[Michaelina2]

Mike P @... "Strange, I can read the EXIF data no problem..."

Perhaps you are reading EXIF data taken directly from the camera. My up-to-date copy of PhotoMe indicates both posted images "...contain no meta data. The file was most likely edited by image software which removed the metadata."

hmmmmm???

[AML]

There's no reason that your aperture setting should affect autofocus. It's probably in your head.

I wish it was in my head. Again, i took it out this morning and noticed this. At f4-4.5 focusing is ok, at F5.6 - F8 it has trouble focusing, and the shutter speed jumps around like a mad man while trying to find focus. Sometimes using the AF button helps, other times it doesn't. To be honest, i have no idea why it's doing this but that's what MY lens is doing. Anyone have any ideas why?? because it sure is frustrating! Here's a shot of a Rose at F4.5 @1/30 55mm



When it works as it should, i'm happy with what it produces IQ and sharpness wise.

If weather permits this afternoon i'm going to use manual focus.

[praxxis]

aside from the "seems" to be slow focusing, anybody here noticed any PF at 300mm?

i'm really eyeing this 55-300mm thingy too...

[ryan s]

What is this supposed to mean?

Fast...accurate...fast.

The K20 is noticeably quieter in every respect. It surprised me, when I added mine, but it is a welcomed suprise...

Ben

Ben, I actually held them both side-by-side and couldn't detect any difference I wish it was at C's 40D dB level because it's just a "click".

Anne, what you mention is strange. It would be interesting if someone could duplicate it either with the same lens, or even a different one just for kicks to see if it's possible.

Aside from that, the image does look pretty good

[simonkit]

Perhaps your particular lens has "issues" ?

My 55-300 hunts occasionally but as already mentioned by another poster its mainly when changing from distant to close-up focus points..... generally speaking focus locks quickly, I agree it is a little noisy but its a consumer/kit lens after all.

I've posted before that I'm quite impressed with sharpness & general IQ (colour/contrast) & that I prefer it over both my previous Sigma/Tamron 70-300s.

For anyone wanting to see 300mm shots I've just posted some here....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/29637-da-55-300-real-wor...ots-300mm.html


CA/PF so far is virtually non-existant



simon

[AndrewG NY]

I wish it was in my head. Again, i took it out this morning and noticed this. At f4-4.5 focusing is ok, at F5.6 - F8 it has trouble focusing, and the shutter speed jumps around like a mad man while trying to find focus. Sometimes using the AF button helps, other times it doesn't. To be honest, i have no idea why it's doing this but that's what MY lens is doing.

Sorry, wish I could help--my only suggestion is to try to think of other explanations--AF and metering are both always done at max aperture. Lens doesn't stop down until just before the shutter fires.

[AML]

Sorry, wish I could help--my only suggestion is to try to think of other explanations--AF and metering are both always done at max aperture. Lens doesn't stop down until just before the shutter fires.

No problem AndrewG. This is really weird. Yesterday morning i took it out in very foggy conditions expecting the worst and it focused without any problems...go figure. Could it be possible that a lens improves with a breaking in period??

[praxxis]

Perhaps your particular lens has "issues" ?

My 55-300 hunts occasionally but as already mentioned by another poster its mainly when changing from distant to close-up focus points..... generally speaking focus locks quickly, I agree it is a little noisy but its a consumer/kit lens after all.

I've posted before that I'm quite impressed with sharpness & general IQ (colour/contrast) & that I prefer it over both my previous Sigma/Tamron 70-300s.

For anyone wanting to see 300mm shots I've just posted some here....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/29637-da-55-300-real-wor...ots-300mm.html


CA/PF so far is virtually non-existant



simon

saw your shots and it was awesome!

[Jens D.]

Hello,

Mike P @... "Strange, I can read the EXIF data no problem..."

Perhaps you are reading EXIF data taken directly from the camera. My up-to-date copy of PhotoMe indicates both posted images "...contain no meta data. The file was most likely edited by image software which removed the metadata."

hmmmmm???

You need to click on the image to show it on Flickr.
Then click on the small magnifier icon, and after that on the "original size" link.

The original size image contains the metadata.
I assume Flickr remove them while generating the smaller size versions of the image.

Cu, Jens

[ibbe]

yes sometime its fokus the wrong way,to get a bird flying i us to help it whit the quick shift to ~ and then its relly fast to lock on target.

[Ben_Edict]

Ben, I actually held them both side-by-side and couldn't detect any difference I wish it was at C's 40D dB level because it's just a "click".

Hm, I have both cameras here, side by side and tried a comparisson again. The effect is as follows. If I trigger the shutter (all settings the same with MF, M-mode at 1/250s) they produce exactly the same noise (level and spectrum, but not measured, just aural) IF I listen from above. (Obviously the cameras are not placed on a table or any other resonating rest, but held in my hands).

IF I turn the cameras so, that I "listen" from the back, quite as I do while shooting, the K20 is considerably quieter, as if dampened somehow. It might be the bigger LCD with the according electronics layer. Switching SR on or off has a slightly detectable influence in the K10, where SR makes a grinding, hard noise, but not in the K20. Listening from the front, the K20 is also quieter, just as from the back.

Nevertheless, the K20 is noisier than a EOS 40D or the like.

I can't claim, that this is a comparisson, which can be generalized. It might be, that I have a particularily noisy K10 or a particularily quiet K20. I also use the battery grip + a large QU plate on both cameras, which certainly have influence the noise level ans especially the spectrum.

Ben

[Michaelina2]

Jens D.: You need to click on the image to show it on Flickr.
Then click on the small magnifier icon, and after that on the "original size" link.

What a hassle... but I'm all for learning something new. Even though only partial EXIF data is provided; some is better than none, I guess. Thanks for the tip!

Obviously, in each case, PP was used to enhance the subject. Plus, 320mm was employed, not 300mm for detail. So a decision based on a this simple hardware comparison will be flawed. Even controlling for capture sampling issues, I'd be willing to bet there are members of this board who could trick out like 55-300 images and make them look a lot better than the examples provided. (BTW: the background looks artificial and the subject is a little over-sharpened to my liking).

Suggesting that a shadow be cast over the 55-300 using the photos provided seems very unfair to me.

...my 2 cents...

[simonkit]

Suggesting that a shadow be cast over the 55-300 using the photos provided seems very unfair to me.

I agree, as I do with all "single posts" related to users lens experiences, that includes my recent posts on the 55-300 too.

The majority of us at the moment seem pleased with results, although obviously its early days yet as there doesn't seem to be many owners around.

I think the usual "sample variation factor" could have reared its ugly head again ?

I personally would get it exchanged asap

simon

[Mike.P®]

Obviously, in each case, PP was used to enhance the subject. Plus, 320mm was employed, not 300mm for detail. So a decision based on a this simple hardware comparison will be flawed. Even controlling for capture sampling issues, I'd be willing to bet there are members of this board who could trick out like 55-300 images and make them look a lot better than the examples provided. (BTW: the background looks artificial and the subject is a little over-sharpened to my liking).

Suggesting that a shadow be cast over the 55-300 using the photos provided seems very unfair to me.

...my 2 cents...

It was a simple question, am I going to get significantly better images with the 55-300mm over the 80-320mm. It was not a comparison so don't get so upset thinking I was trying to make out the new lens is no good, that is for the people who actually own one to maybe advise me as I am thinking of purchasing it.
Some people get so defensive at the slightest hint that others are trying to rubbish their new purchase, maybe the thought had already crossed their mind.

As for PP being used to enhance the photos, yes it was, as is virtually every other photo shown on this and other forums, not to your taste? maybe not but plenty of others seem to like them.

[opiedog]

Perhaps your particular lens has "issues" ?

My 55-300 hunts occasionally but as already mentioned by another poster its mainly when changing from distant to close-up focus points..... generally speaking focus locks quickly, I agree it is a little noisy but its a consumer/kit lens after all.

I've posted before that I'm quite impressed with sharpness & general IQ (colour/contrast) & that I prefer it over both my previous Sigma/Tamron 70-300s.

For anyone wanting to see 300mm shots I've just posted some here....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/29637-da-55-300-real-wor...ots-300mm.html


CA/PF so far is virtually non-existant


simon

i second simon's and dave's comments.

from distant to close-up it will sort of 'hunt' but if the lens' current focus is in close proximity to the correct focus, it locks quickly.


af is noisier than my sigma 17-70

CA (green, if this is CA) exists slightly, but you'll need to pixel peep

a few sample shots at my site

Zenfolio | Jordan Paw Image Arts | Pentax 55-300

regards,
jordan