[normhead]

I remember those shots Ron, I hope that girl in the 250mm F4 shot has a poster of that up on her wall, or her parents have one up in their rec room.

Here's one I took with the DA*60-250 at full reach with the Pentax 1.7 teleconverter for an effective focal length of 425mm. ALl I can say is, tripod , tripod , tripod, I use a ball head adjusted loose enough that I can follow the action but tight enough so that when I stop, the camera stays still. Adjusting the tripod head is an art in itself.

[wlachan]

The original pictures this thread opened with are definitely soft due to camera shake. If you look at smaller elements in the background you will see two copies of each one.

That's probably caused by the donut-bokeh which is amplified by tree branches (rather typical), instead of camera shake. Though I cannot be certain, but I won't be surprised if the OP got 2 lemons in a row. I went through 3 faulty FA*200/2.8 until Pentax Japan handpicked one for me. I have come across more defective brand new Pentax lenses than I like to believe during the last decade.

[bossa]

I remember those shots Ron, I hope that girl in the 250mm F4 shot has a poster of that up on her wall, or her parents have one up in their rec room.

Here's one I took with the DA*60-250 at full reach with the Pentax 1.7 teleconverter for an effective focal length of 425mm. ALl I can say is, tripod , tripod , tripod, I use a ball head adjusted loose enough that I can follow the action but tight enough so that when I stop, the camera stays still. Adjusting the tripod head is an art in itself.

Why did yo have to show me that shot Norm? Why?

[bossa]

That's probably caused by the donut-bokeh which is amplified by tree branches (rather typical), instead of camera shake. Though I cannot be certain, but I won't be surprised if the OP got 2 lemons in a row. I went through 3 faulty FA*200/2.8 until Pentax Japan handpicked one for me. I have come across more defective brand new Pentax lenses than I like to believe during the last decade.

Thanks, you're probably right. I get similar Bokeh with branches on my 17-50.

I'd really like to see some shots of architecture with the 60-250 from 60mm @F4. I have a few test shots with one and the edges are pretty soft to my eyes. There's even a large amount of CA too but I don't know if it's just because I use a 30" monitor that things get magnified more though...

---

Last edited by bossa; 02-10-2012 at 05:28 PM.

[normhead]

I guess the devil made me do it... sawry

[bossa]

Hehe.. I must say that I'm surprised that the 1.7x TC doesn't seem to hurt the image that much if at all.

[normhead]

This is 68 mm @F4 hand held with the image pretty close to the bottom right corner and a 100% pixel peep. Apart from going FF I don't know if you can get it any sharper, although the images doesn't look as crisp after being converted to a jpeg...look at the black link fence bottom right to the 100% in front of the stones. Looks sharp to me.

Full image



100% pixel peep

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-10-2012 at 07:24 PM.

[bossa]

Thanks for that. I have some shots I was about to upload but changed my mind because without scaling them up to 200% I doubt the issues I see would be visible on the net. The lens I have tests shots from here is pretty nice but just seems quite soft along the borders to about 20% of the way to center. Probably not visible on a print anyway. I think my monitor raises my expectations because it's so large and I appear to have developed a bad pixel peeping problem as a result.

[falconeye]

I think some of the shots and in particular the 100% crops don't do the DA*60-250 lens justice. Even the ducks which look great aren't yet as sharp as the lens can deliver.

I here show a shot wide open at 250mm, of a sparrow. First the entire frame, then a 100% crop (600x600 px), taken with the K-7 at ISO 800 (I didn't reduce the noise because I quite liked the grain). Shot with a monopod.

I think there is no way this can get any sharper. I admit that most of my shots aren't as sharp. But then there is defocus, shake and motion blur to be considered ...

[normhead]

I think we can say without question that the OPs images weren't at all representative of what can be done. And I won't even talk about it being the lens until he puts the lens on a tripod, picks an object 40-50 feet away or closer and snaps a picture with the mirror locked up...in bright sunlight. If you can't get a shot in perfect conditions maybe you have a lens problem. If you can, then we have to figure which of the less than perfect conditions cause the problem. It's one thing to own a lens. It's another thing to take the time to learn what it demands from you. Some lenses are very forgiving ie short focal lengths, long lenses always make you rearrange your life.. and your shooting habits. You get weight to carry, movement is amplified, even your old tripod may need to be replaced for a heavier one. You need to start seeing branches and things between your and your target and setting up in places with clean shooting lines. The 60-250 seems like a normal lens in it's short end. As you crank it out, your mindset has to change, even as you're dialing up the long focal length.

By the way falc, I love the crinkles on that guys beak... perfect.

[crewl1]

I had a chance to try out a forum members 60-250 at our meetup on WPD (chuckp8's maybe?)

I was astonished at how sharp it was, prime-like. it was nothing like the pictures from the OP.

[normhead]

The MTF numbers say the same thing... in terms of sharpness, the 60-250 takes away any need to have a a telephoto in that range. It's numbers are better or equal to the 200 prime. Where it currently falls down is the F.4 Used with my 1.7 converter max aperture is 6.7 and auto-focus is right on the edge of working a lot of the time. There just isn't enough light getting to the AF system.

Of course there are other things than sharpness to consider. The consensus around our house is that the Tamron 90 macro is better at it's focal length. In sharpness, both MTF numbers and observed they are about the same, but we like the micro contrast and colours better in the Tammy. Sharpness isn't everything.

[bossa]

The online MTF50 results are only one measurement though as there's also MTF20 which measures a different aspect to a lens. My DA*200 is definitely sharper, and with way less CA, than both DA60-250 lenses that I've tried. If it were equal I would have swapped them out ages ago as I had intended after seeing online test results. My DA 50-135 is as sharp as a Prime however. If I could find a 60-250 as good as that lens I'd buy it in a flash.

[Greyser]

The MTF numbers say the same thing... in terms of sharpness, the 60-250 takes away any need to have a a telephoto in that range. It's numbers are better or equal to the 200 prime. Where it currently falls down is the F.4 Used with my 1.7 converter max aperture is 6.7 and auto-focus is right on the edge of working a lot of the time. There just isn't enough light getting to the AF system.

The online MTF50 results are only one measurement though as there's also MTF20 which measures a different aspect to a lens. My DA*200 is definitely sharper, and with way less CA, than both DA60-250 lenses that I've tried. If it were equal I would have swapped them out ages ago as I had intended after seeing online test results. My DA 50-135 is as sharp as a Prime however. If I could find a 60-250 as good as that lens I'd buy it in a flash.

DA*60-250/4 is exceptional lens, indeed. There are a few samples at different focal lengths and apertures. Most of them are more or less cropped. I created the album for them and some extra: "DA*60-250". You can see EXIF there.
Greyser's Album: Pentax DA*60-250 - PentaxForums.com

220mm, wide open:



250mm, wide open, paired with Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF TC



100%crop



140mm, f/7.1



250mm, f/4.5



128mm, f/5.6



250mm, f/6.3



250mm, f/4.5

[simdavid]

Greyser, any sharpening or post processing applied to the pics?