da* lens rubbish

**Ash** · 07-06-2009, 01:16 PM

Hi ranters - an Aussie welcome to ya, mate.

Now, I also have DA* lenses and don't share your opinion with regards to their optical quality. I personally wouldn't go back to the non * variety because of the brilliant results I know I can get with them. Though your critique of these lenses is unsubstantiated and even unclear. Along with posting some photo examples, it would be helpful to know your particular AF concerns with the pentax lenses.

Steve's asked the specific questions to address your focusing problems, so answering these would certainly help.

asdf · 07-06-2009, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by ranters

has anyone know why the da* lenses dont focus properly
I have found that cheap sigma lenses out perform the most expensive pentax lenses. I keep getting out of focus shots which never happened with sigma lenses

Did you do your focus tests under tungsten light? DSLRs--other than, say, k7--front focus under tungsten light. My guess is that your cheap sigmas are too slow and consequently have a depth of field that's too deep to notice focusing problems. Try your lenses under white fluorescent or outdoors.

GeneV · 07-06-2009, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Sniff....sniff.....sniff..... Does anybody else smell something funny under this bridge?

I got a bit of that same whiff.

ranters · 07-06-2009, 03:09 PM

yep thanks for confidence in me.
I am serious. I take pics for local paper I am the photojournalist. As i said yea i did pay out big bucks for 2 Da* lens. No its not me. I do know what I am doing. The problem seems to be that on auto focus i get more out of focus shots than i do with my other lenses. I run 2 K2oo 1 K100 super and 2 older isd cameras. As I have previously said i do take hundreds of pics every week. the lenses take great shots of distance objects but not of closer ones. My experience tells me that the lenses do not perform otherwise i would not be here. To many people rely on my pics and i have lost confidence in these 2 lens which i though were top of the range.
I posted 2 pics in the nature part of the forum. you might be able to see the problem.

ranters · 07-06-2009, 03:15 PM

yes thanks mate. i am in central victoria and take pics for local paper and take pics of soccer for every club in central victoria. And there is something wrong in the way these lenses work. My pics get viewed by 9000 people in my local district plus my pics are circulated in 21000 homes across central victoria every week.

ranters · 07-06-2009, 03:18 PM

yes u have a point there the depth of field is the problem i think. Thats why the cheaper lenses seemed to work and when i changed over the results were different. But when i take action shots i still seem to get more out of focus shots than i did before

xjjohnno · 07-06-2009, 03:29 PM

Perhaps you might want to use AV mode and see what you get. Set the aperture to what you think will work for the light conditions so you don't end up with such a shallow DOF.
Just a suggestion on my part.
Bit nippy inland at the moment?

nulla · 07-06-2009, 03:44 PM

Gday mate... I have found over the time that more complaints seem to come in regarding the DA* lenses for owners with cameras other than the K20. (apart from the initial DA* 16-50 problems)

This maybe me and what I have observed.

Can you beg borrow or whatever a K20 to test your lenses?

I have both the DA* 16-50 and the 50-135 and have no problems... both stellar lenses

Cheers mate... agree it would be nippy inland, was at Kerang last week, freezing cold mornings.

Neil

ranters · 07-06-2009, 04:03 PM

yea its a beaut frost here this morning just been for a walk
i have both those lenses
dont know anyone with a k20
i have stuck with k200 as they work great for action shots but i would have expected less out of focus shots with sdm lens than ordinary but this is not the case. its the close up shots that r the problem. i have posted 2 shots on the nature part of the forum that might help

ranters · 07-06-2009, 04:08 PM

if you like i can post a pdf file of 2day newspaper circulation 21,000 front page pic and story

yes i am a professional in my own right and i am posting on here because i am stuck.

having held numerous public exhibitions of my work with peopl saying how good the pics r when take with a cheap sigma lens i went out to get a better lens but found that this was not the case.

there r genuine people out there and i am one of them and u need to understand the frustration when u pay out for top quality lenses and they dont seem to work.

pschlute · 07-06-2009, 04:31 PM

You are getting some good advice despite the silly title to your original thread.

It might help if you told us what the lenses are ,and posted some photos to this thread. You need to establish if it is your technique or you have a faulty lens (it does happen).

My experience with the DA* lenses is that they are great lenses, including the 16-50.

**Ash** · 07-06-2009, 04:53 PM

ranters,

There's only one sample pic in the gallery (sample 2) and all I can see is that the kangaroo (if that's what you focused on) is not in focus but the background is. The image really isn't a good example of the performance of this lens.

Is this what you're getting at? If so, are you certain AF locked onto the kangaroo (while it was stationary) immediately before you released the shutter? There may be a backfocusing issue with the lens, rather than it being a 'rubbish' lens. This is easily fixed on the K20D, though I know you don't have one.

Really, instead of labelling DA* lenses as rubbish, perhaps address the simple problems that affect results and you may find you've been given the wrong impression. Most other users here would certainly vouch for the very lens you're doubting...

Damn Brit · 07-06-2009, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by pschlute

You are getting some good advice despite the silly title to your original thread.

It might help if you told us what the lenses are ,and posted some photos to this thread. You need to establish if it is your technique or you have a faulty lens (it does happen).

My experience with the DA* lenses is that they are great lenses, including the 16-50.

Ranters, it helps if you use the 'Quote' button so we can see who you are replying to.
For multiple replies, you can use the 'Multiquote' button.
If you're not sure how to do that, PM me and I'll run through it for you.

ranters · 07-06-2009, 05:57 PM

yes thats the problem i am refering to. i did lock onto kangaroo. As i have said i have taken 1000s of pics . What i will do is swap lens onto another body to see if i get different results. Then i could isolate if it it is lens or camera

Originally posted by Ash

ranters,

There's only one sample pic in the gallery (sample 2) and all I can see is that the kangaroo (if that's what you focused on) is not in focus but the background is. The image really isn't a good example of the performance of this lens.

Is this what you're getting at? If so, are you certain AF locked onto the kangaroo (while it was stationary) immediately before you released the shutter? There may be a backfocusing issue with the lens, rather than it being a 'rubbish' lens. This is easily fixed on the K20D, though I know you don't have one.

Really, instead of labelling DA* lenses as rubbish, perhaps address the simple problems that affect results and you may find you've been given the wrong impression. Most other users here would certainly vouch for the very lens you're doubting...

**Mallee Boy** · 07-06-2009, 06:22 PM

Hi ranters,
could you post the photo(s) again please with the exif intact? There are too many fine examples around of shots taken with these lenses to assume anything other than you have a problem, the exif data will help to answer a few questions and eliminate others.
Suggest you post them as an attachment in this thread.

Many thanks.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
These shots are rubbish	Damn Brit	Post Your Photos!	30	08-06-2009 12:16 AM

07-06-2009, 01:16 PM	#16
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Hi ranters - an Aussie welcome to ya, mate. Now, I also have DA* lenses and don't share your opinion with regards to their optical quality. I personally wouldn't go back to the non * variety because of the brilliant results I know I can get with them. Though your critique of these lenses is unsubstantiated and even unclear. Along with posting some photo examples, it would be helpful to know your particular AF concerns with the pentax lenses. Steve's asked the specific questions to address your focusing problems, so answering these would certainly help.

07-06-2009, 01:49 PM	#17
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by ranters has anyone know why the da* lenses dont focus properly I have found that cheap sigma lenses out perform the most expensive pentax lenses. I keep getting out of focus shots which never happened with sigma lenses Did you do your focus tests under tungsten light? DSLRs--other than, say, k7--front focus under tungsten light. My guess is that your cheap sigmas are too slow and consequently have a depth of field that's too deep to notice focusing problems. Try your lenses under white fluorescent or outdoors.

07-06-2009, 01:54 PM	#18
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax Sniff....sniff.....sniff..... Does anybody else smell something funny under this bridge? I got a bit of that same whiff.

07-06-2009, 03:09 PM	#19
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	yep thanks for confidence in me. I am serious. I take pics for local paper I am the photojournalist. As i said yea i did pay out big bucks for 2 Da* lens. No its not me. I do know what I am doing. The problem seems to be that on auto focus i get more out of focus shots than i do with my other lenses. I run 2 K2oo 1 K100 super and 2 older isd cameras. As I have previously said i do take hundreds of pics every week. the lenses take great shots of distance objects but not of closer ones. My experience tells me that the lenses do not perform otherwise i would not be here. To many people rely on my pics and i have lost confidence in these 2 lens which i though were top of the range. I posted 2 pics in the nature part of the forum. you might be able to see the problem.

07-06-2009, 03:15 PM	#20
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	yes thanks mate. i am in central victoria and take pics for local paper and take pics of soccer for every club in central victoria. And there is something wrong in the way these lenses work. My pics get viewed by 9000 people in my local district plus my pics are circulated in 21000 homes across central victoria every week.

07-06-2009, 03:18 PM	#21
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	yes u have a point there the depth of field is the problem i think. Thats why the cheaper lenses seemed to work and when i changed over the results were different. But when i take action shots i still seem to get more out of focus shots than i did before

07-06-2009, 03:29 PM	#22
xjjohnno Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,115	Perhaps you might want to use AV mode and see what you get. Set the aperture to what you think will work for the light conditions so you don't end up with such a shallow DOF. Just a suggestion on my part. Bit nippy inland at the moment?

07-06-2009, 03:44 PM	#23
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Gday mate... I have found over the time that more complaints seem to come in regarding the DA* lenses for owners with cameras other than the K20. (apart from the initial DA* 16-50 problems) This maybe me and what I have observed. Can you beg borrow or whatever a K20 to test your lenses? I have both the DA* 16-50 and the 50-135 and have no problems... both stellar lenses Cheers mate... agree it would be nippy inland, was at Kerang last week, freezing cold mornings. Neil

07-06-2009, 04:03 PM	#24
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	yea its a beaut frost here this morning just been for a walk i have both those lenses dont know anyone with a k20 i have stuck with k200 as they work great for action shots but i would have expected less out of focus shots with sdm lens than ordinary but this is not the case. its the close up shots that r the problem. i have posted 2 shots on the nature part of the forum that might help

07-06-2009, 04:08 PM	#25
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	if you like i can post a pdf file of 2day newspaper circulation 21,000 front page pic and story yes i am a professional in my own right and i am posting on here because i am stuck. having held numerous public exhibitions of my work with peopl saying how good the pics r when take with a cheap sigma lens i went out to get a better lens but found that this was not the case. there r genuine people out there and i am one of them and u need to understand the frustration when u pay out for top quality lenses and they dont seem to work.

07-06-2009, 04:31 PM	#26
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,211	You are getting some good advice despite the silly title to your original thread. It might help if you told us what the lenses are ,and posted some photos to this thread. You need to establish if it is your technique or you have a faulty lens (it does happen). My experience with the DA* lenses is that they are great lenses, including the 16-50.

07-06-2009, 04:53 PM	#27
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	ranters, There's only one sample pic in the gallery (sample 2) and all I can see is that the kangaroo (if that's what you focused on) is not in focus but the background is. The image really isn't a good example of the performance of this lens. Is this what you're getting at? If so, are you certain AF locked onto the kangaroo (while it was stationary) immediately before you released the shutter? There may be a backfocusing issue with the lens, rather than it being a 'rubbish' lens. This is easily fixed on the K20D, though I know you don't have one. Really, instead of labelling DA* lenses as rubbish, perhaps address the simple problems that affect results and you may find you've been given the wrong impression. Most other users here would certainly vouch for the very lens you're doubting...

07-06-2009, 04:57 PM	#28
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by pschlute You are getting some good advice despite the silly title to your original thread. It might help if you told us what the lenses are ,and posted some photos to this thread. You need to establish if it is your technique or you have a faulty lens (it does happen). My experience with the DA* lenses is that they are great lenses, including the 16-50. Ranters, it helps if you use the 'Quote' button so we can see who you are replying to. For multiple replies, you can use the 'Multiquote' button. If you're not sure how to do that, PM me and I'll run through it for you.

07-06-2009, 05:57 PM	#29
ranters New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	yes thats the problem i am refering to. i did lock onto kangaroo. As i have said i have taken 1000s of pics . What i will do is swap lens onto another body to see if i get different results. Then i could isolate if it it is lens or camera Originally posted by Ash ranters, There's only one sample pic in the gallery (sample 2) and all I can see is that the kangaroo (if that's what you focused on) is not in focus but the background is. The image really isn't a good example of the performance of this lens. Is this what you're getting at? If so, are you certain AF locked onto the kangaroo (while it was stationary) immediately before you released the shutter? There may be a backfocusing issue with the lens, rather than it being a 'rubbish' lens. This is easily fixed on the K20D, though I know you don't have one. Really, instead of labelling DA* lenses as rubbish, perhaps address the simple problems that affect results and you may find you've been given the wrong impression. Most other users here would certainly vouch for the very lens you're doubting...

07-06-2009, 06:22 PM	#30
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Hi ranters, could you post the photo(s) again please with the exif intact? There are too many fine examples around of shots taken with these lenses to assume anything other than you have a problem, the exif data will help to answer a few questions and eliminate others. Suggest you post them as an attachment in this thread. Many thanks.