Quote: Looking at #1 and #2 my feeling is that #2 is softer. However, since #2 was taken at a longer distance and then cropped so the bird is the same size as in #1 I'm not sure how that is a fair comparison. But maybe I don't understand this. I would think a fair comparison would be the same subject (focusing target maybe) at the same distance and then the 300mm one cropped so that the object was the same size. Does that make sense? Also your #1 and #2 are at different ISO figures so that will have an impact
Yes the #2 is a lot softer. Sure it would be better to compare at the same distance, same light conditions, etc... I have to do it for better comparison, but it's not that easy in real condition shooting. I'll try on my 2015 bee-eater season (if they come back again), it's my best spot to do it.
Quote: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if SR was on or off. And I cannot figure out how to check that.
It's written in the RAW's exifs, but Photoshop doesn't export it in the JPG exifs. You can use
Phil Harvey's command line tool to extract it. I'm developing an user-interface to use it easily, but the project is on pause at the moment (if you want me to check for you you can send me the RAW). I don't know if another exif viewer can extract this metadata.
Quote: Ok I'll add a bit here
Handheld out of a car,bit of wind..Raw processed in lIghtroom--WB,levels,shadows,and some sharpening
single point AF-S,Hoya HD UV filter on
last one shadows pulled alot to see feathers(or what's left of them )
Thanks for the samples. Seems the same IQ than the one I get, but it would be easier to see on an unsharpened 100% crop.
Quote: To me looks like that on some pictures you are simply out of focus, tending to say that your lens is back focused slightly... Did you try to calibrate the lens to your body?
Quote: I'm seeing the same thing as others have said. The pictures look a bit out of focus. I'd look for a static subject and use manual focus. Re-test and try again.
Quote: I suggest you do some auto-focus tests on tripod with a stationary target.
EDIT: I guess I was a bit slow typing.
Quote: Pic #4 - undertail coverts are pin sharp but eye is out of focus. A focus problem here
Quote: I agree with this. It looks like there is a small miss in focus on some of them, or simply not getting the eye 100% in focus.
Quote: I always thought the basics of testing procedures for lenses (and TC) was:
(1) start with a static, flat test target (ISO 12233 test target or newpaper page, camera on a tripod, good daylight equivalent light, wide-open plus progressively other apertures, manual focus);
(2) move on to real world tests (inc SR on/off).
Then draw conclusions.
These TC tests have jumped straight to (2).
Well, I just tried (again) to calibrate the 300 alone and the 300 + TC. With the 300 alone I see no focusing problem. With the TC adding +10 correction seems better. I have to do it again at a wider distance and outdoors though. BUT ! The depth of field is so shallow at 300 & 420mm that even if the lens is front / back focusing when I focus on the eye, some place in the picture must be in focus, right ? For example in shots #1 & #3, the sharpness is best on the shoulders, and not on the eyes. Still the #1 is a lot sharper if you look at the sharpest area on each picture. For the #3, the focus seems to be right on the eye. There could be front/back focus problem, still some area on the picture is in focus. I find the results with the TC a lot softer, when looking to the in-focus area of the pictures, which is not always on the subject eyes.
I may be wrong, but I doubt that focusing is in cause there, no ? I'm gonna try the calibration outdoors at a wider distance...
Quote: Here is a series of pictures taken with the K5 + DA* 300 + Pentax HD 1.4X teleconverter posted in my Flickr account ...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/sets/72157645777277486
While some pictures are quite decent at 420mm, some are still not quite as sharp as they should be.
There are 21 pictures there, a good sampling.
Note: a whole bunch of images were deleted (not posted) because of the said softness; i.e.: a good percentage of them were certainly not as good as the K5 + DA*300 alone.
My photostream is rather filled with bird pictures taken with the DA*300 (no TC) and you can browse at will:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/with/16325838011/
So, I think the lens on its own performs better than when combined with the TC.
I have similar results using the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 with that same very lens and camera.
My (non-scientific) opinion is that any TC will degrade the overall end result(s), no matter how small the effect is.
JP
Thanks for the samples ! I don't have the Tamron 1.4 but its great that you have both. Based on what a lot of people are saying about the Pentax, and on its price, I expected better results.
Quote: Are you running the firmware that was designed to accommodate the TC? I think it was 1.16
I am, it was the first thing I did when I saw the first results. It didn't change anything.
Quote: Not really but that's me accustomed to shorter focal length where prime are indeed sharper and also K3 that remove the low pass filter and make things sharper.
To give you another idea of sharpness from DxO:
HD DA 35 macro ltd is measured as 13MP on K3 and 8MP on K5...
DA 35 f/2.4 both measured as 11MP on K3 and 7MP on K5.
But DA*300 is measured as 9MP on K3 and 7MP on K5... and while shorter prime all show at least some little improvement from 16 => 24MP (K5-IIs vs K3) the DA*300 show none, it max out with K5-IIs.
So yes if you compare the DA35 macro on K3 with a DA*300 on K5 you'll think the DA*300 shoots are soft.
The longer the focal length, the bigger it is, the more you pay, the less quality you get. Or you need to pay much much more or to have the lenses much much bigger... Maybe the 150-450 being so expensive and huge would be a great improvement here. We will see.
I always trusted through that the TC added quality, I have seen crops (more at K5 times) where there details you could not get without a TC by cropping... But I also seen that it was also typically coming with more CA and things like that. Many also confirm that.
So for me it hold true but when I see normhead pointing his shoot before post processing I feel more you are not alone having "not so sharp" picture out of the DA*300 + TC.
In all honestly the whole set of picture on the 1.4 TC thread you can see many picture that are soso from a pure technical point of view... Because we cumulate TC+crops, because there many birding etc and that a very difficult discipline.
Feathers are not the easier thing for a lense too. Most lenses measurements in lp/lw are done on contrasty target in studios and typically accept 50% contrast drop off while the texture of feather are far less contrasty and can easily be lost in particular if the light is not good.
Doing nearly exclusively wildlife and landscapes (with a softy 18-55), I'm not used to the 35's sharpness, so I'm totally satisfied with my 300 ^^. And yes, with the 300, the K3 doesn't seem to improve things that much. The limitations I have for now and that would decide me to buy new gear is the ISO handling and the focal length. That's why I'm considering the 150-450, and, maybe, the FF. That's also why I bought the TC. The K3 is tempting for its new auto-focus, but I managed to resist until now
!
Quote: Beware that with an FF 450 will not offer more reach than 300mm on APSC. And the pixel density to march 16MP K5 is already 37MP. And finally the lense apperture (up to f/5.6) mean that the AF would struggle with the TC (f/8 wide open).
But if the lense is indeed better, that might be interresting to use the 150-450 without TC in place of DA*300... well if you like the price and weight
Yes it's early to decide. I'm mostly considering the FF because I'm planning a working holidays in Australia next year, and I'd like to be as nicely equipped for landscaping as I can afford. Not sure if I will though
When using it for wildlife, what could interest me is its high-sensitivity handling. We'll see.
Quote: all valid points. my bet is on the DA*300 to perform better in terms of IQ than the 150-450.... especially wide open.
also if 1. cropped isn't good enough for you, then you just need to give up on long lenses. It really doesn't get any better. An excellent 400mm lens will struggle to match a mediocre 50mm lens. The DA300 alone is excellent. This is as good as it gets...
Yep the 150-450 will probably not be as good at the 300 (but it could, the 300 is getting old. At least the 150-450 will be a lot better on the AF). But if it's better than the 300 + TC (and a lot better), it could worth it for me.
Quote: Two issues with the 300 + TC.
- First, to get a small bird large in the frame, distance like 7m or so is necessary, at this distance, 420mm lead to a tiny DOF, for a bird not fully stable on a branch, it's hard to have it perfect in focus, unless shooting at f11 or more, then diffraction kicks in.
- Second, TC basically magnify the image from the DA300 including resolution limit, diffraction, CA etc.. In theory, the TC give an image resolution advantage with cameras limited by sensor resolution (i.e K10,K200,K5) where the sensor does not record higher spatial frequencies that are available out of the lens. However, with K-5iis and K-3, the TC does not bring a resolution advantage over cropping in the 24Mpixels sensor, not even a benefit in terms of noise since with TC one stop of light is lost (= same light spread over the sensor compared to the light falling on the crop area).
The DA*300 is very good alone. For more reach: Sigma 500 f4.5 . I'd like to have a 400mm prime, even if it is f5.6, but there isn't any Pentax autofocus version yet.
Well the Sigma 500 is out of budget for me at the moment ^^. And I don't know how it performs against the Canon / Nikon versions...
Quote: This thread should be labeled "Save $500" ......I think I have.
Maybe I'll just try and get closer...where I can..... mmm maybe I'll just specialise in Emus....
But I do want a $1,500 560mm .....
(and thats Canadian or Australian $ to)
Yep it's always better to get closer, but not always possible. And even when possible, it still better for the subjects quietness to be 1.4 time farther.
Well the 560 had a huge price drop, it's now 4000€ IIRC... But even at this price the Sigma could be a better choice.
Quote: +10
Since the OP's point using the examples provided eludes me, perhaps he can help by posting an image, or provide a link to an image, that demonstrates the 'better' results he desires beyond what he is getting.
Just curious... M
Not sure to understand, you mean better results with the 300 alone ? I'm looking for that, I'm totally happy with my 300. If you were speaking of the 300 + TC, well I don't have picture samples in full size or 100% crops links, I started the discussion because a lot of people are saying that this is a killer combo. In my case it's not (or, I don't find it is), so I'd like to know what's wrong. It may just be that what some consider as a "killer combo" is not what I expect. Still, I remember an example of two TCs stacked on the 560, and it was quite impressive (I downloaded the RAW IIRC)...
Quote: I fought with the DA*300 1.4HD tc with ok results. I determined that most of the problem was shutter induced vibration. The focus was good.
I had used a vanguard tripod and Jobu gimbal for a long time with the Da*300 with good results. I was getting soft shots with the tc attached. Test shots for focus calibration made it very clear what was going on. It was vibrating like a tuning fork.
If you can get the shutter speed high enough the problem goes away. Yes, the two second delay and mirror up can eliminate vibration blur, but try shooting wildlife like that. Baiting wouldn't be enough, maybe clubbing and stuffing.
I have seen great results here, so I don't know why my two bodies in that combination with either DA*300 lenses I had at the time has the same issues.
The bokeh in busy backgrounds common to where I shoot was ugly as well. The DA*300 will produce that in some situations, and the tc just magnified it.
A sigma 500mm came my way and I sold the tc.
I'll try again with higher shutter speed, if I can. Are you happy with the Sigma ? How does it performs against the 300 alone ?