[Kevin B123]

There is a UV filter attached.

That would be the first culprit to look at, try removing it and repeating the test on a few subjects. I only ever use ND filters or a CPL, something that will positively enhance my image (I hope anyway).

[MossyRocks]

From the quick look that I took at the images it almost looks like it is front focusing and you don't have a deep enough depth of field. I would see about setting the camera to only use the center focus point and use that to focus and then reframe. If you are still getting missed focuses then do the AF fine focus adjustment for that lens. My DA 35/2.4 is the lens that I own that is the most off and would back focus until I did a +9 for the AF fine adjustment. I don't know if you were shooting wide open or near wide open (don't have a program on the computer I am on that can pull that info out of the DNG) but I've never liked that lens wide open but it starts getting pretty good at f/4 and I think it peaks around 5.6 and stays there for a while until diffraction starts eating detail. So stop it down, especially in bright scenes as you could still get a fast shutter even at f/8 with that scene (about 1/400s).

[vector]

I did use auto focus. As pretty much all of the photos I took this afternoon were landscape, would I have been better having it in manual focus?

I'll try smaller apertures as suggested.

I've now opened up the images on the desktop and there is also a noticeable difference for the better from the laptop.

Thanks again

Simon

I am not familiar with the GX-10 (or the K10D) but it looks like it doesn't have live view or af fine tuning so in that case your best bets are to be careful where you to chose to focus and don't be afraid to use a smaller aperture. I wouldn't try to manually focus that lens without live view, the viewfinder just isn't good enough to do better than the af system will. I used to shoot with a K100D that also didn't have live view or fine tuning so it's not like those features are necessary to get great shots, just be aware of limitations and make the camera do what you want it to. As I mentioned before I did not have a good af experience with my DA35 as it would happily give focus confirmation but be way off, and then the next shot totally different. The work around is to pay close attention in the viewfinder to how well it appears to have focused before pressing the shutter the rest of the way. If it appears suspect, refocus. Sometimes I would have to make it focus elsewhere and then come back to my desired point and try again to get it to work.

[pschlute]

You should be processing these raw files before posting them. A raw image has no sharpening applied. You should convert them in a suitable raw converter applying input and output sharpening. Then we will be better able to judge an image for sharpness.

[3by2]

There is a UV filter attached.

I had a UV on mine, not a bad one either but it used to flare and soften on the 35 quite badly. A lens hood helped but in the end I removed it altogether. Not sure if some lenses behave worse than others in this regard.

[ChristianRock]

A lot of UV filters (most?) don't have good coatings so they'll perform especially poor in bright sunlight.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

From the quick look that I took at the images it almost looks like it is front focusing and you don't have a deep enough depth of field. I would see about setting the camera to only use the center focus point and use that to focus and then reframe. If you are still getting missed focuses then do the AF fine focus adjustment for that lens. My DA 35/2.4 is the lens that I own that is the most off and would back focus until I did a +9 for the AF fine adjustment. I don't know if you were shooting wide open or near wide open (don't have a program on the computer I am on that can pull that info out of the DNG) but I've never liked that lens wide open but it starts getting pretty good at f/4 and I think it peaks around 5.6 and stays there for a while until diffraction starts eating detail. So stop it down, especially in bright scenes as you could still get a fast shutter even at f/8 with that scene (about 1/400s).

You can not fine focus this camera. But I agree, the filter could be the culprit. If you want to use a filter, do not use a cheap one, you need a quality one. I shoot without a filter.

---------- Post added 5th May 2021 at 21:59 ----------

I did use auto focus. As pretty much all of the photos I took this afternoon were landscape, would I have been better having it in manual focus?

I'll try smaller apertures as suggested.

I've now opened up the images on the desktop and there is also a noticeable difference for the better from the laptop.

Thanks again

Simon

Manual focus makes it even more difficult and you should get good results with this lens using AF.

[SimonC]

Thanks again for the advice and comments, I've take it on board and will see how I go and hopefully see some improvements:-)

[rogerstg]

You should be processing these raw files before posting them.

Especially at 10mb. Unlike film, a raw digital image is never very sharp.

The first photo had some rudimentary processing done. The second did not. The lens seems to render well.

[clackers]

There is a UV filter attached.

I'd throw that away, Simon. Laugh as you hurl it over the fence into your neighbour's bin.

The other thing all camera owners should do is calibrate the autofocus of every lens they own with their body. But the GX10 is old and doesn't allow this, AFAIK.

[bwgv001]

looks good to me

[bwgv001]

The other one is a little soft when zooming in

[clackers]

Good review of optics and sharpness of one of the cheapest Pentax lenses here:

SMC Pentax-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Lens Review | ePHOTOzine

[Prohibitiory]

I owned this lens for a year and wasn't bad at all honestly. I made some pretty good and sharp portraits with it. However sold now and upgraded to FF + Sigma 35mm 1.4 art and never looking back

[clackers]

I owned this lens for a year and wasn't bad at all honestly. I made some pretty good and sharp portraits with it. However sold now and upgraded to FF + Sigma 35mm 1.4 art and never looking back

(Laughs) You might regret selling it, because you wouldn't have got much money for it, and you'll discover that there will be times when you simply cannot be bothered lugging the huge (but good) Sigma around.

It's why I kept my FA31 Limited when I bought my Siggy, it does nearly the same job in nearly the same situations, and is almost pocketable.