Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2019, 03:53 PM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,040
QuoteOriginally posted by robert Quote
The Lumix lens is their 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 which I bought for $100 used in like new condition.
OK... thanks for that. Well, see above for our various opinions re your 16-45. Frankly, it doesn't look quite right. As I mentioned, even my MkI 18-55 does better than this in the borders at f/8

04-11-2019, 04:18 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 301
Original Poster
Tried my old DA 18-55 and the results were worse yet. Thinking it might be the camera I put on the DA 21 limited and it was nice and sharp.
04-11-2019, 04:25 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,040
QuoteOriginally posted by robert Quote
Tried my old DA 18-55 and the results were worse yet. Thinking it might be the camera I put on the DA 21 limited and it was nice and sharp.
If you're getting sharp results with one lens and awful results with another, it could be that you need to carry out AF fine adjustment for your lenses... though, frankly, at f/8 that should be mitigated to a significant extent...

Take a look at the Flickr group for the DA16-45 to get an idea of the results you could / should be getting: Pentax SMCPDA 16-45mm f/4.0 | Flickr
04-11-2019, 04:38 PM   #49
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,144
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
If you're getting sharp results with one lens and awful results with another, it could be that you need to carry out AF fine adjustment for your lenses...
Center in focus (not sharp, but in relative focus), edges smeared...not something AF fine adjust can fix.


Steve

04-11-2019, 04:55 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,040
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Center in focus (not sharp, but in relative focus), edges smeared...not something AF fine adjust can fix.
Agreed, but we don't know if the lens is as sharp in the centre as it could be... maybe there's still a little room for improvement?

I also wondered if field curvature might be an issue, but according to reviews this lens has a fairly flat field, so I guess not...
04-11-2019, 05:26 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 301
Original Poster
I bought the Olympus on a whim. We are taking a trip to Glacier National Park in Sept. and the small size of not just the camera but the lenses appealed to me. Right now the only lenses in my Pentax lineup that will give me the kind of sharpness as the Lumix zoom are prime lenses.
04-11-2019, 05:26 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Riggomatic's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Auburn, Indiana
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,200
The images look like samples I took with shake reduction on and attached to a tripod.

Could something be up with your shake reduction on the camera?
04-11-2019, 05:27 PM   #53
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,144
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Agreed, but we don't know if the lens is as sharp in the centre as it could be... maybe there's still a little room for improvement?

I also wondered if field curvature might be an issue, but according to reviews this lens has a fairly flat field, so I guess not...
The EXIF Focus Range = "close". Tests I have done show "close" for focus ring position of about 0.5m. (The FocusRangeIndex number in the makernotes is assumed to be read from the lens focus ring position.) If the body finds best focus on a subject located, maybe 20m away and reads "close" from the focus ring, something is terribly wrong.


Steve

(...will recheck...)

04-11-2019, 06:04 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 301
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
I posted this in the last thread but it seems to have been ignored:

Just throwing it out there; sample variation, perhaps? I don't own either lens in question so can't make any comments
about their performance, but certainly there is enough evidence to suggest, good, average and bad copies of almost
any lens are in circulation.
I believe you may be correct. When I go to pixel peepers and view 100% samples of this lens it seems to be very hit or miss as far as edge sharpness with more misses than hits
04-11-2019, 06:17 PM   #55
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,570
QuoteOriginally posted by robert Quote
I believe you may be correct. When I go to pixel peepers and view 100% samples of this lens it seems to be very hit or miss as far as edge sharpness with more misses than hits
See Steve's post on real problems you have.

It's not right to assume our sample of a lens is up to standard.



04-11-2019, 06:34 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 301
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
See Steve's post on real problems you have.

It's not right to assume our sample of a lens is up to standard.
The real problem is variation in lenses. Go to pixel peepers and look at the samples. Not just the small size samples as you suggested but 100 % samples. You will see many with soft edges
04-11-2019, 06:42 PM - 2 Likes   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,570
QuoteOriginally posted by robert Quote
The real problem is variation in lenses. Go to pixel peepers and look at the samples. Not just the small size samples as you suggested but 100 % samples. You will see many with soft edges
Sure. When I buy a lens these days, I don't throw any packaging until I've microadjusted its focus and checked for decentreing by shooting the same scene four times with ninety degree rotation until I know I've got the copy I've paid for.

Someone like Digitalis did this three times until he got a copy of one of his favourite lenses that was up to standard - the Sigma 8-16mm.

That's on us, as pixel peeping consumers.
04-11-2019, 06:51 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 301
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Sure. When I buy a lens these days, I don't throw any packaging until I've microadjusted its focus and checked for decentreing by shooting the same scene four times with ninety degree rotation until I know I've got the copy I've paid for.

Someone like Digitalis did this three times until he got a copy of one of his favourite lenses that was up to standard - the Sigma 8-16mm.

That's on us, as pixel peeping consumers.
I can see your point and thats a smart thing to do but should we really have to? Should I have to drive 3 different cars to find one that's not defective? Shouldn't these lenses be tested before they are put out to be sold?
04-11-2019, 06:59 PM   #59
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,144
QuoteOriginally posted by robert Quote
The real problem is variation in lenses.
In all due respect, that is easy to say, but I don't think so. I am not an owner or former owner and can't comment intelligently except to say it is as bad as any lens I have handled and used. Perhaps that is how the nasty tail of the quality curve looks for that lens. And perhaps they all report "close" for subjects 50' or more distant. That being said, I think I will bow out of active conversation here. With any luck, one of our more technically astute members who have owned the lens ( @Digitalis ?) will pop in with an analysis and perhaps a few incisive questions.

I hope you are able to work a kit that performs better.


Steve
04-11-2019, 07:01 PM - 1 Like   #60
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,144
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Someone like Digitalis did this three times
Someone like Digitalis is a former DA 16-45/4 owner.


Steve
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
copies, copy, fa-j, fight, images, k-mount, kit, lens, lenses, look, lumix, pentax, pentax lens, photos, post, re can't pentax, size, sizes, slr lens, variation
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo mythguy9 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-27-2013 08:51 AM
The K-5 Can Make the DA 18-250 look good Fl_Gulfer Pentax K-5 20 11-15-2010 03:04 PM
Is there something that can make my lens into a zoom lens? CrossStealth Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 15 02-14-2010 01:26 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats. pasipasi Post Your Photos! 12 08-28-2008 04:43 PM
How can I test to make sure I have a good copy? Ed in GA Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 01-13-2008 08:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top