[muzicantini]

Here's the thing. The 55-300 is really sharp wide open but only when shooting objects that are not far from me. So, when a bokeh can be achieved. But when shooting distant objects, for example landscapes, the IQ is really bad, lack of contrast and sharpness. I tried manual focus but on bigger focal lenghts it is not easy to properly focus manually. My camera is K30. Could this be a matter of micro adjustment and how should I fine tune it to properly focus on distances near to infinyty?

[geedee]

Interesting question.

Perhaps my problem with the DA 55-300 refers to the same phenomena: When recently shooting the (half) moon at 300mm (manual mode, manual focus, tripod, 2 sec delay, iso 1600) I discovered that it was only at f/32 that maximum sharpness and level of details was achieved. Would have thought that it should have been reached earlier...

Can someone explain those phenomena?

[calculator01]

What shutter speeds are being used for these shots? For how light this lens is, I generally have to keep it above 1/350 to get decent shots where lens movement does not come into play. For the DA*300, I have to do 1/500 as a minimum.


Other thing is possible atmospheric interference, such as smoke, humidity, mosquito clouds, general particles in the air, etc.


I too have notice this problem (I mean annoyance), but pretty much with any lens I own, not just the 55-300.

[filoxophy]

Other thing is possible atmospheric interference, such as smoke, humidity, mosquito clouds, general particles in the air, etc

This was my first thought.

[ramseybuckeye]

Here's the thing. The 55-300 is really sharp wide open but only when shooting objects that are not far from me. So, when a bokeh can be achieved. But when shooting distant objects, for example landscapes, the IQ is really bad, lack of contrast and sharpness. I tried manual focus but on bigger focal lenghts it is not easy to properly focus manually. My camera is K30. Could this be a matter of micro adjustment and how should I fine tune it to properly focus on distances near to infinity?

Mine is sharp at f8 but not wide open. You could have a focus issue, there are several threads dealing with focus adjustment. To really test it and make sure it's not movement, use a tripod and control your tests. Slow lens speed has blurred many 300mm shots.

And read calculator01's post, atmospheric interference is real, it's not always there but when it is it will prevent you from getting a clear shot.

[muzicantini]

Shooting at 1/800 - 1/1000 in bright sunny day. And it is clear that at 300 mm f5.8 the lense is somewhat soft but for example at 200 mm f 5.6 wherer the lense is usually dead sharp is muddy as the 18-55 at 55 f5.6 . I've tried in a couple of different days and the results are kind of consistent.

[monochrome]

At 300mm handheld motion blur is an issue for me - even on a monopod. In the brightest light on a tripod at 1/1000, at 300mm there is some loss of clarity (that could be atmospheric on a hot day). But this is, after all, a consumer lens, not a DA*. For most applications inside 250mm it is sharp and punchy.

[NZ_Ross]

On the Kiwi thread here at PF a while ago a group of us did some testing of our 55-300's. It was based on the same sort of discussion as this one.

We generally found that the 55-300's were soft wide open, and sharpest at between f9-f13.

[Adam]

Perhaps my problem with the DA 55-300 refers to the same phenomena: When recently shooting the (half) moon at 300mm (manual mode, manual focus, tripod, 2 sec delay, iso 1600) I discovered that it was only at f/32 that maximum sharpness and level of details was achieved. Would have thought that it should have been reached earlier...

If you're getting the sharpest images at F32, it means you haven't focused the lens properly

[TER-OR]

Most shots I have of light aircraft flying by seem to be in perfect focus, but are washed out. It's worse in the summer. I attribute this to atmospheric moisture - the eye doesn't see it as much, and the subject is far enough away it's tough to see anyway - but the lens picks it up.

I suppose you could focus on distant objects and take exposures at different ISOs and shutter speeds etc. to see if there is a contrast issue as well. Of course as mentioned above any camera motion will be more detectable at distances than up close - which could easily be a portion of my problem, too - though shooting at a bright sky my shutter speed is often 1/1000 with f8 or higher.

[tibbitts]

I find that at 300mm I need close to 1/1000th to eliminate vibration. And even on my 10lb tripod, any little wind or vibration can affect the sharpness at any lower speeds. My long distance photos at 300mm are often affected by atmospheric conditions, and at the least need some help from PP to make them look more similiar to how I remember the original scene. Autofocus is pretty easy to check - compare the results of autofocus to live view manual focus, which should be accurate as long as you can see the lcd. You need to photograph some flat object (like the infamous brick wall) that is at least somewhat precisely parallel to the sensor, and verify that you're getting uniform sharpness across the frame.

When you test make sure you don't use a filter, since a filter can affect sharpness, especially at 300+mm.

[Rondec]

I think the 55-300 should be plenty sharp. The big things with it are the things that others have mentioned -- good technique, stop down at least to f8 when shooting at 300mm, and take into account haze and things like that that could soften far off details. That said, I don't shoot landscapes with my 55-300, but use it more as a telephoto for wildlife/birds.

[reeftool]

Anther issue in distant landscapes than can be overlooked is wind. Even if your camera is tripod mounted, you need a shutter speed fast enough to freeze any movement even a slight breeze can cause. A telephoto can be useful for landscape shots that aren't easily accessable but you have to be aware of atmospheric conditions, wind, and also make sure the camera has focused on what you want and not something in the foreground or background.

[geedee]

If you're getting the sharpest images at F32, it means you haven't focused the lens properly

OK, sounds logical. Hmm. I did focus manually on infinity. Are the distance scales more or less exact on this lens?

[reeftool]

I don't own the 55-300 but many telephotos and long zooms can be focused past infinity a little bit. I always trust my viewfinder rather than the distance marks on the lens on a telephoto. You don't have the DOF to play with that a short focal length has.