast to the way other sites such as flickr handle downsizing, which involves more preservation of hard edges.

Unless his UV filter is really crap (which, it certainly could be) SOME part of that image is sharp at 1/2000 of a second.

To the OP. If and when you decide to conduct tests; please do them with the UV filter removed.

That happens when you upload to an Album (perhaps the gallery too) and one of the dimensions is larger than 1024 pixels. It will chop it down, in a unpleasant way as you put it, and strip the EXIF in the process.

reeftool · 07-27-2011, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Traci

More info on a UV filter, please? I've read that you always keep that on to address glare and to protect the lens, but is that bad advice?

I had a UV filter issue cause very soft images from my Sigma 70-300. It's a much cheaper lens than your 60-250 but quite decent in the right conditions. I was reading a discussion here in the forum about 3 years ago and I decided to take my UV filters off to see the results. The one I had on the 70-300 was really bad. I believe it was a Tiffen. It was like I had a new lens! I have since stopped using them unless I'm in an environment that might cause problems like blowing sand, dust, salt spray, etc. And only buy top notch filters like Hoya or B&W. There are plenty of filter threads you can search in the forum.

twitch · 07-27-2011, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Traci

More info on a UV filter, please? I've read that you always keep that on to address glare and to protect the lens, but is that bad advice?

I missed this. Do you have a UV filter on this lens? If so that could be at least part of the problem.

paperbag846 · 07-27-2011, 10:46 PM

Back bear is sufficiently sharp, would be much sharper with f8.

Bear in front is OOF due to DOF.

UV filter adds a layer of softness all over.

Next time, use a shutter speed of 1/800, ISO of 400, and f8.

Cool picture by the way, cute bears!

RonHendriks1966 · 07-28-2011, 02:18 AM

I have this lens too for a few months now. I did a test: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/143968-da%2A60-250mm-f4-test.html and I have to say that 250mm and f4 is a weak spot of the lens, but that is not your issue here I think.

No idea what camera you are using. I have the idea that with the bear the focus is either on the nose or maybe a little behind it, wich can still be good focussing.

My guess is that your images are blurry due to not ready shake reduction (you can find that info with photome in original jpg from the camera) of movement from the camera due to your handling.

It took me some time to get it right with this lens and practice on keeping it stable is a good thing.

rawr · 07-28-2011, 03:33 PM

Don't rush into making any lens AF adjustments until you have eliminated your shooting choices (eg AF spot/matrix) and technique (aperture/depth of field, motion blur) as variables here...

Playing around with the AF corrections on the assumption that you have back-focus or front-focus could make the AF perform poorly all the time for every scene. You probably wouldn't want that.

**dadipentak** · 07-28-2011, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Don't rush into making any lens AF adjustments until you have eliminated your shooting choices (eg AF spot/matrix) and technique (aperture/depth of field, motion blur) as variables here...

Playing around with the AF corrections on the assumption that you have back-focus or front-focus could make the AF perform poorly all the time for every scene. You probably wouldn't want that.

I agree wholeheartedly!

**Pål Jensen** · 07-28-2011, 04:15 PM

Focus is on the wrong bear - always focus on the front animal if more than one animal is in the frame and you can't get all in focus. The main problem though is too little depth of field (DOF); stop the lens down to F:11 for this shot in order to get both bears sharp. Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects...

RonHendriks1966 · 07-29-2011, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects...

wow do I disagree with this point. But then again it isn't easy to get it right.

ChatMechant · 07-29-2011, 09:12 AM - **1 Like**

there's really nothing you can do in this situation. those bears are just too soft and fuzzy...

**dadipentak** · 07-29-2011, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by ChatMechant

there's really nothing you can do in this situation. those bears are just too soft and fuzzy...

paperbag846 · 07-29-2011, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects...

I totally agree. Sometimes lens speed is nice for an effect but when the goal is to capture something at all costs, low DOF is a risk that makes no sense to take.

When the subject of your image is less interesting than your choice of aperture, you are not taking a very interesting photo.

**dadipentak** · 07-29-2011, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I totally agree. Sometimes lens speed is nice for an effect but when the goal is to capture something at all costs, low DOF is a risk that makes no sense to take.

When the subject of your image is less interesting than your choice of aperture, you are not taking a very interesting photo.

Whoa, grab the cameras--big bear fight in progress!

paperbag846 · 07-29-2011, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Whoa, grab the cameras--big bear fight in progress!

I'd prefer to see more bears

.

reeftool · 07-31-2011, 10:25 AM

Wide apertures certainly do have their place. It's an essential part of composing the photo. With any lens, it takes some time and practice with it find what works. The wonderful thing about our digital cameras is that we bracket to our hearts delight. That's the best way to shoot with a new lens that you are unfamiliar with. Shoot a few hundred shots and use every setting available if you're not sure. That way, you can see the results in front of you. You will know exactly what the DOF is and what to expect next time out.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bears vs Packers	mustangjoey	General Talk	20	01-26-2011 05:19 PM
Macro A Compounded Eye Bears Higher Resolution	Nowhere Matt	Post Your Photos!	2	09-28-2010 05:18 AM
Nature Bears all around	PePe	Post Your Photos!	5	08-06-2010 03:41 AM
Polar Bears	lesmore49	General Talk	22	01-13-2010 10:34 AM
Lens for bears?	rpriedhorsky	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	07-23-2009 06:00 AM

07-27-2011, 07:45 PM	#31
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by RXrenesis8 I agree, and would also add that when you upload an image to pentaxforums and it is too large the forum server is configured to reduce it in a very unpleasant way. You loose a lot of sharpness. This is in stark contrast to the way other sites such as flickr handle downsizing, which involves more preservation of hard edges. Unless his UV filter is really crap (which, it certainly could be) SOME part of that image is sharp at 1/2000 of a second. To the OP. If and when you decide to conduct tests; please do them with the UV filter removed. That happens when you upload to an Album (perhaps the gallery too) and one of the dimensions is larger than 1024 pixels. It will chop it down, in a unpleasant way as you put it, and strip the EXIF in the process.

07-27-2011, 10:07 PM	#32
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Originally posted by Traci More info on a UV filter, please? I've read that you always keep that on to address glare and to protect the lens, but is that bad advice? I had a UV filter issue cause very soft images from my Sigma 70-300. It's a much cheaper lens than your 60-250 but quite decent in the right conditions. I was reading a discussion here in the forum about 3 years ago and I decided to take my UV filters off to see the results. The one I had on the 70-300 was really bad. I believe it was a Tiffen. It was like I had a new lens! I have since stopped using them unless I'm in an environment that might cause problems like blowing sand, dust, salt spray, etc. And only buy top notch filters like Hoya or B&W. There are plenty of filter threads you can search in the forum.

07-27-2011, 10:16 PM	#33
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Traci More info on a UV filter, please? I've read that you always keep that on to address glare and to protect the lens, but is that bad advice? I missed this. Do you have a UV filter on this lens? If so that could be at least part of the problem.

07-27-2011, 10:46 PM	#34
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Back bear is sufficiently sharp, would be much sharper with f8. Bear in front is OOF due to DOF. UV filter adds a layer of softness all over. Next time, use a shutter speed of 1/800, ISO of 400, and f8. Cool picture by the way, cute bears!

07-28-2011, 02:18 AM	#35
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I have this lens too for a few months now. I did a test: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/143968-da%2A60-250mm-f4-test.html and I have to say that 250mm and f4 is a weak spot of the lens, but that is not your issue here I think. No idea what camera you are using. I have the idea that with the bear the focus is either on the nose or maybe a little behind it, wich can still be good focussing. My guess is that your images are blurry due to not ready shake reduction (you can find that info with photome in original jpg from the camera) of movement from the camera due to your handling. It took me some time to get it right with this lens and practice on keeping it stable is a good thing.

07-28-2011, 03:33 PM	#36
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Don't rush into making any lens AF adjustments until you have eliminated your shooting choices (eg AF spot/matrix) and technique (aperture/depth of field, motion blur) as variables here... Playing around with the AF corrections on the assumption that you have back-focus or front-focus could make the AF perform poorly all the time for every scene. You probably wouldn't want that.

07-28-2011, 03:36 PM	#37
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by rawr Don't rush into making any lens AF adjustments until you have eliminated your shooting choices (eg AF spot/matrix) and technique (aperture/depth of field, motion blur) as variables here... Playing around with the AF corrections on the assumption that you have back-focus or front-focus could make the AF perform poorly all the time for every scene. You probably wouldn't want that. I agree wholeheartedly!

07-28-2011, 04:15 PM	#38
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Focus is on the wrong bear - always focus on the front animal if more than one animal is in the frame and you can't get all in focus. The main problem though is too little depth of field (DOF); stop the lens down to F:11 for this shot in order to get both bears sharp. Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects...

07-29-2011, 01:14 AM	#39
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects... wow do I disagree with this point. But then again it isn't easy to get it right.

07-29-2011, 09:12 AM - 1 Like	#40
ChatMechant Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Matsuyama Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,284	there's really nothing you can do in this situation. those bears are just too soft and fuzzy...

07-29-2011, 10:04 AM	#41
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by ChatMechant there's really nothing you can do in this situation. those bears are just too soft and fuzzy...

07-29-2011, 10:10 AM	#42
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Wide apertures have very little use in real life photography of three dimentional subjects... I totally agree. Sometimes lens speed is nice for an effect but when the goal is to capture something at all costs, low DOF is a risk that makes no sense to take. When the subject of your image is less interesting than your choice of aperture, you are not taking a very interesting photo.

07-29-2011, 10:20 AM	#43
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by paperbag846 I totally agree. Sometimes lens speed is nice for an effect but when the goal is to capture something at all costs, low DOF is a risk that makes no sense to take. When the subject of your image is less interesting than your choice of aperture, you are not taking a very interesting photo. Whoa, grab the cameras--big bear fight in progress!

07-29-2011, 10:35 AM	#44
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by dadipentak Whoa, grab the cameras--big bear fight in progress! I'd prefer to see more bears .

07-31-2011, 10:25 AM	#45
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Wide apertures certainly do have their place. It's an essential part of composing the photo. With any lens, it takes some time and practice with it find what works. The wonderful thing about our digital cameras is that we bracket to our hearts delight. That's the best way to shoot with a new lens that you are unfamiliar with. Shoot a few hundred shots and use every setting available if you're not sure. That way, you can see the results in front of you. You will know exactly what the DOF is and what to expect next time out.